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

[laptop]

Corke continues his excellent work at the Daily Star of all places:

Liberal party leader David Steel put sex beast MP Cyril Smith forward for a knighthood

And they had to appeal to the Information Commissioner to get confirmation...

 

[stowpirate]

DM Comic possibly suggests a conspiracy of sorts? Reading this the question is why and how did this happen?

 

[butchersapron]

 

[brogdale]

hmmm.....what they running, then?

 

[butchersapron]

Exaro running this which appears to be suggesting the civil servant in charge of VSU and so possible PIE funding was himself worthy of investigation - just skin read for now, going through properly now.

edit: yes, that seems to be it all.

 

[DaveCinzano]

The Sunday People has its own version up now.

A total of £70,000 is said to have been given to the Paedophile Information Exchange between 1977 and 1980 under Labour and then Margaret Thatcher’s first Tory government.

That’s worth more than £400,000 in today’s money.

...The claims are being investigated by Scotland Yard after a whistleblower named the senior civil servant he said had signed off the payments.

...The whistleblower said civil servant Clifford Hindley was the man who rubber-stamped the PIE grants around 1980.

Hindley, who unusually for the time was openly gay, was well known in Whitehall as a pal of Jeremy Thorpe, the ex-Liberal leader who was acquitted in a sensational murder trial.

The two often dined together at London’s Reform Club and Hindley took Thorpe out for lunch on the day the politician learnt he was going to be tried.

The whistleblower has now contacted Operation Fernbridge, a Metropolitan Police task force probing paedophile networks.

He told them he saw a PIE grant application covering three years, which he recalled totalled £35,000.

He believed it was a renewal – suggesting a similar grant had been given in 1977 under the previous Labour government.

It means PIE probably got at least £70,000 from the taxpayer.

The whistleblower took the document to Hindley, the head of the Voluntary Services United, a branch of the Home Ofice that awarded grants to charities and non-profit groups.

But he alleges Hindley, who is now dead, took the paperwork from him and told him to drop the matter. After brushing aside his concerns, he believes Hindley signed off on the grant.

...Hindley left the Home Office in 1983 and wrote academic articles on gay relationships in Benjamin Britten’s operas.

City University music lecturer Ian Pace told Exaro investigative website: “Some of Hindley’s writings certainly show a strong interest in pederastic elements.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-information-exchange-taxpayers-cash-3197625

 

[nino_savatte]

Lies, lies and more lies.

Because in its article, the Mail writes that the police found documentation at Prime’s home which showed he was a member of PIE.

But Thatcher clearly states that no such documentation was found.

Which of course, means if Thatcher and the police didn’t know Prime was a member of PIE even after he was convicted of child abuse – how could Harman or anyone else have known?

Unless of course the Mail is suggesting their beloved Margaret Thatcher was lying?

But if Thatcher was lying, why would she be covering up for a paedophile organisation?
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/...r-after-his-conviction-for-child-sex-attacks/

 

[butchersapron]

That's an daft article from Tom. First off, quite possible thatcher wasn't told about the PIE magazines found in his garage - and we don't even know if nay were, we just have the mail 32 years later saying that they were - maybe they were but this didn't come out in the trial as he pleaded guilty. Secondly, Harman isn't accused of anything at all to with Prime beyond the Mails bizarre attempt to tie him to her.

 

[1%er]

None of this stuff is new news, is it?

This is just more hypocrisy by the press, why don't they go after the people they know are [were] involved in abusing children. The press knew about Savile while he was alive yet seem to have done little to expose him. Before people say "but they need evidence", I'd say they have gone after loads of people with little or no evidence for years when it suits their agenda, they always talk about the "public interest", well I'd say this is something that is at the top of the list when it comes to the public interest.

What interests me are the names I've heard mentioned, going back over years who have not yet drawn much attention, from politicians, DJ's, musicians and others.

(there are lots of posters here over 50 years old who I am sure must have heard this stuff with names attached since the 70's, is there a list circulating in PM's? )

 

[laptop]

None of this stuff is new news, is it?

There is a difference between "allegations that some people know about" and "published, documented, accusations". "Gossip" and "news" in other words.

This is just more hypocrisy by the press, why don't they go after the people they know are [were] involved in abusing children. The press knew about Savile while he was alive yet seem to have done little to expose him.

Part of that difference is: how sturdy does the documentation need to be? In other words: how vicious are the accused's lawyers? How long can the accused afford to keep them vicious?

It is easier to explain to people who dealt with a media lawyer...

"I know this is true."

"But if you run it as it is, the paper closes. Don't."​

 

[1%er]

There is a difference between "allegations that some people know about" and "published, documented, accusations". "Gossip" and "news" in other words.



Part of that difference is: how sturdy does the documentation need to be? In other words: how vicious are the accused's lawyers? How long can the accused afford to keep them vicious?

It is easier to explain to people who dealt with a media lawyer...

"I know this is true."

"But if you run it as it is, the paper closes. Don't."​

It is what they do now when it suits their agendas, most of the stuff they put in their "entertainment" sections is just gossip.

There are ways and means of getting this stuff out.

I'm not saying I agree with how the papers work, I'm just pointing out that for many of their stories they have little or no evidence, but will publish if it suits their political agenda.

 

[laptop]

I'm not saying I agree with how the papers work, I'm just pointing out that for many of their stories they have little or no evidence, but will publish if it suits their political agenda.

And if the lawyers will let them.

The agenda is there, but it's quite a long way from the newsdesk. Mostly, hard news (as in news that's expensive, particularly if contestable in court) is what the newsdesk can get away with.

 

[kenny g]

It would be extremely brave, or foolhardy, to publish articles accusing public figures, or well known entertainers, of being paedo's without extremely strong evidence.

 

[kenny g]

Bloody hell! This clip ends with a real quote!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26372280

 

[1%er]

It would be extremely brave, or foolhardy, to publish articles accusing public figures, or well known entertainers, of being paedo's without extremely strong evidence.

But it seems they can insinuate support for it, looking at Google news page.

They only need to give it to the police and then report the police are looking into claims etc....... (as has been done for years in the UK press)

There are many ways including publishing it outside the UK so UK law doesn't apply.

 

[kenny g]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McGrath is worth a read.

 

[Wilf]

Bloody hell! This clip ends with a real quote!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26372280

Wonder how that interview would run today?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

The return of Patrick Rock

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100082741/the-return-of-patrick-rock/

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

 

[goldenecitrone]

Just what kind of advice was he giving the PM? This is a good one...

 

[brogdale]

On 'Newsnight' Kuennsberg was alluding to pre-existing (un-related) accusations of harassment against Rock (presumably made by No.10 underlings)....sounds like a disgruntled SpAD might have just tipped off plod about his on-line activities?

 

[laptop]

But it seems they can insinuate support for it...

Every insinuation negotiated word-by-word with the lawyers...

They only need to give it to the police and then report the police are looking into claims etc....... (as has been done for years in the UK press)

Not an effective guard against anyone with the wealth to use good lawyers. Just a deterrent to the lower class of accused kicking up - and sometimes a reminder of the Wilde Principle.

There are many ways including publishing it outside the UK so UK law doesn't apply.

That has very little to do with libel. Repeating a libel can be as serious as being the first to publish. Are you thinking of Official Secrets in the 1960s?

 

[Wilf]

Chris Langham, life imitating life.

 

[brogdale]

Chris Langham, life imitating life.

Innit....

Spooky.

I see that it's taken the best part of 3 weeks for the press to publish the fact of Rock's arrest, and only then did No.10 feel the need to comment. Is this a reflection of press restraint or the reality of the NI - Met channels being taken down?

 

[Dan U]

re that last comment brogdale

tom_watson ‏@tom_watson 11m
I've spoken to @jameschappers of the Daily Mail. He says the first time the paper was made aware of the Downing Street arrest was yesterday.

taking him at face value obviously. the more cynical might be wondering if the Mail has spent the last week softening up Labour before dropping this story...

 

[brogdale]

re that last comment brogdale

tom_watson ‏@tom_watson 11m
I've spoken to @jameschappers of the Daily Mail. He says the first time the paper was made aware of the Downing Street arrest was yesterday.

taking him at face value obviously. the more cynical might be wondering if the Mail has spent the last week softening up Labour before dropping this story...

Hmmm....yeah, difficult to see anything near the truth here. But, on the face of it, it appears that No.10 have deliberately kept 'radio silence' on this story which tends to indicate that No.10 were more concerned with limiting further evidence of Dave's poor record of judgement of those close to him, than releasing this public interest story.

But the 'Mail' behaviour of the last week or so does smell, don't it?

 

[Dan U]

But the 'Mail' behaviour of the last week or so does smell, don't it?

It does, fwiw Guido Fawkes is following that line as well.

http://order-order.com/2014/03/04/why-are-we-only-hearing-about-rock-arrest-now/#comments

 

[brogdale]

It does, fwiw Guido Fawkes is following that line as well.

http://order-order.com/2014/03/04/why-are-we-only-hearing-about-rock-arrest-now/#comments

Which, if correct, sees the tories brokering an exclusive deal with Dacre on condition that he prepared the ground with the Harman et al smear campaign....thus cutting out the usual channels of the filth?

Would they really be that dumb?

 

[Dan U]

Which, if correct, sees the tories brokering an exclusive deal with Dacre on condition that he prepared the ground with the Harman et al smear campaign....thus cutting out the usual channels of the filth?

Would they really be that dumb?

'They' probably wouldn't be. Would an individual though?

Fairly sure Campbell used to pull shit like that with the media.

 

[elbows]

I must admit that when the Mail started its PIE stories, I did wonder about the timing and whether something Tory-related was about to happen. But since I had no clue as to what it could be, I decided that I was just being cynical.