Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

So let's get this straight.

Brittan is handed what is likely to be one of the most politically explosive bundle of documents that crossed his desk while at the Home Office.

Did he actually read them? What did he think of the allegations?

He passes it on to officials to deal with and asks them to get back to him if there is anything of interest/concern. He hears nothing further.

Did it not occur to him to enquire if the officials had indeed found anything?

Did he mention the allegations to any of his Cabinet colleagues? If not, why not?

Did he alert/speak to M15 about the contents of the files? This would have be one of the first things a Home Secretary would have done unless of course, the security services already knew about the contents of the files. In fact, it is almost inconceivable that they didn't know.

It is also inconceivable that Dickenson gave Brittan the only copy of the dossier. Even if the Home Office didn't make at least one copy (and it is reasonable to suppose one would have been made) surely Dickenson must have kept at least one copy, possibly with drafts, notes, letters etc, in a place of safety "just in case". What happened to all that material?

This is not going to end well for Brittan - the questions will keep coming after each of his unconvincing public statements on the matter and his subsequent "clarifications".

Perhaps we are finally getting closer to the answer to the posed question in the OP.
 
happie chappie said:
It is also inconceivable that Dickenson gave Brittan the only copy of the dossier. Even if the Home Office didn't make at least one copy (and it is reasonable to suppose one would have been made) surely Dickenson must have kept at least one copy, possibly with drafts, notes, letters etc, in a place of safety "just in case". What happened to all that material?
Click to expand...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elm-guest-house-abuse-scandal-1728050

The Sunday People revealed two weeks ago how Mr Dickens gave one dossier to the Home Office in 1984 but it apparently vanished.

The other was kept by the colourful MP for Littleborough and Saddleworth until his death at the age of 63.

That copy was ordered to be destroyed by Mr Dickens’ widow Norma who thought it was “too sensitive” to keep in the family home. She died last year.

Their son Barry, 49, told the Sunday People: “My father’s file was destroyed after his death in 1995 because my mother considered it too sensitive to have hanging around the house. It had been many years since Dad had handed the other copy to the Home Secretary and unfortunately nothing had come of it.”
Click to expand...

There is still the question of where he got the material that formed the dossier from. It is likely that at least some of it involved Elm Guest House, and plenty of the notes about that case were collected by NAYPIC many years ago, published on the internet the other year, and then taken away by the police. Anyway from what people have seen of this info via the net, its a good starting point for further investigation, not damning and conclusive evidence on its own.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Christ.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-02/mp-professionally-burgled-after-submitting-dossier/

As someone else said, this is starting to look like an enormous zit which only needs a little squeeze.
Click to expand...

I suppose I will repeat what I said ages ago about my own research into stuff that happened to Geoffrey Dickens MP, which I gleaned from a couple of newspaper archives.

He was a well-known anti-paedophile campaigner back in the day. Apart from handing dossier(s) to the home office, the other thing that gained him notoriety was the naming of diplomat Peter Hayman in parliament. You can search the web for more info on that.

Anyway, at some point he was about to hold a press conference to discuss paedophile stuff. But at the very last minute he was forced to change the topic of the press conference, to admit to having an affair and state that he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later). The timing of the press being tipped off about the affair stunk.
 
elbows said:
Anyway, at some point he was about to hold a press conference to discuss paedophile stuff. But at the very last minute he was forced to change the topic of the press conference, to admit to having an affair and state that he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later). The timing of the press being tipped off about the affair stunk.
Click to expand...
Dickens is reported as saying, when he passed his dossier to Brittan, that if he wasn't satisfied that action was being taken, then he would name 8 high-level, important names...which he didn't. But it doesn't sound like he would have been satisfied with what action was taken either :hmm: :confused:
 
Thanks Elbows - that clears up the question about what happened to Dickens copy of the dossier.

It is interesting to note that the Home Office said in its 2013 review those parts of the dossier where there was thought to be "realistic potential" for further investigation were passed on to the police while other elements of the dossier were not retained.

This suggests that, unless the only Home Office copy was physically split into two separate parts, at least one other copy would have been made.

In any case MI5 almost certainly would have a complete copy indicating that, apart from the Dickens' original, more than one copy must have existed.

While it is barely credible that the Home Office could "lose" one copy of the file, it is impossible to believe they/MI5 could lose two, or possibly more, copies.
 
elbows said:
I suppose I will repeat what I said ages ago about my own research into stuff that happened to Geoffrey Dickens MP, which I gleaned from a couple of newspaper archives.

He was a well-known anti-paedophile campaigner back in the day. Apart from handing dossier(s) to the home office, the other thing that gained him notoriety was the naming of diplomat Peter Hayman in parliament. You can search the web for more info on that.

Anyway, at some point he was about to hold a press conference to discuss paedophile stuff. But at the very last minute he was forced to change the topic of the press conference, to admit to having an affair and state that he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later). The timing of the press being tipped off about the affair stunk.
Click to expand...
Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd. I do remember him announcing his dossier and making pronouncements but, as you say, it dribbling away to nothing. I also recall a personal wtf about him making serious and I'm sure heartfelt allegations against the 'establishment' on this. However, like many others I had a vague disconnect on the whole thing, just couldn't associate him with anything significant. Looks like I was wrong.
 
happie chappie said:
Thanks Elbows - that clears up the question about what happened to Dickens copy of the dossier.

It is interesting to note that the Home Office said in its 2013 review those parts of the dossier where there was thought to be "realistic potential" for further investigation were passed on to the police while other elements of the dossier were not retained.

This suggests that, unless the only Home Office copy was physically split into two separate parts, at least one other copy would have been made.

In any case MI5 almost certainly would have a complete copy indicating that, apart from the Dickens' original, more than one copy must have existed.

While it is barely credible that the Home Office could "lose" one copy of the file, it is impossible to believe they/MI5 could lose two, or possibly more, copies.
Click to expand...
Of course they didn't "lose" it.

They buried it. Entirely in keeping with the attitudes of the times.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if a copy was lurking in some very dark and mysterious filing rack somewhere.
 
Wilf said:
Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd. I do remember him announcing his dossier and making pronouncements but, as you say, it dribbling away to nothing. I also recall a personal wtf about him making serious and I'm sure heartfelt allegations against the 'establishment' on this. However, like many others I had a vague disconnect on the whole thing, just couldn't associate him with anything significant. Looks like I was wrong.
Click to expand...
It was about this time that Dickens had a 'dossier' on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. i don't know if it was the same dossier but, if it was, that might explain why it didn't go much further.
 
It is also interesting to note that Brittan issued his statement through his lawyer. I wonder why?

When other public figures have been asked to comment on the various Danczuk allegations, most have made public, on camera, statements (eg Clegg and Steel) or, as in the case of Cameron, have issued a statement via their official spokesperson.

None, as far as I am aware, have used solicitors to issue statements on their behalf.
 
Sirena said:
It was about this time that Dickens had a 'dossier' on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. i don't know if it was the same dossier but, if it was, that might explain why it didn't go much further.
Click to expand...
The dossier that was passed to Leon Brittan was in 1983. The Satanic obsession came later....

"Geoffrey Dickens, who in 1988 sponsored an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on the topics of child abuse and witchcraft. He announced his intention to present a dossier of confidential information to the Home Office, and declared that he would attempt to introduce legislation prohibiting the exercise of the Satanic religion.."
 
Just been looking for my (unread) copy of Bea Campbell's book on the Cleveland abuse cases. Can't find it, but I bet she has some choice words for Dickens over the Satanic stuff.
 
The "right to be forgotten" must be one of the fastest-abused laws in history - tens of thousands of takedowns already, even an article by Robert Peston.

Of course, maybe we should look at how Google has become the de facto gatekeeper of the internet. (In the meantime, we should all be saving bookmarks to stuff and not thinking "oh well I'll just Google it if I want to find it again".)
 
FridgeMagnet said:
The "right to be forgotten" must be one of the fastest-abused laws in history - tens of thousands of takedowns already, even an article by Robert Peston.

Of course, maybe we should look at how Google has become the de facto gatekeeper of the internet. (In the meantime, we should all be saving bookmarks to stuff and not thinking "oh well I'll just Google it if I want to find it again".)
Click to expand...

Saving the whole document might not be a bad idea.
 
I suspect that many, if not all, of the names in the Dickens dossier are those that were published in Scallywag although this, of course, does not mean that all, or indeed any, of them are actually true (Elbows - can you help here? All my Scallywags are stored away at the moment and I don't have access to them. Eta - obviously not asking you to mention the actual names).

As with Watergate, it now appears that the increasingly unconvincing Brittan and the equally unconvincing Home Office line about lost files is becoming the story rather than the actual contents of the dossier.
 
Wilf said:
Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd.
Click to expand...

I wonder to what extent the various bees in his bonnet might have led some people to take anything he said less seriously than they might have done.

He was the MP who called for the BBC to sack Gorden Kaye from Allo Allo when he came out / got outed as gay...
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Are we suggesting that any of the Satanic Panic allegations were anything other than fundie horseshit?
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that MI5 and other bodies were complicit in covering up after those paedos in high places that did exist though. After all, they've been happy to cover up in all sorts of other instances.
 
happie chappie said:
It is also interesting to note that Brittan issued his statement through his lawyer. I wonder why?

When other public figures have been asked to comment on the various Danczuk allegations, most have made public, on camera, statements (eg Clegg and Steel) or, as in the case of Cameron, have issued a statement via their official spokesperson.

None, as far as I am aware, have used solicitors to issue statements on their behalf.
Click to expand...

I don't want to stand up for Mr Brittan but the answer was in your question- others issued statements through their spokesman. He's retired so he won't have media handlers, and why answer journos calls when you can have someone else you trust do it. Nothing really sus in that
 
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