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

[Sprocket.]

As I said they will talk their way out of it, again.

 

[weltweit]

Some shocking, appalling claims in this

I didn't think I would have time to watch this, but I made time. You are right ShiftyBagLady, there are some pretty shocking and appalling claims, and the guy being interviewed certainly seemed to know his stuff. It seems mind boggling such activities went on without the perpetrators being apprehended at the time. High time something concrete was done about it. Heads should roll!

 

[Pickman's model]

I for one don't want to see witch hunts.

you just haven't been reading the manual

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

 

[happie chappie]

As I said they will talk their way out of it, again.

Quite possibly - but at the moment I can't see any realistic alternative.

 

[ibilly99]

This sounds like a load of complete bollocks to me.

Sadly, this affair is likely to turn into a "Truth Seeker's" jamboree - especially given Tebbit's comments yesterday.

It won't be long before someone comes out and blames freemasons,"the joos" and/or shape-shifting lizards.

These threads have been active and vocal on the loons sites for a long time now - they see them reaching the surface of the MSN as a vindication of their understanding of the 'trooth'.

 

[Sprocket.]

To be honest these stories were doing the rounds long before the internet and social media.
The people spreading the stories then were seen as loony as any foil hat wearing keyboard warriors of today.
Ridiculing accusers as long been the weapon of choice.

 

[weltweit]

ooer!

Bearing in mind the trouble someone just was into on the Rolf Harris thread, on a thread about child abuse, this must also be most inappropriate!

 

[Pickman's model]

Bearing in mind the trouble someone just was into on the Rolf Harris thread, on a thread about child abuse, this must also be most inappropriate!

perhaps you could elaborate on the 'reasoning' behind your statement.

 

[William of Walworth]

To be honest these stories were doing the rounds long before the internet and social media.
The people spreading the stories then were seen as loony as any foil hat wearing keyboard warriors of today.
Ridiculing accusers as long been the weapon of choice.

Maybe so, but I want any out-and-out loon involvement to remain confined to the fringes in all this, because the thing conspiracists are absolutely best at is exaggerating to the nth degree. Thus undermining/discrediting what could be a much more credible and fact/evidence based case it kept in the hands of sane people** who prefer evidence, fact, and proper methods of research/investigation to 'theory'

**Not talkimg aboiut 'the establishment' here. The reverse, if anything ...

 

[Pickman's model]

Bearing in mind the trouble someone just was into on the Rolf Harris thread, on a thread about child abuse, this must also be most inappropriate!

*taps watch*

 

[weltweit]

*taps watch*

Really? a cartoon in a serious thread? entitled ooer! ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Really? a cartoon in a serious thread? entitled ooer! ?

so there was no reasoning behind your post.

 

[Teaboy]

Really? a cartoon in a serious thread? entitled ooer! ?

Do you know who the character is?

 

[existentialist]

This sounds like a load of complete bollocks to me.

Sadly, this affair is likely to turn into a "Truth Seeker's" jamboree - especially given Tebbit's comments yesterday.

It won't be long before someone comes out and blames freemasons,"the joos" and/or shape-shifting lizards.

I think we've seen some nudges and hints in respect of the first of those three already, right here on this very thread

 

[weltweit]

so there was no reasoning behind your post.

Incorrect, I just watched the video about leading personalities involved in child abuse including allegations about the then home secretary, which went on to suggest the existence of snuff movies featuring abused children, I don't really see just how much more serious that could be! I take it you haven't seen the video yet? and then, your cartoon .. wtf comes to mind.

 

[existentialist]

Children were raped by monsters, it was covered up by the establishment.That should be all that needs to be said.
They should be vilified and hounded for their actions and crimes, instead they will talk their way out of it once again.
Things like this don't happen in Britain, do they?

They weren't "monsters". They were, like you and me, just human beings.

And, because they were human beings, they were and are able to hide in plain sight. Monsters aren't.

 

[weltweit]

Do you know who the character is?

As it happens I don't, it looks like Viz or something, how does it relate to child abuse?

 

[ibilly99]

M'learned friends are watching ....

“People are trying to restart [the rumours], people are trying to somehow to connect it to the Elm Guest House, a place I’ve not been to, where I’ve not been involved. And I give this public warning: if any substantial publisher links me in any defamatory way, they can expect the same kind of action as the Mail on Sunday got.”

http://order-order.com/2014/07/07/listen-bottomley-denies-elm-house-child-abuse-rumours/

 

[Pickman's model]

Incorrect, I just watched the video about leading personalities involved in child abuse including allegations about the then home secretary, which went on to suggest the existence of snuff movies featuring abused children, I don't really see just how much more serious that could be! I take it you haven't seen the video yet? and then, your cartoon .. wtf comes to mind.

wtf comes to mind when reading your post which seems to suggest that, for no very good reason, your feelings take priority over mine. wtf? seriously, what the fuck?

 

[weltweit]

wtf comes to mind when reading your post which seems to suggest that, for no very good reason, your feelings take priority over mine. wtf? seriously, what the fuck?

I think my response is fair. On the Rolf Harris thread someone made a badly judged observation and was roundly taken to task about it. Many of the posts taking him to task you liked, but at the same time on this, perhaps an even more serious thread, you posted a "lighthearted" cartoon!

 

[treelover]

As an aside to all this, Danczuk's being a bit of prima donna with all this 'I won't name the mp who approached me, but I urge them to come forward' (the stuff before the select committee meeting). The whole problem about these 'networks' is the protected status of the powerful and the role of secrecy. However, while he's done great work on Smith, he can't quite shake off the idea that politicians deserve more respect than anyone else. Just fucking spit it out FFS.

He is the one who pushes the idea people on benefits are all scroungers, and labour is not the 'welfare party', he is a nasty piece of work and its a shame he is one of the key campaigners in al this.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think my response is fair. On the Rolf Harris thread someone made a badly judged observation and was roundly taken to task about it. Many of the posts taking him to task you liked, but at the same time on this, perhaps an even more serious thread, you posted a "lighthearted" cartoon!

i don't think your response is fair, because i don't think you read my post. please reply when you've been made a mod because afaic this correspondence is closed.

 

[treelover]

M'learned friends are watching ....

“People are trying to restart [the rumours], people are trying to somehow to connect it to the Elm Guest House, a place I’ve not been to, where I’ve not been involved. And I give this public warning: if any substantial publisher links me in any defamatory way, they can expect the same kind of action as the Mail on Sunday got.”

http://order-order.com/2014/07/07/listen-bottomley-denies-elm-house-child-abuse-rumours/

is this site, substantial?

 

[existentialist]

i don't think your response is fair, because i don't think you read my post. please reply when you've been made a mod because afaic this correspondence is closed.

I did a little shiver just then.

 

[weltweit]

i don't think your response is fair, because i don't think you read my post. please reply when you've been made a mod because afaic this correspondence is closed.

I will reply if and when I feel like it thanks.

 

[ibilly99]

is this site, substantial?

Probably not but as the sticky on the nonce threads states ed doesn't want to find out the hard way. Have just watched the whole Chris Fay video and he seems to be a credible and reliable source for what are hair-raising revelations. What I don't get though is the box of Polaroids he says he saw of the King and Queen's parties at the Elm Guest House where there was allegedly a photo of a significant VIP in a maids hat and apron abusing a 12 year old boy is why would someone who had so much to lose allow these photos to be taken. Doesn't ring true to me on first hearing.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Probably not but as the sticky on the nonce threads states ed doesn't want to find out the hard way. Have just watched the whole Chris Fay video and he seems to be a credible and reliable source for what are hair-raising revelations. What I don't get though is the box of Polaroids he says he saw of the King and Queen's parties at the Elm Guest House where there was allegedly a photo of a significant VIP in a maids hat and apron abusing a 12 year old boy is why would someone who had so much to lose allow these photos to be taken. Doesn't ring true to me on first hearing.

Maybe he didn't allow it?

Maybe a combination of foolishness, arrogance and his 'excitement' drew his guard down?

If it happened as Fay states, then it would seem the 'significant VIP' may have been justified in their arrogance; after all they have remained safe and sound.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

I will reply if and when I feel like it thanks.

yeh, that's a cross we have to bear

 

[happie chappie]

Been listening to the May statement and subsequent questions. Unfortunately I have had to do it while doing other things so I couldn't give it my full attention.

However, May seemed to give a rather wobbly and flustered answer to Tom Watson's question relating to any files held by the security services and whether the inquiry will have access to them.

 

[happie chappie]

In response to question from Tim Loughton (former Children's Minister) May says Panel will not have power to subpoena witnesses.