Tory mp hinted at on newsnight as peadophile

reply to post by fastbob72


I suppose it depends entirely on how much traction this gets in the "public eye" and whether anyone cracks and grasses up his mates to save his own skin...

I will be pleasantly surprised if anything comes of it, but I won't be holding my breath. The same type of thing is going on in the US, take a look at "conspiracy of silence", that does a good job. But as bad as it is, that is only scratching the surface. When you have all these government hack jobs and LEA in on it, well, good luck getting anyone prosecuted other than a low hanging fruit they throw under the bus to appease the masses.

Originally posted by fastbob72

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.

Sorry, yes, I should have made it clear I wasn't meaning you, I mean generally, with people screaming about him not being named.

I agree with your take on this, I was intending to point the finger at all the reactionaries who just seem to want a name to put to the accusation when it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference at this point. I mean, giving a name can only potentially harm an investigation or any court case and render justice unlikely.

Sorry, yes, I should have made it clear I wasn't meaning you, I mean generally, with people screaming about him not being named.

I agree with your take on this, I was intending to point the finger at all the reactionaries who just seem to want a name to put to the accusation when it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference at this point. I mean, giving a name can only potentially harm an investigation or any court case and render justice unlikely.

Maybe I jumped the gun here a bit too,sorry.lol

You've got a good point naming a prime suspect won't achieve a great deal and more than likely will harm any investigation.

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?

DEEP.
I lived near to one of the childrens homes involved in that enquiry at the time(Bryn Estyn,Wrexham)-and it was a commonly held belief in the local area at the time that the whole enquiry was a sham,and while it did name some with government connections,the really big sickos were left out of the report.
Many folks in the area had been at the homes when the crimes took place,and they were telling of more government involvement than the enquiry hinted at.
Makes me wonder about the Jersey abuse scandal-high ups were also implicated,yet it was covered up,even though bones were found at the site..
And then there was "operation ore"which was meant to be the biggest bust of pedos ever-but Tony Blair had it locked away from the public-presumably because there were some people on the list who held positions of power(IMO).
Its seems,to me at least,that there is a pattern developing here.
And not a nice pattern at all.
Sick.

The BBC does need to be careful here, they should not bring out a victim and interview him then fail to back up his claims. This is the reason many victims don't come forward in the first place. they are continuing to behave irresponsibly in my opinion.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I know who it is the BBC are 'hinting' at, in fact there is more than one former aid to Thatcher involved, but really, what is the point in wheeling out some victims to tell a heart wrenching story, without allowing them to mame their attackers ?
Show some balls BBC, how much evidence do you need, Savile was outed, as was Starr, on the word of the victims, how come that is not good enough for a Tory paedophile ?

reply to post by Mysticblade


Yes I've just tweeted the name stumason mentioned in his post and there are numerous links to Mcalpine and others. Interesting side story was MI5 taking foreign diplomats and filming them with young boys. Who knows if it's true but nothing would surprise anymore.

What makes all this really sickening is that the "security" services, special branch etc, know who these pedos and abusers are in high places. What they know, and of course, very likely the security services of foreign nations too, is used politically as leverage when the time is right to bring it up.

That these people are protected to maintain the political status quo, and that it is allowed to continue is just despicable.

Originally posted by Britguy
What makes all this really sickening is that the "security" services, special branch etc, know who these pedos and abusers are in high places. What they know, and of course, very likely the security services of foreign nations too, is used politically as leverage when the time is right to bring it up.

That these people are protected to maintain the political status quo, and that it is allowed to continue is just despicable.

This really does make me wonder how big this is. Because, if these freaks were going to hospitals late at night, going to children's homes out of hours, taking mysterious trips with kids, so many people would have known about it!

There would be secretaries, personal assistants, drivers, hospital staff, managers... it boggles the mind how many people would have been complicit in all of this.

Just like the BBC, there are a lot of people who would have known about what was going on, and that's a scary thought. The idea that they all covered for each other, helped each other, that suggests to me that this genuinely was a massive inner group of sick people in high places.

These freaks wouldn't just be turning up at a hospital late at night to "chat" to some kids, it would take planning, accomplices, knowing who was a member of their "club" and who they could trust.

Everyone involved at those locations during the time the abuse was said to be happening should be arrested. Whoever was managing a children's home in the 80's and let these people in should be arrested, along with the staff who were employed there and knew about this at the time. I do not accept that these people allowed this to happen through fear or through ignorance of what was happening - they were complicit.

reply to post by detachedindividual


You know, one of the biggest arguments you hear about conspiracy theories, is "the amount of people that would have had to be involved, no way they could have all kept it quiet".......

Seems like a pretty dumb argument now eh? Especially if people know that top dogs from government and LEA are in on it, who would say anything? I bet there have been some, easy enough to silence a pop up here and there when you have all the right people on the inside. Someone opens their mouth, pay an addict to kill and rob them or whatnot.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

You know, one of the biggest arguments you hear about conspiracy theories, is "the amount of people that would have had to be involved, no way they could have all kept it quiet".......

Seems like a pretty dumb argument now eh? Especially if people know that top dogs from government and LEA are in on it, who would say anything? I bet there have been some, easy enough to silence a pop up here and there when you have all the right people on the inside. Someone opens their mouth, pay an addict to kill and rob them or whatnot.

I've agreed with that assessment of "too many people would be complicit" before for other events. But, there are a lot of instances where that's not actually true IMO.

With 9/11 for instance, there was an argument from those who trust the official story trying to debunk the idea of thermite being used on the columns within suggesting that too many people would need to have known about it. But, any company could have been hired to install "radio transmitters" to all the inner structural beams where relevant, and they wouldn't have even known what they were installing.

Imagine it, the perpetrators of that implosion secure a couple of hundred sealed metal boxes with thermite ready to go, all sealed up inside. The contractors just think they're installing something else. They spend a month adding all of these to the inner structure. Another company is brought in to run cables. Then one small team is brought in who actually knows what the deal is to hook it all up.

The idea that everyone needs to know what they are doing is the myth in my opinion. If you give a company enough money, give them the impression they are doing one thing, when they are actually doing another, and hey-presto you have unknowing accomplices.

Anyone could have anything delivered to those buildings from a supplier/contractor, and it could be placed in a storeroom. Anyone with access could have hooked up anything in the right places. This didn't need to be hundreds of people all knowing what it was, just a select group of people able to dupe others.

But with this story, it's not the same thing. The driver would have known he was taking *insert sicko here* to a children's home at unusual hours. The manager of the home would have known, or the security would have. The personal assistant would have had to account for that time and expense.

What really scares me the most is that these people would have had to have met each other in some way. You don't just walk down the street and know that someone else is into stamp collecting, you meet other stamp collectors through your shared interest.
So how did these people meet and know that they were all a part of the same sick group? These people all moved in elitist circles, with celebs and politicians. There has to be a central source for this, with venues, people planning it etc.

Remember, this was long before the internet.

This suggests to me that the concept of a long-standing social group with this sick interest is indeed real. If members of government at that time were involved, and celebrities too, this would not be some random place, this would need security, this would need collusion. This really is starting to look like one of the sickest and most disgusting secret societies ever uncovered, and I have a feeling it's going to get worse.

Incidentally, I recall a story not so long ago about a similar case in another European country. I can't remember the details, but IIRC, a woman (or women) claimed that a high-ranking politician was involved in a considerable abuse ring, but her case was thrown out. There were accusations that many in the police and legal system were members of the same club, and I believe there was even mention of other politicians from other European nations being implicated in this too.

It annoys me that I can't remember the information now, but that story seems to be linked to this.

I've been doing a little searching, and I found something pretty remarkable that I'd never heard of. Check this out, and I think we'll understand that this could be a global conspiracy that has been covered up by politicians all over the world...

EDIT TO ADD: WARNING - THIS IS HARD TO WATCH, CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND FRANK DISCUSSION.

Okay, having watched the documentary, and a follow up mentioning a missing boy who one of the victims claims he helped abduct, I am now convinced that this is indeed a global scandal.

I believe it centres around the parties held on Embassy Row in DC, where we can assume members of numerous governments would have been present. This explains how a criminal gang like this would be able to operate on an international scale.

I really think this could be the biggest political conspiracy ever to be broken, and I just hope that someone in the media will put two and two together and investigate the accusations in the UK right now (and previous accusations from other European nations) alongside this story from the US.

I am certain that these are linked and will expose a secretive organization of abusers in international politics.

I think G Brown was linked to Dunblane, if thats so then its no wonder he sold off our gold at a knock down price. Some one black mailed him into doing it? Same go with tony bliar is that why we invaded Iraq? Black mailed into it ? It wouldnt surprise me in the least. The whole govt is riddled with these paedos.
We pay the wages at the BBC, so they should not be covering up anything from us.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
I think G Brown was linked to Dunblane, if thats so then its no wonder he sold off our gold at a knock down price. Some one black mailed him into doing it? Same go with tony bliar is that why we invaded Iraq? Black mailed into it ? It wouldnt surprise me in the least. The whole govt is riddled with these paedos.
We pay the wages at the BBC, so they should not be covering up anything from us.

edit on 3-11-2012 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)

I think that's a bit of a stretch. All of the reports we are seeing seem to come from around the same time, the 1970's to the early 1990's. Naming anyone as being guilty is not a sensible thing to do, especially when there is no evidence. You don't even suggest why you think these men are guilty of something like that, just that you think they are.

This is unfounded belief, there isn't even any accusation against either of those men. And although I don't like either of them (Tony Blair especially) it's not right to just suggest that they would be paedophiles because you don't like them.

As for the BBC, I think this is far deeper, and I think they know it. If this is all connected like I fear it is (with politicians, business men and media professionals all involved from the UK and US) there will be a lot of pressure on people to keep quiet about it all.

If you've seen that documentary above, which seems to offer evidence that politicians, police and the FBI all colluded to silence witnesses, then this is a major conspiracy running through government.

Suddenly, there are a lot of things all seeming to converge. There are the stories of Berlusconi, the Catholic Church covering things up, politicians being involved, the stories from the US on Embassy Row... if connections are found between these instances (which all seem to be happening at the same time in recent history) then this could be the big "NWO" braking conspiracy the people have been waiting for.

This could be evidence of a massive global cartel within global politics, involving Satanism, child abuse, drug abuse, prostitution, arms smuggling... it would finally show the world what this sick system and secretive groups have been up to all these years.

How long will it be before all of this is being linked to Bohemian Grove?

Originally posted by CX
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.

England is only being victimized by these criminals because the media refuses to inform the public. The media is being restrained because:

1) they are owned/managed by the bad guys
2) they are threatened/controlled by the bad guys or
3) they have been bribed


There is no excuse, zero, for English media to provide cover for these criminal acts. If they are being restrained thru some such nonsense as "national security", they have an obligation to come forward with the truth. The public has the absolute right to know what kind of monsters are running the show.