Tory mp hinted at on newsnight as peadophile

www.dailymail.co.uk... ing.html

Newsnight in the uk has hinted a top Tory mp has been involved with a peadophile ring in the uk going back to the 90's

As usual the bbc has no balls and has not named names

This is getting very deep

Vulnerable children that should have been looked after being abused

Sickening

Heath?

Always knew about Ted Heath, the rent boys and the boat of his that boys apparently were taken to......but he died a while back.

Wonder who the latest one is?

I swear you have to be corrupt or be some kind of deviant to run our country these days.

CX.

reply to post by CX


I dont have a tv or read the papers so wasnt aware that Heath had expired, so...who are we talking about?

The BBC.
I remember when they totaly blasted a young school boy, who they suspected had spent some money he'd collected for charity on some sweets, shyte head vine devoted an hour of his show to blasting this young kid, yet when we see senior guv people and bbc insiders linked with crimes like this they go out of their way to find reasons not to report.
The BBC were the main reason I threw my tv out, coz everytime I watched it I wanted to throw a brick at it.

You can't blame the BBC for not naming the particular MP without solid concrete proof to back up the claim.

If the publicly name someone a paedophile on prime time TV they have to be entirely certain of their ground or they'll be sued to buggery (no pun intended.lol).

On the other hand if they have good evidence after investigation then they should be turning it over to the police.Mind you the met would probably put it in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet.lol.

This thing is looking like it goes to the heart of the establishment,very disturbing.

I've heard Ted Heath's name come up a few timer.Apparently he took boys from that care home in Jersey,where they found childrens remains some years ago,for day trips out on his yacht.

It's been said Jimmy Saville had links with that care home too.

reply to post by CX

I swear you have to be corrupt or be some kind of deviant to run our country these days.

Seems Legit
But i digress
If you Google Senior Tory Newsnight you will find a name that is being Alleged to
But the BeeB did not name Him even though they interviewed a Witness
This is Shocking the BBC knows the Name and i have no doubt the British press do aswell
They need to grow some and name this Evil Scum

Cran

Originally posted by thegoatboy
As usual the bbc has no balls and has not named names

Neither did the Mail, for that matter. Unfortunately, libel law could get people in very hot water if they get it wrong and the BBC already got a crap load of grief from the Government over the David Kelly affair, so much so Blair went on a witch hunt and smashed the BBC, farming out it's operations to foreign firms.

Originally posted by thegoatboy
This is getting very deep

I am of the mind this is just scratching the surface. If the rumours (which have persisted for years) of high level paedo rings are true, the lowers who are getting caught may well bring down those higher up the food chain to save their skin.

reply to post by cranspace


I could not agree with you more. People who know any information relative to Child abuse should forward it to the Police. I believe that anyone who knows information relevant to Child abuse should be guilty of an offence. In Australia there is provision for this - but under certain laws.

The law, when it comes to Children seems to have been purposely constructed to protect someone but from what I can see not the Children.

Much Peace...to all abused Children...

Originally posted by fastbob72
You can't blame the BBC for not naming the particular MP without solid concrete proof to back up the claim.

If the publicly name someone a paedophile on prime time TV they have to be entirely certain of their ground or they'll be sued to buggery (no pun intended.lol).

On the other hand if they have good evidence after investigation then they should be turning it over to the police.Mind you the met would probably put it in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet.lol.

It shouldn't just be about fearing they'll be sued. There has to be evidence of something for there to be charges brought, and if there is evidence then they have a duty to hand that over to the police, whose job it actually is to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

It seems that there are a lot of people immediately assuming that an accusation equals guilt, it doesn't. Guilt has to be proven with more than someone saying "he did it!" or a TV program reporting on that accusation.

Why are people so idiotic when it comes to law? It's pretty simple really. You don't name people as guilty of being this kind of disgusting criminal unless there is concrete evidence. To do so and then discover that it wasn't true would be almost as sickening as the crime itself!

Being named in this way could destroy a persons entire life, they had better make damned sure they are absolutely 100% accurate and have irrefutable evidence to back up their claims. That's why I think they haven't named names, they don't have that evidence.

It's time the journo's did their job of investigating and gathering stories and let the police deal with investigating the actual crimes and holding people to account.

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by cranspace

 

I could not agree with you more. People who know any information relative to Child abuse should forward it to the Police. I believe that anyone who knows information relevant to Child abuse should be guilty of an offence. In Australia there is provision for this - but under certain laws.

I believe this is the same in most countries, if you are aware of this happening and you fail to report it or share your information with the authorities then you can be charged with being complicit - obstruction of justice etc.

There are instances where it is not enforced, such as in cases where they felt fearful for their own lives or the lives of others if they were to speak out. But most of the time a person can be charged with obstruction if they know and don't report it.

reply to post by stumason


You could be right about the paedophile protection structure beginning to collapse. We can only hope so. I had a conversation with a medical professional who worked with paedophiles and victims within the prison system - for fourteen years. In a specific conversation I was told about a situation where the prison medical team - including psychologists - brought all the paedophiles into a room together.

My first thought was - they would all bond in some way knowing that they are all of the same (disgusting) behavioural traits. What transpired was very interesting - they all split up into groups. No solidarity or unity it would seem.

So - we who care for the protection and well being of Children, can take heart and see a day very soon where the paedophiles will no longer protect each other. I want that day to be as soon as it is universally possibly. Just thought I would share that information as I found it, at the time, to be very revealing and it gave me a glimmer of hope that paedophiles are not untouchable.

Much Peace...

I don't think it's any great surprise to many that paedophilia is rife amongst politicians / judiciary / senior civil servants and police etc.

It is rumoured that two past PM's, one still alive and active, were / are well known paedophiles.
It is also generally accepted that a former PPS of Thatcher was a paedophile.

It is another aspect of the incestuous relationship between the powerful elites who run this country and I suspect we will never know the full extent of the depravity of these odious and amoral scumbags.

Further evidence of how rotten 'the system' is - if ever there was a time for a radical overhaul it's now.

reply to post by fastbob72


Yes, the libel laws there are absolutely insane. I don't blame the BBC at all for taking their own lawyers' advice and holding back without absolute evidence.

If you Google Senior Tory Newsnight you will find a name that is being Alleged

Nice one found out who it was,can't say I can remember him,have to google him see if it freshens my memory.

Apparently, it was going to be Lord McAlpine being outed... There's a man with connections...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by fastbob72
You can't blame the BBC for not naming the particular MP without solid concrete proof to back up the claim.

If the publicly name someone a paedophile on prime time TV they have to be entirely certain of their ground or they'll be sued to buggery (no pun intended.lol).

On the other hand if they have good evidence after investigation then they should be turning it over to the police.Mind you the met would probably put it in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet.lol.

It shouldn't just be about fearing they'll be sued. There has to be evidence of something for there to be charges brought, and if there is evidence then they have a duty to hand that over to the police, whose job it actually is to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

It seems that there are a lot of people immediately assuming that an accusation equals guilt, it doesn't. Guilt has to be proven with more than someone saying "he did it!" or a TV program reporting on that accusation.

Why are people so idiotic when it comes to law? It's pretty simple really. You don't name people as guilty of being this kind of disgusting criminal unless there is concrete evidence. To do so and then discover that it wasn't true would be almost as sickening as the crime itself!

Being named in this way could destroy a persons entire life, they had better make damned sure they are absolutely 100% accurate and have irrefutable evidence to back up their claims. That's why I think they haven't named names, they don't have that evidence.

It's time the journo's did their job of investigating and gathering stories and let the police deal with investigating the actual crimes and holding people to account.

Mm,I thought that was what i was saying.

First of all the BBC's legal advisors will have told them that A,to name someone to potentially millions of viewers without concrete evidence is suicidal and B,they have a moral and legal obligation to pass their findings if damning to the police to investigate.

I don't consider myself ignorant of the law.lol.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by fastbob72
You can't blame the BBC for not naming the particular MP without solid concrete proof to back up the claim.

If the publicly name someone a paedophile on prime time TV they have to be entirely certain of their ground or they'll be sued to buggery (no pun intended.lol).

On the other hand if they have good evidence after investigation then they should be turning it over to the police.Mind you the met would probably put it in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet.lol.

It shouldn't just be about fearing they'll be sued. There has to be evidence of something for there to be charges brought, and if there is evidence then they have a duty to hand that over to the police, whose job it actually is to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

It seems that there are a lot of people immediately assuming that an accusation equals guilt, it doesn't. Guilt has to be proven with more than someone saying "he did it!" or a TV program reporting on that accusation.

Why are people so idiotic when it comes to law? It's pretty simple really. You don't name people as guilty of being this kind of disgusting criminal unless there is concrete evidence. To do so and then discover that it wasn't true would be almost as sickening as the crime itself!

Being named in this way could destroy a persons entire life, they had better make damned sure they are absolutely 100% accurate and have irrefutable evidence to back up their claims. That's why I think they haven't named names, they don't have that evidence.

It's time the journo's did their job of investigating and gathering stories and let the police deal with investigating the actual crimes and holding people to account.

I agree 100% but the beeb are notorious for reports without proper evidence, often based on hearsay, I think thats why people are so angry when they go quiet when its the high ups who are being accused.
If this were you or I they'd say "Mr so and so has been accused", that does not make them guilty of anything, its just a report, so why protect those in high places?
I swear if it were you or I they'd put out our names.
But like I said, I agree its wrong to name people without proper evidence, but thats the point, the beeb also think this, WHEN ITS ONE OF THEIR OWN KIND.

reply to post by fastbob72

Nice one found out who it was

Allegedley
Well this person has Lorded it enough I am Certain the Press will Reveal his name in the next few days
This is Why we need Freedom of Speech and Tabloid Press who ignore there Lawyers and go to print and just pay up If they are wrong

Cran

Looks like he was named in 1997 during an inquiry into Child abuse at Welsh care homes:

Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children's homes in North Wales.

The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal's chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.

pebpr.blogspot.co.uk...

How deep does the Rabbit hole go?

Originally posted by stumason
Looks like he was named in 1997 during an inquiry into Child abuse at Welsh care homes:

Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children's homes in North Wales.

The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal's chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.

pebpr.blogspot.co.uk...

How deep does the Rabbit hole go?

This thing seems to be going to the very heart of the establishment.I just wonder how much we'll really ever find out for real.

I'm just afraid they'll hang out some tired old celeberities like Freddie Star or a couple of minor politicians for the media to rant over while the ones at the real heart of power will be unnamed,possibly taking early retirement with their reputations,in tack.

A la the catholic church !!!