Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Daily Express, 2nd September 1983

whimper.jpg
 
Idris2002 said:
Didn't Jim Callaghan come down hard on "PIE"?
Click to expand...
"The Home Office is currently investigating allegations that PIE received public funds from the Government while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.

It has been claimed that tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was funnelled to it via the Voluntary Services Unit (VSU), a department of the Home Office that gave annual grants to charities and non-profit-making lobby groups.

The probe comes after a whistle-blower had claimed the payments were signed off, over several years, by a senior civil servant who worked under Labour’s then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees."

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/jack-dromey-fury-paedophile-links-6407122

In answer to the OP question, an alarmingly increasing amount
 
gosub said:
The Home Office is currently investigating allegations that PIE received public funds from the Government while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.

It has been claimed that tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was funnelled to it via the Voluntary Services Unit (VSU), a department of the Home Office that gave annual grants to charities and non-profit-making lobby groups.

The probe comes after a whistle-blower had claimed the payments were signed off, over several years, by a senior civil servant who worked under Labour’s then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/jack-dromey-fury-paedophile-links-6407122

In answer to the OP question, an alarmingly increasing amount
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
Search Google:



“Leon Brittan Jason Swift”

“Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.”



“Leon Brittan Pie”

“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page.”



“Leon Brittan rumours”

“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page.”



“Leon Brittan Jimmy Savile”

“Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”



“Leon Brittan Cyril Smith”

“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 4 result(s) from this page.”



“Leon Brittan scandal”

“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page.”
Click to expand...
 
The establishment may have backed themselves into a corner on this. They really went to town on the BBC over Savile. That's understandable, although there were probably political motivations beyond justice in destabalising the beeb.

It has absolutely astonished me that the West Yorkshire Police haven't come under more attack over Savile (perhaps it shouldn't do) or that MI5 didn't over Cyril Smith.

But if elected government turns out to be directly mixed up in cover-up, and lord knows there's been enough just on this thread today to remind us and raise eye brows, the country should really go ballistic. not that it necessarily will. We'll also know the true colours of the press who don't go to town as much on tories as they did the BBC.

And the whole "who could possibly have known?" blag would appear to be very much blown out of the water. This one could really have a long and dramatic way to unravel.
 
Barking_Mad said:
Daily Express, 2nd September 1983

whimper.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm not going to link to the sites where I read this, cos some looked a bit Icke-y, but has anyone else seen claims that Special Branch were 'running' P.I.E. as a means to blackmail its members? The comparison made was with Kincora, where that definitely was going on (secret services allowing the boys' home abuse to continue so that they could get juicy blackmail data on Unionists :mad::().

But I'm still trying to get my head round the P.I.E. claim - whether it stands up as an argument or not. Would it be blackmail-worthy info if it was known that someone was a member of P.I.E.? Back then? Or would the organisation have been seen as more acceptable - I'm thinking of the recent Labour/Harman stuff where *some* clearly thought that P.I.E. was a legitimate organisation...

Also, were membership lists a closely guarded secret, or did people come out and say they were members? Seems unlikely. I read Jimmy Savile was a member but that must surely not have been known at the time, otherwise it would have been used against him.

the above are questions for anyone old enough to recall, or who is well-versed in this recent U.K. history...I *am* old enough, just, and remember P.I.E. as something vaguely distasteful but don't think either I - or society as a whole - had full awareness of what their agenda was and what it implied.



(Sorry if the above is incoherent, I have some weird ENT/lung infection, plus taking antibiotics where the possible side-effects are "confusion, hallucinations, delirium" - f**k me, I used to pay good money for that back in the acid house days)
 
DotCommunist said:
the saville/sutcliffe thing is fucking with my head.
Click to expand...
Me too!
Mind you, contrary to some of the more wild blogs I've seen, I don't think it has any wider significance - I've read stuff saying that Savile was questioned during the Ripper enquiry, and that one of the Ripper's murder victims was found near Savile's home in Leeds...but these are nothing more than coincidence IMHO. If Savile 'bonded' with Sutcliffe in Broadmoor it might have been cos they were both from Yorkshire ...and perhaps Savile felt a secret affinity with someone else guilty of horrific sex crimes?
 
scalyboy said:
Me too!
Mind you, contrary to some of the more wild blogs I've seen, I don't think it has any wider significance - I've read stuff saying that Savile was questioned during the Ripper enquiry, and that one of the Ripper's murder victims was found near Savile's home in Leeds...but these are nothing more than coincidence IMHO. If Savile 'bonded' with Sutcliffe in Broadmoor it might have been cos they were both from Yorkshire ...and perhaps Savile felt a secret affinity with someone else guilty of horrific sex crimes?
Click to expand...


suggestion on another thread that maybe he knew sutcliffe prior to sutcliffes arrest and directed him to kill a few who knew too much about sex rings etc.

sounds conspiranoid right? but with saville and the exaro stuff, care homes, cyril, huate de la garrenne...who knows? post-saville revelations it seems possible
 
DotCommunist said:
suggestion on another thread that maybe he knew sutcliffe prior to sutcliffes arrest and directed him to kill a few who knew too much about sex rings etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds unlikely to me tbh. What would have stopped Sutcliffe from talking, if this had been the case? He had already told police and his brother that he had done most, but not all, of the murders with which he was charged...if he was concerned about accuracy and possibly lessening his guilt, surely he would have said he'd been directed to do it. It sounds a bit 'From Hell'/Stephen Knight to me - Jack the Ripper's victims being murdered, cos they knew too much about royal/Masonic wrongdoings...
 
Last edited:
scalyboy said:
I'm not going to link to the sites where I read this, cos some looked a bit Icke-y, but has anyone else seen claims that Special Branch were 'running' P.I.E. as a means to blackmail its members?
Click to expand...

There was an Express story yesterday not a million miles from that suggestion.

Strange days that some people may start to think the likes of Icke to be at least as credible as mainstream sources (I find neither to be credible)

It's the failure of the mainstream and others that has driven too many to the arms of the conspiranoids

This is truly truly unpleasant stuff, but it can't be said that people, including Icke, haven't been going on about it for years. As I said a few posts back, many of the same forces who fumed and frothed about people looking the other way over Savile should really be under similar rigourous scrutiny in coming weeks. We'll see.
 
DotCommunist said:
the overwhelming stink of complicity in covering up child abuse. Fuck me sideways, we always knew they were rotten but now its almost beyond doubt that we're being run by nonce enablers.
Click to expand...
They probably don't see themselves like that. They probably (wild speculation ON) see themselves as the protectors of a greater good, which should not be allowed to be derailed or damaged by a few slightly iffy encounters or the exercise of some curious peccadilloes: best let sleeping dogs lie, after all it's not like anyone's going to believe some kind over a senior Government official, or anything. And we couldn't prove it anyway. It'll all blow over, no harm done.
 
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
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
205
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
burtabraham
  • Poll
Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
1K
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
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
6K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Back
Top Bottom