# "Senior political figure" to be accused of paedophilia by BBC



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

The biter bit?



> @MichaelLCrick: "Senior political figure" due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he'll issue libel writ agst BBC





[legal disclaimer about not naming anyone etc etc]


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Come on people.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight investigation - could be worth a watch.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

A legal reminder: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...threads-and-naming-living-individuals.300541/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Newsnight investigation - could be worth a watch.


I know - we've been discussing it on what 5 or 6 threads now


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Sorry everyone, do the honours and take this thread behind the chemical sheds and shoot it editor


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Ax^ said:


>


They said living.


----------



## mao (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They said living.


 
http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 2, 2012)

Then again...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 2, 2012)

I reckon it's the Downing St cat.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2012)

Odds on the next minister to leave the cabinet.

May be an indication.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=303813


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They said living.


 
Her Dad was fond of young girls.



Kaka Tim said:


> Odds on the next minister to leave the cabinet.
> 
> May be an indication.
> 
> http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=303813


 
We're back to that documentary guy and his claims again, right? Ben Fellows was it?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

Still guessing they'll fold before tonight (esp. if there's an injunction), but Newsnight are in a difficult position. If they were ready to go to air with a well researched story they might have to be bold this time.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Still guessing they'll fold before tonight (esp. if there's an injunction), but Newsnight are in a difficult position. If they were ready to go to air with a well researched story they might have to be bold this time.


 
There is a third possibility, run most of the report but dont name the person. George Eaton of the New Statesman has been tweeting about this possibility.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2012)

If it's a senior political figure that's not actually in the Cabinet, or even on the benches; Newsnight might just go with it and deal with the consequences later. Might explain why that person is still apparently waiting to hear from them, and no injunction? Possibly.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight cant possibly pull this one, right?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2012)

if the rumour mill is correct it is a cab member


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> if the rumour mill is correct it is a cab member


That's *one* of the rumours, yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Newsnight cant possibly pull this one, right?


Course they can - esp as a) it's an outside team who have b) bumped this into public notice with pointless tweets


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> There is a third possibility, run most of the report but dont name the person. George Eaton of the New Statesman has been tweeting about this possibility.


 That would get them off the hook in terms of any accusations about bottling it. In practice giving a bit of detail, along with the all the info that's out there already, it would as good as name him.


----------



## colacubes (Nov 2, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Newsnight cant possibly pull this one, right?



They'll have to be confident it's legally watertight. This is a living person and one likely to sue the fuck out of them.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

Someone tell me what to google to get websites with the rumours


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

senior tory paedophile twitter - seemed to work for me


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Someone tell me what to google to get websites with the rumours


Ask the person who used to program your VCR to fix it for you.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

Lol Twitter possibly names someone via their own related search algorithm if you look for 'Newsnight paedophile'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2012)

Peeps are talking about a _'Vague'_ person as well. I wish it wasn't being played out like an episode of Eastenders though.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

Nothing from that, although I think I can guess who they're avoiding naming


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ask the person who used to program your VCR to fix it for you.


You're asking me to procure a nine-year-old boy?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Random said:


> You're asking me to procure a nine-year-old boy?


I _was_ that 9 year old boy etc


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2012)

You could rhyme what I said if you liked. No idea if it's true or not though. :/


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Nothing from that, although I think I can guess who they're avoiding naming


I couldnt recommend clicking on he first link in the first link/  Tho, actually, you might get them in a different order in Sweden...


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm enjoying watching us totter either side of an imaginary line. 
The readout from Ed's heartrate monitor however...


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Lol Twitter possibly names someone via their own related search algorithm if you look for 'Newsnight paedophile'


marvellous.  is their algorithm libellous then?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

Heh, possibly


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

New game for Christmas - Political Paedo Charades


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> New game for Christmas - Political Paedo Charades


 

Guess Who


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

What sort of ways can the BBC now fuck this up? They a few spare hours now so i'm expecting something imaginative.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Guess Who


 First word, one syllable...


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 2, 2012)

Grubby media witch hunt, should be left for the Police to investigate.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Grubby media witch hunt, should be left for the Police to investigate.


Have you seen the newsnight investigation then?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Grubby media witch hunt, should be left for the Police to investigate.


And seriously - after the media exposed the failings of a range people to investigate Savile properly? I do hope i'm missing the sarcasm here.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Have you seen the newsnight investigation then?


Where've you been for the last three weeks?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What sort of ways can the BBC now fuck this up? They a few spare hours now so i'm expecting something imaginative.


 "Gavin Esler has rung in sick with a verruca, so in a change to the schedule we return again to the Child of Our Time series".


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Where've you been for the last three week?


Er... here and there.


----------



## maldwyn (Nov 2, 2012)

Lets agree to wait and see.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Seems an almost jazz type focus on this story. Perhaps the BBC will be persueded to loaf it alone.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> senior tory paedophile twitter - seemed to work for me


Worked for me - initially.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

The original tweet didnt say they would name him, and now some on twitter are coming to terms with the idea that there wont be a name tonight. Either way it pours fuel on the flames, just dont have a body to roast atop the fire yet.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 2, 2012)

The producer of the story, Iain Overton from the BIJ, has just got around to following Crick. Immediately after following DrJames Rees:



> @Tombaldwinscoke
> Exposing the nasty Truth of Zanu Nu Liebour & Union Run Liebour propaganda machine the BBC and the anti-semitic, tax evading Guardian MG.Phd Narcotics


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Seems an almost jazz type focus on this story. Perhaps the BBC will be persueded to loaf it alone.


 You could at least try and make this a cryptic crossword clue.  Make us work for it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Seems an almost jazz type focus on this story. Perhaps the BBC will be persueded to loaf it alone.


 
Shhh...you young dog.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

We live in the shadow of threadlock.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Think we may need to cap all of this speculation.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

<ed:deleted>


----------



## Crispy (Nov 2, 2012)

remember: 


editor said:


> If I'm out tonight, I wont have time to carefully prune out references from threads. I'll just bin and ban to be on the safe side.
> 
> So people are duly warned.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Och


 at least try and hide it!


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

Crispy said:


> at least try and hide it!


Racist.  How's aboot y'try an hide y'sen y'sassanach sqwerzle!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> if the rumour mill is correct it is a cab member


 
Not an adviser to a CO member?


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

hmm, Ian Bone is claiming it is someone quite different about to be named.  Could be 'as well'


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> hmm, Ian Bone is claiming it is someone quite different about to be named. Could be 'as well'


There's two have been in the air - even on here. Ian is naming the fusilier.


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2012)

Ian Bone's blog has an interesting claim or two.  Whether the old anarcho-showman is right or not, I don't know.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There's two have been in the air - even on here. Ian is naming the fusilier.


 
Yeah, Scallywag again, innit?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

For the last time. No hints. No suggestions.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

Why do I have a 'gut feeling' that Bone's claim is more credible?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm enjoying watching us totter either side of an imaginary line.
> The readout from Ed's heartrate monitor however...


I'm just going to close this thread if this continues and start banning people.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

editor said:


> For the last time. No hints. No suggestions.


Sorry.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There's two have been in the air - even on here. Ian is naming the fusilier.


I  know that song.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I know that song.


Don't hum it please. Best left there for now.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

If anyone needs to kill some time whilst drowning in speculation then the 1997 documentary about the Krays and Boothby is on youtube. This is the first part, the rest isnt hard to find.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

editor said:


> .


Where do we stand with links ed?

If someone else has published a name, can you be shafted for allowing a link to that site, or is that safe enough?


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2012)

i'm sure people can google ian bones blog easily enough


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> Where do we stand with links ed?
> 
> If someone else has published a name, can you be shafted for allowing a link to that site, or is that safe enough?


Laptop addressed this issue earlier. Technically, it could be classed as repeating a libel. Or maybe not. It's complicated. Either way, please wait until the BBC have actually named the person rather than link to other people's speculation which may or may not be accurate.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

They're not naming anyone anyway - which will string the story out for the whole weekend at the very least.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2012)

Ian Bone's blog is certainly not beating around the bush.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

editor said:


> Laptop addressed this issue earlier. Technically, it could be classed as repeating a libel. Or maybe not. It's complicated. Either way, please wait until the BBC have actually named the person rather than link to other people's speculation which may or may not be accurate.


Fair do's.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2012)

Can. Someone pm me with what the hell it is pls?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 2, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Can. Someone pm me with what the hell it is pls?


just google ian bones blog


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

As there is a pretty good chance they wont actually come out with a name tonight, I'll try to talk about the various different sorts of rumours that have flooded the net recently, without giving any identity details, hints etc.

There are a set of names that have been around via satirical press and various corners of the internet for many a year. They mostly relate to the north wales care home abuse scandal.

There are other names from that era and even longer ago which are presently impossible to distinguish from gossip about homosexuality, where its far from clear if anyone underage is involved. Some of the nastiest, most homophobic sites will sometimes characterise people as having been done for sex abuse, but when studying the record what they were actually done for were homosexual offences.

And there are a few names, which are probably the ones people stumble upon first, which appear to be very recent additions to the internet rumourmill and dont even come close to having enough known sources who have spoken publicly about this to corroborate the stories at this point. People confidently expecting one of these names to be the newsnight story may be disappointed, although obviously I cant be sure.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2012)

Lol had an old fashioned conversation with OH.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight cannot possibly name "a paedophile"; they can name a suspect but until there is a conviction it would amount to defamation.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 2, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Lol had an old fashioned conversation with OH.


 
Oliver Heald?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 2, 2012)

A predatory paedotory?

They must be going into overdrive just now


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Newsnight cannot possibly name "a paedophile"; they can name a suspect but until there is a conviction it would amount to defamation.


 
Not necessarily.  To be defamation it has to be untrue.  If the people who run Newsnight are convinced that they have very strong evidence that Mr X is guilty of child sexual abuse, they could publish and see if Mr X sues.  (Incidentally, if it did come to a civil court case, the standard of proof would be 'on the balance of probabilities', not 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in a criminal trial.)


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> senior tory paedophile twitter



Is that a new band? I'm a bit out of touch with today's music.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Seems an almost jazz type focus on this story. Perhaps the BBC will be persueded to loaf it alone.


 
I see what you did there.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Its Friday, had this happened Monday it would have been in haiku.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2012)

Thing is, after all the fuss over Newsnight burying the Jimmy Saville story, if they do have solid info on a senior Tory child molester ....


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

The conspiracy theorist in me says someone in journalism/linked to the BBC just opened their locked desk drawer and opened the "Fuck Everything Up" folder.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

This is a wry ruse to increase the Newsnight viewing figures - tonights ratings must be vital


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

Wonder if Paxo will tie up? He's such an opportunistic scamp.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2012)

i hope i get to kettering in time to watch newsnight


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Wonder if Paxo will tie up? He's such an opportunistic scamp.


 
tie up? is that some bondage term?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

weltweit said:


> This is a wry ruse to increase the Newsnight viewing figures - tonights ratings must be vital


 
Its not about ratings as such, however newsnight is probably keen to restore some credibility.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The conspiracy theorist in me says someone in journalism/linked to the BBC just opened their locked desk drawer and opened the "Fuck Everything Up" folder.


 
Did Max Clifford lend them a copy then?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2012)

Is what they're doing actually legal? Surely whoever it is could sue the fuck out of the bbc?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is what they're doing actually legal? Surely whoever it is could sue the fuck out of the bbc?


I think that is what they are evaluating at the moment.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is what they're doing actually legal? Surely whoever it is could sue the fuck out of the bbc?


 
We dont actually know what they are doing, and yes you can publish stories like that if you are confident they will stand up.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2012)

I've just found a blog about this person in more detail with an article from the guardian from 1997, but Im not sure if I should link to it.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

weltweit said:


> tie up? is that some bondage term?



Sorry, americanism - will he wear a tie?


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is what they're doing actually legal?


No, both parties have to be over 16.


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I've just found a blog about this person in more detail with an article from the guardian from 1997, but Im not sure if I should link to it.


If linking's iffy, then a few search terms instead ought to be okay I woulda thought, especially in these days of individualised results.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

Maybe the BBC is hoping that the evidence that they've given to the police will be enough for a criminal investigation to be opened, and then they can simply report someone as being the subject of police suspicions?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> If linking's iffy, then a few search terms instead ought to be okay I woulda thought, especially in these days of individualised results.


It's on the first page of the network of paedos thread.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Have the media been so shit for so long that people have forgotten that they can actually do sensitive investigative journalism with legal implications, so long as they arent wrong, reckless and sloppy?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Nov 2, 2012)

belboid said:


> senior tory paedophile twitter - seemed to work for me


Done that. some websites name him, others say it ain't him.


----------



## manny-p (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 2, 2012)

manny-p said:


> ...


 
Eh?


----------



## agricola (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is what they're doing actually legal? Surely whoever it is could sue the fuck out of the bbc?


 
Indeed, though one imagines it will come down to what the BBC actually have that justifies the story, and whether that protects them from being sued.   You would think it would have to be really conclusive proof though, in the circumstances.


----------



## manny-p (Nov 2, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Eh?


image of a construction site


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2012)

Crick talks about an 'official' and confirms its about Bryn Esten on Channel 4 News


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

We'll see what, if anything, tonight and consequences produces.
I'm really not interested in gossip about individuals, but I'm not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-storm seems to be descending into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-ups that have been going on in past generations and continue to go on.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

Starting to nail it down to individuals, investigating them and following the trails is how this thing gets smashed open


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

WAIT!!

"We'll see wh*a*t,* i*f anything, *t*on*i*ght and *c*onsequences produces.
I'm r*e*ally not interested *i*n gossip about individu*a*ls, but I'*m* not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-s*t*orm see*m*s to be desce*n*ding into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-up*s* that have been going on *i*n past generations and continue to go on."

Look at the *code* I subconsciously incorporated 

a i t c e i a m t m n s i

=
=

"I am anti-semitic"

There for all to see. Ban me quick. I knew critiquing multi national capitalist hid a deep hatred for Jewish people and now I know for sure. It was in the very *structure* of my words too. So I use structually anti-semitic code.

Thank you so much to the vigilant folk of U75 who finally brought me to exposing myself. Or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We'll see what, if anything, tonight and consequences produces.
> I'm really not interested in gossip about individuals, but I'm not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-storm seems to be descending into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-ups that have been going on in past generations and continue to go on.


You have no idea what they have uncovered and what they may say, so you have no basis in which to accuse them of trivialisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> WAIT!!
> 
> "We'll see wh*a*t,* i*f anything, *t*on*i*ght and *c*onsequences produces.
> I'm r*e*ally not interested *i*n gossip about individu*a*ls, but I'*m* not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-s*t*orm see*m*s to be desce*n*ding into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-up*s* that have been going on *i*n past generations and continue to go on."
> ...


Don't expose yourself please. And also, please don't bring your stuff into yet another thread on this issue.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

Random said:


> Starting to nail it down to individuals, investigating them and following the trails is how this thing gets smashed open



I agree with that, but the coverage has taken on an air of gossip that seems more important to the press than certainly the victims of crime.

One fairly prevalent commentator says that there should be an amnesty for whistleblowers within rings - they would still go on the register but be immune from prosecution. that would really blow things open according to him.

I'm not sure about the proposal, but it's worth considering.


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There for all to see. Ban me quick. I knew critiquing multi national capitalist hid a deep hatred for Jewish people and now I know for sure. It was in the very *structure* of my words too. So I use structually anti-semitic code.


 It's friday night. Are you a bit drunk?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Don't expose yourself please. And also, please don't bring your stuff into yet another thread on this issue.



I shall resist the temptation to expose myself after all. But ungrounded and offensive allegations are what derails threads, not legitimate attempts to refute them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I shall resist the temptation to expose myself after all. But ungrounded and offensive allegations are what derails threads, not legitimate attempts to refute them.


You've just brought it into this thread. You.


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

There are two main rumours.

One relates to a former Tory advisor in the Thatcher years and failed TV personality, and a key mega-rich Tory donor over several decades (manny-p has hinted at the latter's background above). This rumour also seems to stretch to the activities of two former Tory cabinet members - one remains active in politics and could just about be considered a senior figure as the original jouro tweet mentioned. If I recall correctly, this rumour also relates to the Welsh childrens home Bryn Esten. I believe this is also the story Tom Watson raised in parliament last week.

The second allegation relates to a current Tory politican, a "big beast" - this is the politician most people on Twitter have identified. In terms of what is known, this story strikes me as being less credible. As far as I am aware, this story has just one source and initial information casts doubt's on the credibility of that source.  If this is the one the BBC are running with, I hope they have a bit more to go on.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

Last time I made a similar point the false accusations appeared from nowhere. Better to pre-empt because it's not the first time it's happened.

I don't like being accused of stuff like that when I've had death threats from nazis, something about it palls somewhat.

ETA : Other people keep dragging it into other threads. Other people.

No one beyond me criticises them for it. No one.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

Get ready for a whole load more smart-arses declaring "yeah - we knew about this all along" and a load more "how could anyone have known" horror.

Private Eye ran a piece on Cyril Smith the other day, citing the original claims against him many years ago and The Eye's running with them in a piece at the time. 

Some complaints got to plod, who dropped them (another very common motif in all this, one needn't have the wildest imagination to think of a plausible reason) 

Anyhow, when I started some threads in other realms of cyber space  the amount of know-all scoffing and sneering  was pretty astonishing.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 2, 2012)

editor said:


> For the last time. No hints. No suggestions.


 
Piously "likes" ed's point but wonders how to innocently out  **** *******. 

[Dig's out Britain's Trendiest Vicar's thread on trolling]


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I've just found a blog about this person in more detail with an article from the guardian from 1997, but Im not sure if I should link to it.


 
Is it pebpr blog?


----------



## past caring (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Anyhow, when I started some threads in other realms of cyber space the amount of know-all scoffing and sneering was pretty astonishing.


 
Yeah, but that's 'cos you're bonkers in the nut.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Thing is, after all the fuss over Newsnight burying the Jimmy Saville story, if they do have solid info on a senior Tory child molester ....


 
I think it's just the Mail trolling and trying to get advertising revenue.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

where to said:


> The second allegation relates to a current Tory politican, a "big beast" - this is the politician most people on Twitter have identified. In terms of what is known, this story strikes me as being less credible. As far as I am aware, this story has just one source and initial information casts doubt's on the credibility of that source. If this is the one the BBC are running with, I hope they have a bit more to go on.


The recent allegation may be, but if we are talking about the same individual [and I think we are] there are allegations going way back about 30 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> I think it's just the Mail trolling and trying to get advertising revenue.


It's not - its newsnight commissioning or at least being prepared to try and show an investigative report by a very well respected set of journos.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We'll see what, if anything, tonight and consequences produces.
> I'm really not interested in gossip about individuals, but I'm not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-storm seems to be descending into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-ups that have been going on in past generations and continue to go on.


 
Did it escape your attention that it was the exposure of an individual that got the topic into mainstream focus in the first place?

General patterns, institutional analysis etc require specific examples to demonstrate that there is any validity to the pattern. Yes they are sometimes outed in isolation, allowing broader issues to remain uncovered and yes there is plenty of gossip, and other fertile lines of inquiry closed down, but still have to start somewhere.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's on the first page of the network of paedos thread.


 
What is that? On U75?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> What is that? On U75?


 
I'm a bit tired so maybe I got it wrong but I think this is the thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ng-term-high-level-uk-paedophile-ring.301059/


----------



## manny-p (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I shall resist the temptation to expose myself after all. But ungrounded and offensive allegations are what derails threads, not legitimate attempts to refute them.


Keep your clothes on matey.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2012)

Not everyone with the same surname is the same person or even related.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not everyone with the same surname is the same person or even related.


 
Are you saying that in relation to a specific section of a report that is public? If so I would certainly expect that any mainstream media story needs to be based on far more evidence than was presented there.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

The channel 4 piece from earlier tonight: http://www.channel4.com/news/former-senior-political-figure-accused-of-sex-assault


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> The channel 4 piece from earlier tonight: http://www.channel4.com/news/former-senior-political-figure-accused-of-sex-assault


 
So C4 did not name this individual, what is to bet that Newsnight will also not mention names.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

The amazing thing is how long these stories have been going around for. The person referred to by manny-p is well worth googling along with the word paedo - apparently scallywag magazine was onto most of the meat of the story. Cash for questions being more of a case of boys being used as blackmail material for lobbyists by some accounts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The amazing thing is how long these stories have been going around for.



Exactly. Hence the occasional smart-arse derailing "pah - loads of people knew that!"

But few felt confident, for obvious reasons, of naming individuals.

Therefore it is the discussion of patterns that is more useful to learn from, as has been said, nailing the indivudals really starts to blow the whole thing open.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The amazing thing is how long these stories have been going around for. The person referred to by manny-p is well worth googling along with the word paedo - apparently scallywag magazine was onto most of the meat of the story. Cash for questions being more of a case of boys being used as blackmail material for lobbyists by some accounts.


 
Which goes back to this article linked by freespirit on the other thread


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight with Gavin Esler competes with Graham Norton who has Felix Baumgartner on .. seeing as I don't think Mr Esler is going to name names I think I will watch Graham Norton.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We'll see what, if anything, tonight and consequences produces.
> I'm really not interested in gossip about individuals, but I'm not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-storm seems to be descending into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-ups that have been going on in past generations and continue to go on.


Whatever the big picture is, this is it being revealed.  It's never a simple opening of the curtains on dusty rooms, things come out in messy ways. The real issue is your politics and world view and how it incorporates those facts.  If you get it wrong on the other stuff, you'll get it wrong on this.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The amazing thing is how long these stories have been going around for. The person referred to by manny-p is well worth googling along with the word paedo - apparently scallywag magazine was onto most of the meat of the story. Cash for questions being more of a case of boys being used as blackmail material for lobbyists by some accounts.


 
Well in all the media opinion pieces involving navel-gazing about how society or the media has behaved and the implications, they have not tended to shout too loudly 'So the big question now is what other rumours have existed for ages that we didnt mention, and should we revisit them now?' But you can bet that question has been looming large in their minds really. How far will they go is the question in my mind. 

I suppose we should not be surprised that some of the stories in satirical mags were based on what the journalists were singing about to themselves down the pub but mostly couldn't print in 'proper' publications at the time for one reason or another.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Did it escape your attention that it was the exposure of an individual that got the topic into mainstream focus in the first place?
> 
> General patterns, institutional analysis etc require specific examples to demonstrate that there is any validity to the pattern. Yes they are sometimes outed in isolation, allowing broader issues to remain uncovered and yes there is plenty of gossip, and other fertile lines of inquiry closed down, but still have to start somewhere.


 
Yep Elbows. I agree with all that. I'm concerned that MSM is not being nearly as balanced as you are. They are sensationalising the individual aspects to the detriment of broader analysis.

For myself, and separately, I am waiting for point at which the lightbulb goes on in someone's head regarding the overall behaviour of police, who may well have dealt with and binned so many complaints down the years. There are countless legit reasons for binning investigations (and the semi legit one of £) but there are less legit ones as well. JS had regular meetings with several senior members of West Yorkshire Police. What with it being a small world.

They figure in the Hollie Greig and Thomas Hamilton accusations as well, but they are championed by conspiranoids so can't have any substance to them.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yep Elbows. I agree with all that. I'm concerned that MSM is not being nearly as balanced as you are. They are sensationalising the individual aspects to the detriment of broader analysis.
> 
> For myself, and separately, I am waiting for point at which the lightbulb goes on in someone's head regarding the overall behaviour of police, who may well have dealt with and binned so many complaints down the years. There are countless legit reasons for binning investigations (and the semi legit one of £) but there are less legit ones as well. JS had regular meetings with several senior members of West Yorkshire Police. What with it being a small world.
> 
> They figure in the Hollie Greig and Thomas Hamilton accusations as well, but they are championed by conspiranoids so can't have any substance to them.


But why do you think your linkages are better than other people's linkages?  Ruling class, power elite, establishment even - what do you think those words imply?


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> That would get them off the hook in terms of any accusations about bottling it. In practice giving a bit of detail, along with the all the info that's out there already, it would as good as name him.


I agree it's as good as naming them ,which they probally won't


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

What are the rules about linking to sites that name names?


----------



## panpete (Nov 2, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-Newsnight-paedophile-politician-probe.html#


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2012)

Ian Bone has named the culprit on his website/blog. http://ianbone.wordpress.com/author/ ianbone/


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> But why do you think your linkages are better than other people's linkages? Ruling class, power elite, establishment even - what do you think those words imply?


 
I don't automatically think my linkages better than others, it's more trivialisation, sensationalism and political agendas I dislike, not that I see them here so very much. 

I have no idea if child abuse is disproportionate to the "establishment" to be honest. Most takes place in the home and I am skeptical about it being more common in any given class. 

But establishment would facilitate cover-up.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Ian Bone has named the culprit on his website/blog.


 
Thanks TC. Put that name in google along with the word paedo and you will find links to stories detailing a lobbyist who is still connected with the Tory party.


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

where to said:


> There are two main rumours.
> 
> One relates to a former Tory advisor in the Thatcher years and failed TV personality, and a key mega-rich Tory donor over several decades (manny-p has hinted at the latter's background above). This rumour also seems to stretch to the activities of two former Tory cabinet members - one remains active in politics and could just about be considered a senior figure as the original jouro tweet mentioned. If I recall correctly, this rumour also relates to the Welsh childrens home Bryn Esten. I believe this is also the story Tom Watson raised in parliament last week.
> 
> The second allegation relates to a current Tory politican, a "big beast" - this is the politician most people on Twitter have identified. In terms of what is known, this story strikes me as being less credible. As far as I am aware, this story has just one source and initial information casts doubt's on the credibility of that source. If this is the one the BBC are running with, I hope they have a bit more to go on.


 
Michael Crick's report would appear to be referring to the "key mega-rich Tory donor over several decades".


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 2, 2012)

I thought we were all carefully avoiding linking to the Ian Bone blog.


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Ian Bone has named the culprit on his website/blog. http://ianbone.wordpress.com/author/ ianbone/


 
I note that the person named is a "key mega-rich Tory donor over several decades".


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> They figure in the Hollie Greig and...


I always wondered about that.  The first time I saw the case mentioned it looked like something the press would have picked up on, whether or not it was proven.  But then when I googled it, I found zero reliable or mainstream coverage, and a tonne of rampant tinfoilhattery.  The basic core of the case looked entirely plausible and worthy of official investigation, but then it had layer upon layer of unicorns and martians heaped on top of it.

I sincerely hope it was/is 100% fabrication and delusion, because if not then not only has an appalling case of abuse gone without justice, but it would imply (even more) very worrying things about the press and other institutions.  I honestly have no idea though.  The 'sanest' thing would be to discount the whole thing out of hand - but we've seen so many things that were initially laughed at be vindicated many years later, that I'm not comfortable with that response.

I'd be interested if anyone has any links to something reliable about it, that makes some sort of sense of it.


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

> **********, now standing for parliament..., ran a PR agency.... for a number of years which supplied young boys for selected parliamentarians from children's homes now being investigated in North Wales. He sometimes did this in cahoots with ********* which has since been scandalised because of the *********.
> 
> ********** was at the very hub of our investigation into the "boys for questions" allegations. At his ********* flat, and selected addresses nearby, ***** threw paedophile parties and we have one sworn affidavit from a former boy (presently giving evidence in Wales) who claims he was seriously molested (among many others) by *****(this is identidy of Crick's idetified paedo)***** who was at the time the Tory party's [job title]. It was alleged by this boy and others that Messrs ****** and ***** were also guests of *******. We are assured that this particular volcano is about to erupt, both in North Wales and elsewhere. ********** has always publicly disassociated himself from *********, yet here we find him not only acquainted but seemingly in the inner sanctum of private friends.


 
it looks like this is the story which is going to be revea;ed over the coming weeks/ months. i have a feeling the former boy referred to above may be interviewed on Newsight tonight. this is the story Tom Watson referred to in Parliament last Wednesday i think too.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Newsnight with Gavin Esler competes with Graham Norton who has Felix Baumgartner on .. seeing as I don't think Mr Esler is going to name names I think I will watch Graham Norton.


 
I've already seen him on two programmes today!


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Corax said:


> I'd be interested if anyone has any links to something reliable about it, that makes some sort of sense of it.


 
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-to-close-a-nations-reputation-tarnished-mill


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've already seen him on two programmes today!


Who, Gavin Esler or Graham Norton?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Who, Gavin Esler or Graham Norton?


 
Felix!


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Felix!


oh, must be on a media drive ...


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

> _**********, now standing for parliament..., ran a PR agency.... for a number of years which supplied young boys for selected parliamentarians from children's homes now being investigated in North Wales. He sometimes did this in cahoots with ********* which has since been scandalised because of the *********._
> 
> _********** was at the very hub of our investigation into the "boys for questions" allegations. At his ********* flat, and selected addresses nearby, ***** threw paedophile parties and we have one sworn affidavit from a former boy (presently giving evidence in Wales) who claims he was seriously molested (among many others) by *****(this is identidy of Crick's idetified paedo)***** who was at the time the Tory party's [job title]. It was alleged by this boy and others that Messrs ****** and ***** were also guests of *******. We are assured that this particular volcano is about to erupt, both in North Wales and elsewhere. ********** has always publicly disassociated himself from *********, yet here we find him not only acquainted but seemingly in the inner sanctum of private friends._


 


where to said:


> it looks like this is the story which is going to be revea;ed over the coming weeks/ months. i have a feeling the former boy referred to above may be interviewed on Newsight tonight. this is the story Tom Watson referred to in Parliament last Wednesday i think too.


 
Hint if anyone doesn't know- google any part of the quoted part to get to the names i.e. "_yet here we find him not only acquainted but seemingly in the inner sanctum of private friends" _

#mce_temp_url# _http://lmgtfy.com/?q="yet+here+we+f...ngly+in+the+inner+sanctum+of+private+friends" _


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 2, 2012)

Who is it?


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 2, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Hint if anyone doesn't know- google any part of the quoted part to get to the names i.e. "_yet here we find him not only acquainted but seemingly in the inner sanctum of private friends" _
> 
> #mce_temp_url#


Top result is David Icke's site.


----------



## Manter (Nov 2, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Top result is David Icke's site.


It is an alien- lizard conspiracy


----------



## Corax (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-to-close-a-nations-reputation-tarnished-mill


Thanks.  That's probably the most coherent account I've read.  Distressingly, even from that it looks as though she may well have been abused at some point, just not as part of some massive systematic government paedophile conspiracy.  Bugger all chance of that ever getting properly dealt with now though - a pointed illustration of the harm that conspiraloons can do to the cause that they believe they're championing.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

What was quoted was a redacted version of scallywag. The Ike site had a repost of the scallywag article from ages back. Various other nut job rightists have also reposted it. Doesn't exactly effect the veracity of the quote though does it?


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Hint if anyone doesn't know


 
some of the links that come up are dire.  its the scallywag original text which has some degree of journalistic credibility.  anything else is likely to be shite.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

FFFS, I was trying to work around U75's self censorship - not to lend my credence to a bunch of nut jobs. I am relying on people here not being idiots- have a bit of faith in your fellow posters for christ sakes.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm in España is Newnight arsefucking the Tories yet?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

Favelado said:


> I'm in España is Newnight arsefucking the Tories yet?


 

It started at 10.30


----------



## Favelado (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It started at 10.30


 

5 whole minutes and the government hasn't been brought down yet? BBC lickspittle PUSSIES.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2012)

where to said:


> some of the links that come up are dire. its the scallywag original text which has some degree of journalistic credibility. anything else is likely to be shite.


This is an article by Simon Raegan, the now dead editor of Scallywag, which goes a long way to explaining why their claims should be taken seriously, as well as why they weren't able to actually do much about it at the time.

Essentially he claims that they interviewed 12 victims of the paedophile abuse at Bryn Estyn, and took sworn affadavits from 10 of them to be used in case any of those named took legal action.

He then claims that after a rent dispute (which it sounds like he's saying was cooked up), their landlord had changed the locks on their office, and then sold the entire contents of the office to a senior member of conservative party central office, including all their files. When they eventually were able to get their files back, all the files relating to the paedophile investigation were missing.

So essentially he's not only claiming to have had 10 witness statements naming names, but also that this was covered up by a relatively high ranking member of conservative party central office, and by implication that he must also have read those files himself so he at least has known about this evidence for 15 years +. The guy accused of the cover up is now a conservative MP.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2012)

No names tonight.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

No name, but the credibility of the inquiry has been undermined.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 2, 2012)

Have they said "Senior Tory allegedly not so wonderful"?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 2, 2012)

Audience share chasing?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

So newsnight set the ball rolling at a potentially very slow speed, but the internet has other ideas. A messy moment.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 2, 2012)

Fucking Newsnight,no bollocks.We all know who it is,why aren't the tories cutting him loose,shits.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

peterkro said:


> why aren't the tories cutting him loose


 
That sort of phrase may lead to continuing confusion about who some people think is the person in question.


----------



## agricola (Nov 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Audience share chasing?


 
More likely the result of lawyers, and not unreasonably given the seriousness of the allegation being made against a named person.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

What they need is another source or two to collaborate the story, their lack of balls being in part due to their failure to track down a second source they had many years ago.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 2, 2012)

Well, the view is usually a little clearer as you progress up the Scottish mountains.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

Those at the top of the Tory Party now have a big problem on their hands though.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Those at the top of the Tory Party now have a big problem on their hands though.


 
And so far in power they have been shit at crisis management. What a shame.


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

Tonight was about getting this story out there. Hopefully more victims will come forward now, things will happen but its going to be a slow burner.

Victim incredibly brave and powerful in his understated bluntness. Harrowing stuff.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

Favelado said:


> 5 whole minutes and the government hasn't been brought down yet? BBC lickspittle PUSSIES.


 
Big disappointment


----------



## Firky (Nov 2, 2012)

BBC is scared to stick its neck out now because of the Hutton report.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> WAIT!!
> 
> "We'll see wh*a*t,* i*f anything, *t*on*i*ght and *c*onsequences produces.
> I'm r*e*ally not interested *i*n gossip about individu*a*ls, but I'*m* not working for mainstream media. This whole shit-s*t*orm see*m*s to be desce*n*ding into a trivialisation and a move away from the general patterns across all sorts of cover-up*s* that have been going on *i*n past generations and continue to go on."
> ...


 
Why don't you fuck off and annoy others with your endless fucking bleating about being pulled for using tropes that are generally understood to be coded anti-semitism, you dappy knob-jockey?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 2, 2012)

Boring -> Newsnight


----------



## framed (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight aired an edited version of the original report (as far as I am led to believe) and it's significant that the report was not followed by a studio discussion by politicians and 'experts', as is the norm with Newsnight. The BBC have bottled it yet again (under legal pressure apparently) and stopped short of naming the person that is widely acknowledged to be the main power behind the paedophile ring.

Hopefully other news organisations will now take up the case and go after those in the establishment who believe themselves to be above the law and beyond prosecution for their crimes.

The victims of the North Wales paedophile ring deserve better than this from the press and police whose main interest appears to be self-preservation rather than take on the might of a very senior and powerful Tory member of the Establishment.

Without naming the names this might simply be interpreted as the BBC retreading old ground in an effort to deflect criticism over their handling of the Savile affair.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 2, 2012)

for those interested, sorry if its been posted:

http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20154.htm


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 2, 2012)

A lot of courage from the bloke.  To say what he did, and to hear about his treatment at the hands of the police while the abuse was going on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not everyone with the same surname is the same person or even related.


 
...an exasperated Dave Hitler sighed, earlier today.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 2, 2012)

What are the chances it's bogus?


----------



## where to (Nov 2, 2012)

free spirit said:
			
		

> This is an article by Simon Raegan, the now dead editor of Scallywag, which goes a long way to explaining why their claims should be taken seriously, as well as why they weren't able to actually do much about it at the time...



Aye the Pimlico flat belongs to the Tory advisor Watson asked about in commons last week. He is a friend of Mrs Cameron's family I believe and is the failed reality tv personality I referred to eaelier.

Two ex cabinet members are said to have attended the parties this scumbag held.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why don't you fuck off and annoy others with your endless fucking bleating about being pulled for using tropes that are generally understood to be coded anti-semitism, you dappy knob-jockey?


 
Missed this particular controversy.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> A lot of courage from the bloke. To say what he did, and to hear about his treatment at the hands of the police while the abuse was going on.


 
and then to think that finally the perpetrators are going to be named and shamed, only for it to be pulled...


----------



## agricola (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> their lack of balls being in part due to their failure to track down a second source they had many years ago.


 
That is very harsh, especially given the difficulty that they would have in tracking someone down (especially in this day and age when hacks cant just bribe someone else to do that for them).


----------



## Favelado (Nov 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...an exasperated Dave Hitler sighed, earlier today.


 
John West's parents never knew how close they came to blowing their son's future tuna empire as they hovered over the "F" section of their copy of "20th Century Baby Names".


----------



## framed (Nov 2, 2012)

*SUPER INJUNCTION*


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

agricola said:


> That is very harsh, especially given the difficulty that they would have in tracking someone down (especially in this day and age when hacks cant just bribe someone else to do that for them).


 
Its not harsh at all, its actually a reasonable explanation if you dont get hung up on my use of the phrase 'lack of balls'. Unlike 95% of the tweets since the program which demonstrate that people have no clue about how all the legal stuff works.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2012)

framed said:


> *SUPER INJUNCTION*


 
Would it be possible to clarify? Are you saying that a super-injunction is now in force preventing reporting of what sounds like widespread Tory child molestation?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

They could at least have alluded to the legal shit that has obviously been going on all day.  What they ended up airing was no more than a repeat of the previous airing of the same story.  Okay, they might have been _forced_ into that, but they'd only have needed a modicum of guts to make people aware that that had happened. Whatever the legal risks in such an allusion, now is the time when they were best placed to do it after the Savile scandal.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2012)

Cat is kind of out the bag though, we now have strong reason to believe that the Tories were (and for all we know still are) actively collaborating with creeps like Saville, Glitter and that PIE bloke, to molest vulnerable children, even if the BBC are too chickenshit to name names.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Put to one side for a moment this notion that there has been fervent legal stuff going on today which changed the story. I have an alternative version of reality to consider.

A super injunction is almost certainly superfluous to the current situation. Newsnight had no intention of naming him today because they didnt have enough evidence, but some people misinterpreted the slightly ambiguous original tweet about the newsnight story and are now imagining that legal events today changed something.


----------



## framed (Nov 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Would it be possible to clarify? Are you saying that a super-injunction is now in force preventing reporting of what sounds like widespread Tory child molestation?


 
As far as I am led to believe the senior Tory at the heart of the North Wales paedophile allegations has had injunctions out for years that prevent him being publicly named and shamed.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Not just the tories. This is cross party. Remember Blair's 'D' notice. This is far worse than purely rape of children. *We're talking eyes wide shut ritual murders going on.*


 
What's one of them?


----------



## gosub (Nov 2, 2012)

framed said:


> *SUPER INJUNCTION*


excellent if true, whilst that means we in the UK can't even speculate as to why the BBC's flagship newsnight lead with accusations of paedophilia that was mysteriously vague, that's like launching a massive signal flare to the 90% of the worlds publishing that exists outside the UK


----------



## agricola (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Its not harsh at all, its actually a reasonable explanation if you dont get hung up on my use of the phrase 'lack of balls'. Unlike 95% of the tweets since the program which demonstrate that people have no clue about how all the legal stuff works.


 
Even two people making that allegation wouldnt make that much difference though, at least in terms of justifying naming someone - especially if that person has more than enough money to hire frightening legal representation. What they were best off doing is what they did, ie: attacking the alleged failure of the police investigation into what sounded like two complaints of sexual assault by two separate victims where that person was named as the suspect, which could result in those investigations being reopened, justice being done and the BBC allowed to report the name of the person concerned.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> A super injunction is almost certainly superfluous to the current situation. Newsnight had no intention of naming him today because they didnt have enough evidence, but some people misinterpreted the slightly ambiguous original tweet about the newsnight story and are now imagining that legal events today changed something.


 
Note that this version of reality explains why newsnight had apparently not contacted the alleged abuser as of earlier today when Crick started going on about this aspect and then ended up contacting the bloke first. If newsnight had no intention of naming him today then they had no need to contact him.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 2, 2012)

If the BBC were serious, they'd have found and named a Labour MP.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2012)

Quartz said:


> If the BBC were serious, they'd have found and named a Labour MP.


 
Is there a Labour MP implicated?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is there a Labour MP implicated?


 
Do you hear that whooshing sound?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Do you hear that whooshing sound?


 
I fully admit to not understanding your post. Its late. Can you clarify?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Fucking Newsnight,no bollocks.We all know who it is,why aren't the tories cutting him loose,shits.


 
"Him"? Quite possibly "them".


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2012)

I see we have a live one.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Put to one side for a moment this notion that there has been fervent legal stuff going on today which changed the story. I have an alternative version of reality to consider.
> 
> A super injunction is almost certainly superfluous to the current situation. Newsnight had no intention of naming him today because they didnt have enough evidence, but some people misinterpreted the slightly ambiguous original tweet about the newsnight story and are now imagining that legal events today changed something.


Well if that's the case I'm even more confused (the _Crick_ tweet?).  If the story went out by and large as they intended it to do, why did they broadcast it at all?  I only vaguely remember the original version of this story, but there didn't seem to be anything significantly different or new.  Why did they broadcast _anything_ now?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Why did they broadcast _anything_ now?


 
It wasnt a pointless piece, it only seemed that way because expectations were falsely raised of getting a name today.


----------



## framed (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Put to one side for a moment this notion that there has been fervent legal stuff going on today which changed the story. I have an alternative version of reality to consider.
> 
> A super injunction is almost certainly superfluous to the current situation. Newsnight had no intention of naming him today because they didnt have enough evidence, but some people misinterpreted the slightly ambiguous original tweet about the newsnight story and are now imagining that legal events today changed something.


 

Well, that's a bit like saying that no evidence existed against Jimmy Savile that could have led to his prosecution many years before his death, when in fact all of the evidence was there had a serious police investigation into Savile taken place.

The evidence existed to name the person (and others) at the centre of the North Wales allegations years ago, numerous witnesses were interviewed by Nick Davies of (I think at the time) the Western Mail and now the Guardian. The police had also gathered statements but did not act on them, preferring to approach the case from the point of view that the children were liars and that the pillars of the establishment being accused of rape and child molestation could not possibly be guilty of such crimes.

The passage of time has seen some of the North Wales victims die in mysterious circumstances, or at their own hands by suicide, leaving only a very few victims to continue to demand justice.

The official judicial inquiry set parameters that disallowed the victims from naming those members of the Establishment who they claimed had raped them. It was a whitewash before it started.

There are times when media organisations of the proportions of the BBC should have the balls to take a story to its logical conclusion, including into court if that seems to be the only way by which the truth can be brought into the public domain.

Failing that, we will have to wait for a Labour MP like Tom Watson to name the bastard, using parliamentary privilege.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2012)

agricola said:


> Even two people making that allegation wouldnt make that much difference though, at least in terms of justifying naming someone - especially if that person has more than enough money to hire frightening legal representation. What they were best off doing is what they did, ie: attacking the alleged failure of the police investigation into what sounded like two complaints of sexual assault by two separate victims where that person was named as the suspect, which could result in those investigations being reopened, justice being done and the BBC allowed to report the name of the person concerned.


 
Aren't they just going to fall back on claiming that the Waterhouse inquiry addressed all issues in that case though?


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm assuming they hope by airing this piece that others (their original second source in particular) may come forward and they can build a strong enough story that they can start naming. Of course, part of the scandal is the legal whitewash of the judicial inquiry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 2, 2012)

It was a wasted opportunity to some extents. Unless it is going to lead to more I don't see there was any point letting those men down again by not addressing the FULL story, much like the inquiry did too.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Aren't they just going to fall back on claiming that the Waterhouse inquiry addressed all issues in that case though?


 
Thats probably why the newsnight story spent a good while covering things that damage the credibility of the inquiry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

Quartz said:


> What are the chances it's bogus?


 
Well, in the case of one of the names being touted, there's a possibility that closeted homosexuality is being read as paedophilia, or was used as a cover for paedophilia; in another (that of the fusilier), there's a possibility that older "covered up" indiscretions and rumours of indiscretions have been disinterred; in another, the person would had to have led a very complex double life in order to pull off being a secret nonce as well as a well-known family man.
So, I reckon one out of the three is a copper-bottomed nonce, while the other two have wriggle room.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2012)

Quartz said:


> If the BBC were serious, they'd have found and named a Labour MP.


 
Oh, you mean Tom Watson. Doh at self.  I did say it was late.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

Favelado said:


> John West's parents never knew how close they came to blowing their son's future tuna empire as they hovered over the "F" section of their copy of "20th Century Baby Names".


 
Fucker! I nearly choked on my late-night sarnie!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> This is purely a damage control exercise by the BBC and specifically newsnight after Savillegate. It's a political public relations exercise to try and give the impression the broadcaster still has integrity. None of you seriously believed the BBC were going to name anyone were you. I suspect you will never here about this ever again.


 
Thanks for that, Mr. Icke.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> It wasnt a pointless piece, it only seemed that way because expectations were falsely raised of getting a name today.


I'm not saying it was pointless, I'm just wondering if it was:
1. Pretty much a repeat (which actually would be pointless).
2. Whether they were planning to give a name, which they rowed back from at some point in the last day or two.
3. Whether they see it as part of a process, playing a long game, getting more victims to come forward??  I really don't know.

I admit, the waters have been muddied by another story/source, partly debunked on here over the last week or so.  However I'm still really puzzled by the why now/what did it add bit of tonight's Newsnight.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Well if that's the case I'm even more confused (the _Crick_ tweet?).


 
The angle Crick went off on is not inconsistent with my hypothesis.

Lets look again at the tweet that started todays newsnight anticipation frenzy. It was badly worded in several ways, but it didnt say the person would be named.

*@iainoverton*

If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Put to one side for a moment this notion that there has been fervent legal stuff going on today which changed the story. I have an alternative version of reality to consider.
> 
> A super injunction is almost certainly superfluous to the current situation. Newsnight had no intention of naming him today because they didnt have enough evidence, but some people misinterpreted the slightly ambiguous original tweet about the newsnight story and are now imagining that legal events today changed something.


 
There's also the ancient journalistic practice of "shaking the tree" to be borne in mind.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, in the case of one of the names being touted, there's a possibility that closeted homosexuality is being read as paedophilia, or was used as a cover for paedophilia; in another (that of the fusilier), there's a possibility that older "covered up" indiscretions and rumours of indiscretions have been disinterred; in another, the person would had to have led a very complex double life in order to pull off being a secret nonce as well as a well-known family man.
> So, I reckon one out of the three is a copper-bottomed nonce, while the other two have wriggle room.


 
An interesting question though, concerning that 'copper-bottomed nonce' is who colluded in the presumably numerous cover-ups associated with his activities? If he was the sort of seriously senior party figure that some have suggested, then even if they didn't actually join him in molesting vulnerable children, it seems very likely that a whole bunch of senior Tories actively supported him in molesting children and provided cover for his activities.

After all, if you're a Tory these vulnerable kids from poor backgrounds aren't 'real people' are they?

Why wouldn't a bunch of senior Tory scum have covered up for a degenerate child molesting monster if Thatcher thought he was a good guy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Not just the tories. This is cross party. Remember Blair's 'D' notice. This is far worse than purely rape of children. We're talking eyes wide shut ritual murders going on.


 
Yes dear, ritual murders by the Freemasons, the Illuminati (Adam Weishaupt lives!) and the Rotary Club.

Arooga!


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's also the ancient journalistic practice of "shaking the tree" to be borne in mind.


 
In the net & twitter era this can quickly turn into people clueless about libel firing missiles at the tree!


----------



## weltweit (Nov 2, 2012)

hmpfh had a feeling they would not name names, looks like I was right. No doubt plenty of lawyery goings on in the background.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> It was a wasted opportunity to some extents. Unless it is going to lead to more I don't see there was any point letting those men down again by not addressing the FULL story, much like the inquiry did too.


it was and it wasn't.

It's taken the tip of the iceberg of some of the stuff we've been discussing on here into the mainstream, and at least put it out there that there's at least one senior tory who's been known to have been accused of sexually abusing kids for over a decade, but is being protected by the legal system / establishment to the point where he can't be named.

In some ways that's actually more powerful than just naming a single senior tory IMO.

It at least shows that the sacrificial lambs of gary glitter, and freddy star aren't going to be enough here, some bigger scalps are going to be needed before the public is satisfied enough to potentially not force the entire sorry episode and all involved in it directly, and it's subsequent cover up to be exposed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> An interesting question though, concerning that 'copper-bottomed nonce' is who colluded in the presumably numerous cover-ups associated with his activities? If he was the sort of seriously senior party figure that some have suggested, then even if they didn't actually join him in molesting vulnerable children, it seems very likely that a whole bunch of senior Tories actively supported him in molesting children and provided cover for his activities.
> 
> After all, if you're a Tory these kids aren't 'real people' are they?


 
I'm reminded of something said to me (and several others) apropos a newspaper headline by a senior Civil Servant at the Home Office over 20 years ago which was, to paraphrase - "all this child abuse nonsense, it's immaterial. Worse things happened at boarding school".
I don't think he had an inkling as to the irony of saying that.


----------



## framed (Nov 2, 2012)

As I said earlier, airing the report without 'naming the names' might simply be interpreted as the BBC retreading old ground in an effort to deflect criticism over their handling of the Savile affair.

Nick Davies' work on the North Wales child abuse allegations of nearly 20 years ago said much more and sailed closer to the wind than that Newsnight report did tonight, so what exactly is the BBC's interest in this case if it is not going to pursue the alleged perpetrators?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Come on Ted Heath was doing this for years and nothing ever got published. These are protected individuals, state protected. These people rise to the top of politics because they are compromised either sexually or politically. That's how they lead us to future slaughter with their iniquitous policies that spring from the minds of the crazed internationalists.


 
Nothing got published about Heath? Then how did the stories about him circulate so widely so quickly, word of mouth?

Do some basic research, for fuck's sake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

framed said:


> As I said earlier, airing the report without 'naming the names' might simply be interpreted as the BBC retreading old ground in an effort to deflect criticism over their handling of the Savile affair.
> 
> Nick Davies' work on the North Wales child abuse allegations of nearly 20 years ago said much more and sailed closer to the wind than that Newsnight report did tonight, so what exactly is the BBC's interest in this case if it is not going to pursue the alleged perpetrators?


 
Like I said, "shaking the tree". It's an old tactic - you've got a story you want to tell, but you lack the clincher, the killer blow, so you "shake the tree", make some noise about the story without directly referring to it, and then see what falls out of the tree. If you're lucky, your agitating brings forward new parties or new evidence to the story, or support for existing evidence, if you're unlucky, all you've lost is your journalistic dignity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> It is the only conclusion you can draw from this missed opportunity. The timing is no coincidence.


 
No, it's the only conclusion *you* can draw or are willing to draw, because you've already made your mind up as to what has happened.

Makhno save us from "believers!"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> In the net & twitter era this can quickly turn into people clueless about libel firing missiles at the tree!


 
Unfortunately true.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Find me a major publication that has run stories on him.


 
_Private Eye_ did. They were, in fact the originating point for questions about Heath's sexuality.



> Was he outed in the MSM while he was a senior politician. Was he outed when he lead the campaign to get us into the common market (was always a stepping stone to a federalised union). Nope of course he wasn't. He was protected. Did his penchant for little boys have any influence on him becoming leader of the tory party at such a critical junction in this nation's chequered history. Yep I would contend it did. I repeat compromised politicians will do anything if threatened with exposure and that includes selling out your countrymen.


 
So, this is all some "new world order" plot? All the dots link up into a slick little package where the political process everywhere is controlled by puppetmasters, rather than by economic forces?

_Meshugas!_


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

framed said:


> Failing that, we will have to wait for a Labour MP like Tom Watson to name the bastard, using parliamentary privilege.


 Things would be rather interesting if he named him _outside_ of parliament.  It's most unlikely, but he's self important for there to be a 1 in 10 chance of it happening.  If that happened things could get _very_ interesting.  Someone would then have to decide whether to do him for contempt of court perhaps?


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said, "shaking the tree". It's an old tactic - you've got a story you want to tell, but you lack the clincher, the killer blow, so you "shake the tree", make some noise about the story without directly referring to it, and then see what falls out of the tree. If you're lucky, your agitating brings forward new parties or new evidence to the story, or support for existing evidence, if you're unlucky, all you've lost is your journalistic dignity.


 
I can see the logic in that Panda, but as far as I can see there was already enough debris lying around that tree for someone to pick up and run with long before now..._ UNLESS._.. Do the BBC now have some _solid_ evidence to link these shadowy figures from North Wales to the Savile 'ring'?

Yes, it looks like they are 'shaking the tree', but to what avail and for what reasons I am unsure. If they are expecting one of the Nortn Wales suspects to break cover I think they will wait a long time, because those at the centre of the ring appear to have remained silent so far and have strengthened their position over the years by buying off, intimidating, and even possibly murdering some of their victims.

If this is the opening shots of a longer-term investigation and if the BBC can crack this and expose the establishment figures who ran the paedophile ring it will be worth waiting for, but I take no hope from tonight's Newsnight report that this is their objective.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2012)

killer b said:


> I see we have a live one.


 
Undead, I was thinking.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 3, 2012)

Six posts and we're already on to the Jews


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

They started it.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> This is purely a damage control exercise by the BBC and specifically newsnight after Savillegate. It's a political public relations exercise to try and give the impression the broadcaster still has integrity. None of you seriously believed the BBC were going to name anyone were you. I suspect you will never here about this ever again.


More not wanting another why didn't you report this? especially as the victims would mention to any other reporters beeb had talked to them. Tweet I reckon was a pressure ratchet in a war between editorial suits and journos. That the thin piece pouts petrol on the other establishment estates, all the better from their point of view


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> We're not talking about his sexuality. We're talking about criminal acts against minors or don't you see the difference. Of course the political process is controlled by puppetmasters. If you can't grasp that blatantly obvious fact you've clearly not been paying attention.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the current PM. His ancestors were either rabbis or globalist bankers tied to the opium wars. Do you think these guys get to becme leaderds through some wierd twist of fate or do you think they're placemen who are there to further the agenda. Can you not see the agenda. It used to creep. Now it's in overdrive. I repeat if you can't see it you really are in trouble.


I knew it'd be the Jews. It always is with your lot. Fuck off.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

Corax said:


> They started it.


Yeah they invaded Poland. The bastards.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 3, 2012)

You think that just once they'd surprise us, blame the Madagascans or someone.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Exactly that is not their objective. This is the BBC we're talking about here. They are just a propaganda tool. They've never exposed anything. The timing here is everything. If they are just regurgitating old news then they bare paying an awful disservice as public broadcasters not just to the general public but this poor chap who has had to appear in public losing all anonimity. This will not go any further. This is the same organisation that continues to push the farcical Man made global warming hypothesis, refuses to acknowledge or even discuss chemtrails and never exposes GMOs in any of it's prgramming. They are an entirely despicable outfit. Regarding Savillegate it is is curious why this is all coming out now. Is it a precurssor to greater revelations about political figures. Of course not. This was covered up in Belgium with the Dutroux case and we will get the same whitewash here too and the BBC will be at the forefront of that.
> 
> Anyway this programs timing is no coincidence. It is a cynical attempt to try to deflect attention away from their role covering up Saville who was a procurer of children for people with far more clout than even he had. Dead men don't talk though do they.


Piss off.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> We're not talking about his sexuality. We're talking about criminal acts against minors or don't you see the difference. Of course the political process is controlled by puppetmasters. If you can't grasp that blatantly obvious fact you've clearly not been paying attention.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the current PM. His ancestors were either rabbis or globalist bankers tied to the opium wars. Do you think these guys get to become leaders through some wierd twist of fate or do you think they're placemen who are there to further the agenda. Can you not see the agenda. It used to creep. Now it's in overdrive. I repeat if you can't see it you really are in trouble.


My first ever reported post!  Never really wanted to do that, normally prefer to tell racist cunts to just fuck off. However on a slow Friday night It's just easier to let the mods know there's a fool they need to press the button on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> I can see the logic in that Panda, but as far as I can see there was already enough debris lying around that tree for someone to pick up and run with long before now..._ UNLESS._.. Do the BBC now have some _solid_ evidence to link these shadowy figures from North Wales to the Savile 'ring'?
> 
> Yes, it looks like they are 'shaking the tree', but to what avail and for what reasons I am unsure. If they are expecting one of the Nortn Wales suspects to break cover I think they will wait a long time, because those at the centre of the ring appear to have remained silent so far and have strengthened their position over the years by buying off, intimidating, and even possibly murdering some of their victims.


 
All entirely possible. Bear in mind though that Bryn Estyn wasn't the only childrens' home to have paedo-ring troubles. I think I said earlier in this thread (or it might be another. there are so many on the subject!) that back in the '70s and '80s there seemed to be a new abuse scandal in a kids' home somewhere in the UK every month. I know that here in Lambeth we had several, Brighton had several, and Islington seemed to have one after the other.



> If this is the opening shots of a longer-term investigation and if the BBC can crack this and expose the establishment figures who ran the paedophile ring it will be worth waiting for, but I take no hope from tonight's Newsnight report that this is their objective.


 
I know that the Beeb have a well-honed sense of self-preservation, and it makes sense that they'd have an interest in distracting from and ameliorating the fallout from Savile , and as I've previously remarked on the first and second Savile threads, lots of news organisations have stories floating around that the lawyers spike because that final coffin nail into a wrong'un isn't to hand. That isn't, as the likes of kidcharlemagne wish to believe, because there's a giant conspiracy to protect the powerful and corrupt, but because our media are (for the most part) required to act within the law w/r/t disclosure - i.e. you can't make a statement/print a story if you can't substantiate it.
So, I reckon that the Beeb have *something*, but that they don't have enough that the story can stand alone yet, and that they're making a calculated gamble that while the public mind is focused on bringing paedophiles in public life to justice, they have a better chance of finding that missing piece to their jigsaw.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Apparently the world is ruled by shape shifting Rabbis!


----------



## Favelado (Nov 3, 2012)

I just reported Wilf after seeing his avatar shape-shift into a lizard.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 3, 2012)

Beat me to it framed.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

So...someone wanna PM me who it is?


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So...someone wanna PM me who it is?


 
Google for Ian Bone's blog, it's on there... allegedly!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Google for Ian Bone's blog, it's on there.



Cheers!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

Favelado said:


> I just reported Wilf after seeing his avatar shape-shift into a lizard.


Yes, but _who_ did you report me to? Who's _your_ puppetmaster?  Can't be the Joos, it's past their bed time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Anyway this programs timing is no coincidence. It is a cynical attempt to try to deflect attention away from their role covering up Saville who was a procurer of children for people with far more clout than even he had. Dead men don't talk though do they.


 
You could be right here, you could also be wrong.

In the Saville doc they had two clips at different points where he said _If I go down I'll take them all with me._ There was something really smug and chilling about him saying that of course. The editors saw fit to include two different clips of him saying the same thing when being questioned about rumours of his interactions with children. It's not enough though. The BBC ran that progaramme and this one and they haven't named anyone. They are dragging it out and I'm f'ed off because they could be just be drawing this shit out to cover their arses and garner more sympathy for colluding with Saville and others in the past.

For me it isn't about titilation or entertainment, it's about justice. If they are not going to do the right thing I want no part of the 'circus'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> We're not talking about his sexuality. We're talking about criminal acts against minors or don't you see the difference.


 
His sexuality was alleged to pivot on fucking underage boys (a criminal act), therefore we *are* talking about his sexuality.
Or perhaps you're one of those idiots who believes that "sexuality" is defined as either hetero- or homo-, rather than being shades of hetero- and homo- mixed in with other factors.



> Of course the political process is controlled by puppetmasters. If you can't grasp that blatantly obvious fact you've clearly not been paying attention.


 
No, the political process is controlled by people who believe themselves to be puppetmasters, when what they actually are is people who've managed to parlay their way into holding the means of production.



> All you have to do is look at the current PM. His ancestors were either rabbis or globalist bankers tied to the opium wars. Do you think these guys get to become leaders through some wierd twist of fate or do you think they're placemen who are there to further the agenda. Can you not see the agenda. It used to creep. Now it's in overdrive. I repeat if you can't see it you really are in trouble.


 
Rabbis and international bankers, eh?

From the pens of believers, the real agenda always floats to the surface, like a turd in a stream. I wouldn't waste my good Jewish piss on you if you were on fire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Fool. This is pure distraction plain and simple. A bit like you are clearly.


 
Tell you what, why not post some sort of substantive criticism, rather than the self-regarding _flatus_ you're gifting us with. Show me the "money", not your anile gibbering.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Ahh him. He's been on the paedo radar for years. A despicable despicable ugly wretch. I believe Icke has been going on about him for years as he did about Saville. Shape shifting Lizards? Who knows.



Ickes would be bloody dangerous if he didn't do that lizard shit and just revealed stuff like this...


----------



## Favelado (Nov 3, 2012)

You know who has the best cover for being a jewlizardshapeshifterpuppetmaster?

David Icke isn't it? The Savile affair has taught us this much.

I hope he pulls off his latex man-mask at the end of his Wembley Arena show to reveal his green scaly face before laughing at his "fans" and rolling around in all the thousands of 20 quid notes they chucked at him.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> it makes sense that [the BBC would] have an interest in distracting from and ameliorating the fallout from Savile


 
To be fair, a senior politician involved - and others covering up - is much bigger fish than a disk-jockey.

Also, fair revenge on other members of that party out to get the Beeb.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2012)

I get the distinct impression that there's basically civil war going on in the BBC over this, with several journalists really chomping at the bit to expose whoever they can, but being held back by the beebs lawyers and higher echelons who're scared shitless about the potential for the tories to wipe the floor with the Beeb in a way that would make the 'sexed up' Iraq war fall out look like an appetizer.

If any Beeb journalist does actually name names, then either the beeb or the tory party are going to end up being massively damaged by it, depending on whether or not the evidence is good enough to stand up in court.

It's not surprising that the beeb haven't just published the name tonight really, but it's not going to be the end of it as now the accusation has been made they're still either going to have to back it up or retract it IMO. This was hopefully the opening shot of retaliation from the BBC in what could be a very messy battle between the bbc and the tory party.

alternatively they'll probably just decide to call it a score draw and hope everyone forgets all about it.


----------



## Psychonaut (Nov 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> My first ever reported post! Never really wanted to do that, normally prefer to tell racist cunts to just fuck off. However on a slow Friday night It's just easier to let the mods know there's a fool they need to press the button on.


 
you jumped the gun here. 'rabbi' pertains to the jewish faith, not to any ethnicity.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Thought crimes must not be tolerated. How else do you retain 'public order.' We want *sheep* not sentient beings.


I claim bingo


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

Psychonaut said:


> you jumped the gun here. 'rabbi' pertains to the jewish faith, not to any ethnicity.


 In that case, I'm sure you've no problem with Nick Griffin's defence of our 'Christian country' against 'Muslims'.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

belboid said:


> I claim bingo


Close, but not perfect. I'm a sheep*le*.  Fitting into conspiraloon categories reet fucks up yer grammar.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 3, 2012)

Wow ...



			
				lizardfancier fruitcake said:
			
		

> For the record DEMOS are a marxist think tank


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> You know Cameron gives speeches at DEMOS don't you. For the record DEMOS are a marxist think tank. There may be genuine conservatives in the tory party. By that I mean genuine one nation conservatives who favour limited government and self determination. However at a senior level they are all closet homosexuals. I believe a gay tory mp said this himself recently. That's not to say I disapprove of what people do in the privacy of their own homes but these people portray themselves with loving wives. It is a charade. Can't remember  the MP's name. Anyway Cameron is the guy who promised a referendum on Europe then backtracked. He is a total fraud. A globalist. It's an extention of the great game and we are the fools for playing along with this charade of deceit.
> 
> Does the BBC even have an investigative journalism section anymore. I can't see it for the life of me. Those days are gone. There is no fear at the BBC. They are a bastion of globalist propaganda who receive money from such people as the bill and melinda gates foundation. Yes they don't rely just on the public purse you know.



DEMOS are Marxist? This the same DEMOS founded by top former Tony Blair advisor Geoff Mulgan?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 3, 2012)

Um, nutcase guy.

You are very confused about Marxism. Try this: http://libcom.org/library/reading-capital-politically-cleaver


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

I wouldn't want to be that other person they couldn't find.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm bored now,someone ban this conspiraloon prick


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

He sounds like my son.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> You know Cameron gives speeches at DEMOS don't you. For the record DEMOS are a marxist think tank. There may be genuine conservatives in the tory party. By that I mean genuine one nation conservatives who favour limited government and self determination. However at a senior level they are all closet homosexuals. I believe a gay tory mp said this himself recently. That's not to say I disapprove of what people do in the privacy of their own homes but these people portray themselves with loving wives. It is a charade. Can't remember the MP's name. Anyway Cameron is the guy who promised a referendum on Europe then backtracked. He is a total fraud. A globalist. It's an extention of the great game and we are the fools for playing along with this charade of deceit.
> 
> Does the BBC even have an investigative journalism section anymore. I can't see it for the life of me. Those days are gone. There is no fear at the BBC. They are a bastion of globalist propaganda who receive money from such people as the bill and melinda gates foundation. Yes they don't rely just on the public purse you know.


 

Is this an episode of _Conspiracy Theories R Us _where you unload all your paranoia on one thread?

Lie down. Take this wee pill - I promise that it didn't come from the NWO's Late Night Pharmacy...


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Nov 3, 2012)

The twat tkidcharlwhateverisfuckingnameis should not be fed.
Best ignore, and carry on as you were.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> I think you'll find Griffin is controlled opposition. You'll also find multiculturalism like feminism, marxism, capitalism, communism etc etc all derive particularly from the very same religious/ethnic group, however you wish to describe them. There is a famous clip of a female exponent saying Europe must accept multiculturalism and that her group would be blamed as they played such a large role in it's formulation. It's all about destroying western nations ethnically, balkanising us if you will. To destroy a nation you must first destroy family race and religion. It's fairly obvious what the result will be if current trends continue.


[why am I doing this ] Go on then, what is the family structure, race and religion _you_ want to defend?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2012)

Gosh


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> I think you'll find Griffin is controlled opposition. You'll also find multiculturalism like feminism, marxism, capitalism, communism etc etc all derive particularly from the very same religious/ethnic group, however you wish to describe them. There is a famous clip of a female exponent saying Europe must accept multiculturalism and that her group would be blamed as they played such a large role in it's formulation. It's all about destroying western nations ethnically, balkanising us if you will. To destroy a nation you must first destroy family race and religion. It's fairly obvious what the result will be if current trends continue.


Yep another fruitloop on board.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

mystic pyjamas said:


> The twat tkidcharlwhateverisfuckingnameis should not be fed.
> Best ignore, and carry on as you were.


I know.  I did prompt the banhammer, but my morbid fascination kicked in.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Demos was founded in 1993 by former _Marxism Today_ editor Martin Jacques.


 
Martin Jacques a Marxist!?!?!  Priceless!  

Give it up for fuxx sake pal. You're only displaying your obvious political ignorance now.


----------



## Psychonaut (Nov 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> In that case, I'm sure you've no problem with Nick Griffin's defence of our 'Christian country' against 'Muslims'.


 
Nick Griffin has form, you can look at his history, affiliations, previous statements etc and (reading between the lines) reasonably infer a racist agenda.

tkidcharlemagne has no form. s/he is a new poster with (at that point) only 6 posts.

Based on similar things said previously by other people who then revealed themselves to be racists, i agree that its wise to be wary. but to flat-out allege racism for definate _at this point_ is projection, it is possible that tkidcharlemagnes beef is with rabbis meaning rabbis, i like to give people the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Listen I don't care what you think of me. To the jerks that cannot handle me voicing my opinion I bet you can't see the irony can you. Censorial jerk offs are the lowest of the low. They are cockroaches who have no place in a civilised free thinking society. If you don't see conspiracies all around us you are ludicrous IMHO and that's an opinion I am entitled too. If you cannot handle your cognitive dissonance I would suggest that is your problem. Not mine.


feel free to spout a load of bollocks, but you will get called on it here when you do.

It's probably best all round though if you stop making this thread about you, as there are more important subjects to be discussing.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

free spirit said:


> feel free to spout a load of bollocks, but you will get called on it here when you do.
> 
> It's probably best all round though if you stop making this thread about you, as there are more important subjects to be discussing.


Yes...we need to drink some more then consider posting something libellous.

Or maybe tkid is just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

Psychonaut said:


> Nick Griffin has form, you can look at his history, affiliations, previous statements etc and (reading between the lines) reasonably infer a racist agenda.
> 
> tkidcharlemagne has no form. s/he is a new poster with (at that point) only 6 posts.
> 
> Based on similar things said previously by other people who then revealed themselves to be racists, i agree that its wise to be wary. but to flat-out allege racism for definate _at this point_ is projection, it is possible that tkidcharlemagnes beef is with rabbis meaning rabbis, i like to give people the benefit of the doubt.


Technically, you may be right. I just didn't detect a political radical seeking merely to undermine the iniquities of religion from an egalitarian and clear headed position.  Subsequent posts suggest first opinions are often correct.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2012)

oh well, fuck this then.

time for bed.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2012)

belboid said:


> I claim bingo


bollocks I still had Khazar and bilderberg to go


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

free spirit said:


> feel free to spout a load of bollocks, but you will get called on it here when you do.
> 
> It's probably best all round though if you stop making this thread about you, as there are more important subjects to be discussing.


 

Here here, how the fcuk did we get from Newsnight to _shape-shifting Rabbis_ anyway? 

Enough about you please tkid.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 3, 2012)

Jazzz has consumed angel dust


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Yes...we need to drink some more then consider posting something libellous.
> 
> Or maybe tkid is just what the doctor ordered.


there is that to it.

Fancy that, a conspiraloon distracting everyone from discussing an actual conspiracy to cover up child abuse by a high profile tory by coming out with a series of scattergun posts of david ickes top ten conspiracy theories. Useful idiots eh.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

That's a good point actually, what's David Icke saying about this, he has a good record on it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

lol @tkid btw


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

free spirit said:


> there is that to it.
> 
> Fancy that, a conspiraloon distracting everyone from discussing an actual conspiracy to cover up child abuse by a high profile tory by coming out with a series of scattergun posts of david ickes top ten conspiracy theories. Useful idiots eh.


- LOOK! THERE - AN ACTUAL CONSPIRACY, IT'S ALL TRUE!
- Ah, no it's more complex, joos, Hadron Collider, armpit hair vaccine, some fucking codex or other, vapour trails, drone drone...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Nick Griffin is Britain's answer to the Muslim brotherhood. It is common knowledge that the muslim brotherhood was created by the Nazis as a bulwark against the British empire just before the war. When that finished British intelligence took it over and the CIA took over from them. That's why the arab spring happened. The arab spring is similar to the 'war on terror.' It is a purely Orwellian term; war is peace etc. It was designed to destroy these nations and thrust them back into the stone age. Note the arab spring also received vast sums of money from NGO's like those funded by uber globalist George Soros.
> 
> I digress. Griffin is an odious man. He is also as I repeat controlled oposition just like the English defence league which is a zionist organisation. Griffin was created to destroy any true nationalist British movement that could challenge the major parties.


Yes you must be right. It is all so simple and so obvious. I wonder why I never realised this. Who do you want me to hate most?


----------



## Psychonaut (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Here here, how the fcuk did we get from Newsnight to _shape-shifting Rabbis_ anyway?


 
editor was clearly having kittens over the potential of this thread to deliver prison-grade libellous material. Shortly after he leaves a mysterious new poster (alter-ego?) appears, _as if tailor made_ to steer the thread into safer waters


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Dont hate. Get even. The targets should be our gentile leaders who have sold their souls to mammon.


Actually....this is probably correct.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> Dont hate. Get even. The targets should be our gentile leaders who have sold their souls to mammon.


It really is getting time for you to fuck off.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> 0
> 
> Thank you. Congratulations for being awake in a sea of perpetual darkness.


I try, but it's hard...with all these ignorant fuck nuts here


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> It's <snip>.Get over it geezus.


This will soon be 'redacted'.  This will make you happy - prepare for the warm glow of moral superiority.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> It's .Get over it geezus.


Take that out, you'll get banned and it's bad for the forum.   edit it


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

Cheers.   You've obviously read a lot.  You'll find a lot of knowledge on urban if you hang around.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2012)

Griffin isn't controlled opposition he's a tolerated Cyclops of the far right who in his wettest dreams imagines he might gain enough influence to rival front nationale


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2012)

its funny how deranged conspiracy theorists seem to pop up like flies on shit on threads about accusations of child abuse by politicians and public figures ... the more suspicious amongst us may begin to see a pattern here


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 3, 2012)

closing down the discussion with their narcissistic rantings


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

tkidcharlemagne said:


> You know Cameron gives speeches at DEMOS don't you. For the record DEMOS are a marxist think tank. There may be genuine conservatives in the tory party. By that I mean genuine one nation conservatives who favour limited government and self determination. However at a senior level they are all closet homosexuals. I believe a gay tory mp said this himself recently. That's not to say I disapprove of what people do in the privacy of their own homes but these people portray themselves with loving wives. It is a charade. Can't remember  the MP's name. Anyway Cameron is the guy who promised a referendum on Europe then backtracked. He is a total fraud. A globalist. It's an extention of the great game and we are the fools for playing along with this charade of deceit.
> 
> Does the BBC even have an investigative journalism section anymore. I can't see it for the life of me. Those days are gone. There is no fear at the BBC. They are a bastion of globalist propaganda who receive money from such people as the bill and melinda gates foundation. Yes they don't rely just on the public purse you know.


"For the record Demos are a Marxist thinktank".
No they're not, they're a thinktank that happened to be founded by someone who claimed to have once been a Marxist. The policy Demos formulates bears no relation to Marxism or socialism.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why don't you fuck off and annoy others with your endless fucking bleating about being pulled for using tropes that are generally understood to be coded anti-semitism, you dappy knob-jockey?


 
Have you ever been groundlessly accused of something deeply offensive, placed in a class of person who regularly threaten you, with no cause?

What would you have thought of being called a fucking bleating knob (sic)jockey for complaining about it?

Are those tropes the majority preserve of anti-semites? No.

There's another thread on this, but I'm fucked if I'm going to put up with groundless insults and further insults for not putting up with insults. Perhaps I don't insult or point fingers enough to really get ahead these days.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "For the record Demos are a Marxist thinktank".
> No they're not, they're a thinktank that happened to be founded by someone who claimed to have once been a Marxist. The policy Demos formulates bears no relation to Marxism or socialism.


 
Demos "Marxist". Where do people get this shit from?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Actually....this is probably correct.


As is a stopped clock twice a day.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 3, 2012)

VP, I don't think you need to tell anyone on here that Demos is not Marxist. The fruitloop who suggested it was has said 'night night' and gone. I am amazed he wasn't banned after one clumsy board-risking post earlier.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

Well...they've probably been misinformed.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 3, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> VP, I don't think you need to tell anyone on here that Demos is not Marxist. The fruitloop who suggested it was has said 'night night' and gone. I am amazed he wasn't banned after one clumsy board-risking post earlier.


Well there were no mods around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Have you ever been groundlessly accused of something deeply offensive, placed in a class of person who regularly threaten you, with no cause?


I'm a Jew, you dumb fuck. Of course I have. 


> What would you have thought of being called a fucking bleating knob (sic)jockey for complaining about it?


I had a go because you haven't bloody STOPPED complaining about it, across several threads.



> Are those tropes the majority preserve of anti-semites? No.


In the context you use them, they're *pointedly* anti-semitic.


> There's another thread on this, but I'm fucked if I'm going to put up with groundless insults and further insults for not putting up with insults. Perhaps I don't insult or point fingers enough to really get ahead these days.


[/quote]
You don't point fingers enough? That's a fucking joke!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

Just scanned the Guardian and Sun websites. 

Couldn't see mention of this on Graun.

Quite low down on Sun. 

Not dis similar to coverage of Watson at PMQs : not ignored, but far from the furore one might expect.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a Jew, you dumb fuck. Of course I have.
> 
> In the context you use them, they're *pointedly* anti-semitic.


 
Could you say how, as in which context? The general context I slag off global banking fraud in is the context of global banking fraud.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a Jew, you dumb fuck. Of course I have.
> 
> I had a go because you haven't bloody STOPPED complaining about it, across several threads.
> 
> ...


You don't point fingers enough? That's a fucking joke![/quote]


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

VP - apols for last post, edit ballsed up.

Trying again:

As a Jew have you been accused of being in with the people who actually threaten you?

That's what I was talking of, not whether you have been threatened at all.

The context in which I generally rattle on about global banking fraud is the economic context, not the "conspiratorial" context as such, although there are clearly elements of behaviour that are conspiratorial per se.

What context were you referring to?

I haven't stopped complaining about it over 2 threads (I think) related to the paedophile stuff because I pointed out some patterns in this issue that had occured elsewhere. Then I was accused of anti-semitism, quite virulently and in a way which could not be stood up.

Would you prefer that people accused of something without substantiation just shut up and accept it?

You might think it better to comment on the other thread I started to keep down pollution here and elsewhere which I accept some responsibility for. But if people make such accusations things will naturally get derailed, there is no point just the protesting accused being blamed for that.

ETA : In the last 2 days I have come across jaw-dropping anti-semitism in connection with digging around this issue (not in the context of the tropes you cite FWIW)

I'll mention them on the other thread.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

I agree with DC on this. Griffin doesn't strike me as controlled opposition in the least. 
Tolerated opposition, quite possibly. Serves a function sometimes "you must vote for us or you will get him" (more commonly used by Labour up north)

In general the establishment will, when push comes to shove, go with the fascist rather than the radical left. 

If the EDL are "zionist" in any regard it is as dupes at most. I can't say I know enough about Alan Lake, few seem to, but I also wonder if he has much to do with them at all nowdays..

I doubt it is functionally "zionist" in any meaningful way, though it is a term slung at them by rival far-rightists. Yes they have links with SION but all of that stuff goes way above their empty heads (not that there are many left now). It's mostly just "enemies enemy" stuff. 

Enough of the rank and file turned out to be general racist filth to not pin a specific tag on them. It's just that Islam is the thing it's easiest to hate most publicly.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> its funny how deranged conspiracy theorists seem to pop up like flies on shit on threads about accusations of child abuse by politicians and public figures ... the more suspicious amongst us may begin to see a pattern here


 
Is it?

I think what might have attracted conspiracy theorists, deranged or otherwise, is the fact that this whole issue seems to involve a level of conspiracy, as well as having general concern about the issue.

And hark at you, seeming to accuse and maks snide insinuations against people with scant reason. Again. 

You are on this thread? What attracted you?

Not being over suspicious I would assume that, like me and others, you are here primarily out of concern about the general issue and to discuss aspects of it.

But if you draw up a list of who you consider acceptable to turn up on each thread I am sure it will make for an interesting discussion.


----------



## Psychonaut (Nov 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> its funny how deranged conspiracy theorists seem to pop up like flies on shit on threads about accusations of child abuse by politicians and public figures ... the more suspicious amongst us may begin to see a pattern here


 
It not surprising at all that such threads are a draw for conspiracy theorists (deranged or otherwise). child abuse has long been part of conspiracy theories; as a glue to hold a network of compromised sociopaths in thrall &or as props/fuel in satanic ritual. David Icke has been talking about this and naming the two people-who-must-not-be-named (amongst many others) for at least 13 years (he gives credit to scallywag).

A related theme which Icke and Brian Gerrish have IIRC been talking about is social services aggressively taking peoples children away for spurious reasons to meet quotas, this obviously keeps paedophilia high on the radar for people who follow conspiracy researchers.

When topics like this break through into the mainstream, this is seen as a 'wake-up' moment which will draw more people into awareness, so its quite natural that people who follow conspiracy research will want to capitalise on this momentum by choosing that moment to branch out into other forums, like u75.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

Psychonaut said:


> you jumped the gun here. 'rabbi' pertains to the jewish faith, not to any ethnicity.



Don't defend this shit.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

Psychonaut said:


> Nick Griffin has form, you can look at his history, affiliations, previous statements etc and (reading between the lines) reasonably infer a racist agenda.
> 
> tkidcharlemagne has no form. s/he is a new poster with (at that point) only 6 posts.
> 
> Based on similar things said previously by other people who then revealed themselves to be racists, i agree that its wise to be wary. but to flat-out allege racism for definate _at this point_ is projection, it is possible that tkidcharlemagnes beef is with rabbis meaning rabbis, i like to give people the benefit of the doubt.


Bet you feel silly now.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2012)

bendeus said:


> Jazzz has consumed angel dust


I hope no one is in any doubt now of the murky waters jazzz and his ilk swim in.


----------



## scalyboy (Nov 3, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So...someone wanna PM me who it is?


 It's the "Pharissean babylonian talmudists" wot did it. 
#265


----------



## manny-p (Nov 3, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/24/asil-nadir-donations-tory-party

After Nadir received a 10-year jail sentence on Thursday for stealing almost £29m from the company he built up to be a global player, Lord McAlpine said the donation was "tainted" and had to be returned.
McAlpine, who was Conservative party treasurer from 1975 to 1990, told the Daily Mail that when Polly Peck first donated to the party, Nadir was "a dashing figure who was admired across Europe for his business flair".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 3, 2012)

Libel-baiting anti-semitic loon banned and posts deleted, for those who are thinking "who are these people quoting who doesn't exist?" I'm not going through its posts and removing the names manually.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 3, 2012)

is Brixtonite someone off here?

saw this on the fail article. They are leading on a new BBC scandal and THEN this story. no surprise there really.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

It looks like most of this stuff was first posted about in 1997. There needs to be an extensive investigation by a skilled, independent body that is trusted by the general population- oh dear there isn't one.

Well anyways, let's rely on the tried and trusted interweb investigative team - if the authorities won't act it is time for the people.

The Nick Davis article from 1997 refers to a Lord A and his son. According to this account Lord A's role was to protect his son ( who was an alcoholic paedo frequenter of toilets in Wrexham) from paedo allegations. However, it now appears that Lord A is being included as one of the alleged paedo's. One witness claims to have identified Lord A as an attacker, however, he told the enquiry he could not identify his attacker anymore. Another witness stated that lord A is dead- (the person currently being referred to is very much alive).

The lobbyist is a string through all these accounts, including his apparent friendship with Sam Cam's family. Is this just a crass smear- or is there any evidence to back up allegations that he inveigled his way into the Tory establishment by originally pimping his fellow children home's residence. This smear seems all the more difficult to believe due to the fact he was removed from the home by two Tory spinsters- hardly classic paedo recruiters.

There is an underlying conspiraloon bullshit story which was touched on by the banned poster which attempts to suggest that all the world's leading rulers have been compromised by sexual blackmail. That once identified and blackmailed they are allowed  into higher and higher positions of power as they are now compromised and subject to "the hidden hand". This is used to explain the apparent crapness of politicians once elected ala no end of supposed leftist politico's who are happy to wage wars once given the reigns of power. Of course others would have psychological or economic explanations related to the exercise of power and capital. 

Having said the above, a class that knowingly sends it children for generation to generation to brutal boarding schools with institutionalised sadism; that revels in cruelty to animals; that  treats whole swathes of humanity as sub-human and does not believe itself bound by "normal" sexual morality is more than likely to tolerate members who are willing to act out their paedo sadist desires on the weakest.


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2012)

Newsnight's victim calling for investigation to be re-opened, Cameron pledging support. Could this be a chance for Cameron to get rid of various Thatcher era politicos.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2012)

I bet he can't wait to beria


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 3, 2012)

@kenny g - Lord A, as I read it, is not the same person Newsnight are referring to. Nick Davies has also referred to the latter so it's clear they are two people. The former may well be dead, the timeline would make it probable.

ETA: As far as I can discover the fusilier only has daughters so it's definitely not the same person. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken.


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2012)

Cameron as some kind of latter day Hercules, the clean sweep then bright and shiny unencumbered Conservative party emerging.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 3, 2012)

Its disgusting that the original inquiry into abuse at welsh childrens homes was not allowed to look into abuse carried out by senior people - and that the judge explicitly banned anyone from repeating the allegations made by victims outside the court.

That on its own should be enough to have the whole case reopened and the original judge in the case arrested.

If this is true its utterly fucking sick making - it means that essentailly, parts of the care home system was operating a child-pimping service for the rich and powerful with the tacit support of the senior police, judiciary and politicians. An off the scale scandal - but definitely not one to enjoy.

I dont thinks it fair to have a pop at crick and newsnight for not naming names - they will have gone as far as their legal teams advised them to go. No other media organisation would act any differently.

However - just by putting this out there they must be pretty confidnet that their is real story and this will - as someone pointed out above - 'shake the tree'.

It reminds me of a case when I was a kid - maybe 11 or 12. It was somehing about a court case where the defendant cliamed to have compromising photos of Ted Heath - the judge immediately threw all the reporters out and had the seesion in secret before declaring that the defndant was lieing. Thats about all the details I can remember - but I remember thinking it very odd at the time - as did my (vaugely tory) parents.

What it demonstrates is how the establishment can be utterly blatant in covering up and blocking investigations and it goes almost unoticed.

The newsnight story must have been festering away for years in the media and political circles - many many people must know the truth about this - why the fuck has it taken so long for it to surface?


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> @kenny g - Lord A, as I read it, is not the same person Newsnight are referring to. Nick Davies has also referred to the latter so it's clear they are two people. The former may well be dead, the timeline would make it probable.
> 
> ETA: As far as I can discover the fusilier only has daughters so it's definitely not the same person. Please do correct me if I'm mistaken.


 
So there are two Lord's and a fusilier? ETA: - understand the reference now - soz.

ETA:- yes the fusilier has two daughters according to the Guardian interview.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> So there are two Lord's and a fusilier?


 
Afaik, there are two people - Lord A who covered up for his son, and the other high profile Tory, sometimes known as the fusilier, who is the very powerful and well-connected man victims in the North Wales inquiry referred to as turning up in expensive cars, having an air of supreme power etc and who also directly abused. The latter is the man hinted at in the Newsnight story.

There are of course others involved in the story and named outright elsewhere on the net but I'm trying not to confuse myself!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 3, 2012)

Yes it's getting a bit  - so Lord A is the one outed by Ian Bone.  But Mr B is the one Newsnight were on about?


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 3, 2012)

I think Ian Bone outed Mr B. But I could have course be wrong. The BBC needs to name names goddammit.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> I think Ian Bone outed Mr B. But I could have course be wrong. The BBC needs to name names goddammit.


 
Is the fusilier a Lord, goddamit? We need to sort our categories out. As I see it we have:-

Lord A and son (fuck knows who they are)

Lord "the fusilier" exuding power who was a confident of Thatcher.(also referred to as Mr B)

The fixer - ex resident of children's homes himself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 3, 2012)

cesare said:


> Cameron as some kind of latter day Hercules, the clean sweep then bright and shiny unencumbered Conservative party emerging.


*vomits :/


----------



## Dan U (Nov 3, 2012)

who is the fusilier?

obviously don't answer that but it is bewildering.

eta - had Lord A and Mr B switched round, makes more sense now.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Is the fusilier a Lord, goddamit? We need to sort our categories out. As I see it we have:-
> 
> Lord A and son (fuck knows who they are)
> 
> ...


 
I don't know why I was being so coy, maybe all the libel paranoia, but yes, I think Mr B is a peer too. So the above is how I've seen it. Sorry for any needless confusion.


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:
			
		

> Is the fusilier a Lord, goddamit? We need to sort our categories out. As I see it we have:-
> 
> Lord A and son (fuck knows who they are)
> 
> ...



That's my undrstanding too.

Lord A stuff new to me though.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

where to said:


> That's my undrstanding too.
> 
> Lord A stuff new to me though.


 
Lord A is referred to in Nick Davis's Guardian  report of 1997. http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/0...sure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/-  a lot of the characteristics of Lord A are shared by Lord B - the fusilier - apart from being alive and  having a son. So who is Lord A?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 3, 2012)

I may have to take myself to the British Library Newspaper archive and rummage through their copies of Scallywag.


----------



## Deareg (Nov 3, 2012)

Someone on FB has posted a link to a blog naming four Tories.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 3, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Someone on FB has posted a link to a blog naming four Tories.


 
PM?

or link?

that is quite vague to track down


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> DEMOS are Marxist? This the same DEMOS founded by top former Tony Blair advisor Geoff Mulgan?


 
To be fair, Mulgan did claim to have been a Marxist in his youth, probably for a couple of weeks when at uni, before he realised it put women off rather than attracted them.


----------



## Deareg (Nov 3, 2012)

Dan U said:


> PM?
> 
> or link?
> 
> that is quite vague to track down


Wasn't sure whether to post the link so PM'd it to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Martin Jacques a Marxist!?!?! Priceless!
> 
> Give it up for fuxx sake pal. You're only displaying your obvious political ignorance now.


 
He obviously never read "Marxism Today".


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2012)

It's all the same stuff.

There is a lord who was subject of newsnight last night. He is an ex Tory funder and official. 

There is the fixer, an ex Tory advisor to Thatcher and failed reality tv star. He is said to have sourced boys from the welsh care home.

Then there are two ex Tory cabinet members who are alleged to have attended the fixers parties.

This is all scallywag stuff which was subject to quality investigation. 

Other stuff at the links you find the scallywag text are less reliable, or in some cases, insane.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

According to the Nick Davis's article Lord A's son was 25 in 1979 - giving a year of birth as 1954. The one Lord who looked a suitable candidate has sons born far later than that.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 3, 2012)

This is probably getting close to the point at which the Welsh fixer, Mr S, would start getting concerned.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its disgusting that the original inquiry into abuse at welsh childrens homes was not allowed to look into abuse carried out by senior people - and that the judge explicitly banned anyone from repeating the allegations made by victims outside the court.
> 
> That on its own should be enough to have the whole case reopened and the original judge in the case arrested.
> 
> ...


 
Was that the reported photos of Heath in a gastapo uniform? Some of the tinfoil hat sites refer to it...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> VP - apols for last post, edit ballsed up.
> 
> Trying again:
> 
> ...


 
Taff, you don't get it. *Any* time you talk about "international finance", "global banking fraud" or any other of the labels commonly used outside of a strict economic context, you're using them in the conspiratorial context "as such". You're feeding the beast.



> I haven't stopped complaining about it over 2 threads (I think) related to the paedophile stuff because I pointed out some patterns in this issue that had occured elsewhere. Then I was accused of anti-semitism, quite virulently and in a way which could not be stood up.
> 
> Would you prefer that people accused of something without substantiation just shut up and accept it?
> 
> ...


 
I'll look for them there.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> According to the Nick Davis's article Lord A's son was 25 in 1979 - giving a year of birth as 1954. The one Lord who looked a suitable candidate has sons born far later than that.


 
Article here for those unfamiliar.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

Psychonaut said:


> It not surprising at all that such threads are a draw for conspiracy theorists (deranged or otherwise). child abuse has long been part of conspiracy theories; as a glue to hold a network of compromised sociopaths in thrall &or as props/fuel in satanic ritual. David Icke has been talking about this and naming the two people-who-must-not-be-named (amongst many others) for at least 13 years (he gives credit to scallywag).
> 
> A related theme which Icke and Brian Gerrish have IIRC been talking about is social services aggressively taking peoples children away for spurious reasons to meet quotas, this obviously keeps paedophilia high on the radar for people who follow conspiracy researchers.


 
That'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous and so sad, given that legislatively, for the last 20+ years the onus has been on social services departments to do the opposite - to solve problems before children have to be removed.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> That on its own should be enough to have the whole case reopened and the original judge in the case arrested.


 
That isnt how things work and in any case I believe he died a couple of years ago.

Undermining the credibility of the inquiry and having a look at why the terms of reference were too narrow are a more likely starting point, and newsnight was a reasonable start to this.


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:
			
		

> This is probably getting close to the point at which the Welsh fixer, Mr S, would start getting concerned.



Mr L surely?

His tweets show no signs of concern.

Edit: who is welsh fixer? Fixer referred to so far is London based.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

scalyboy said:


> It's the "Pharissean babylonian talmudists" wot did it.
> #265


 
Dirty Pharisaic bastards with their greasy sidelocks and big noses!!!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 3, 2012)

where to said:


> Mr L surely?
> 
> His tweets show no signs of concern.
> 
> Edit: who is welsh fixer? Fixer referred to so far is London based.



I meant the poor schmuck with the dreads who will have his various Android devices seized if people get overenthusiastic on this thread.


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2012)

Ah, got you. Quite amusing misunderstanding.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

The conspiraloon has been banned. I find it most strange that some people almost revel in them though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> The conspiraloon has been banned. I find it most strange that some people almost revel in them though.


 
Conspiraloons are fun, in a "poke the dead cat with a stick" kind of way. I suppose it's to do with someone being so unable to accept the randomness of life that they seek safety in finding patterns and links where there are none.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Nov 3, 2012)

Richard Webster's website is an interesting counterbalance to the hysteria about paedophile rings going on at the moment.

- anyway here is an article about a 1999 BBC documentary "_A Place of Safety" _about Bryn Estyn which also interviewed Steven Messham
*What the BBC did not tell us*
http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html


> The next witness to appear on the programme was Steven Messham. He said that on one occasion, when he had been in the sick-bay with blood pouring from his mouth, he had been buggered by Howarth as he lay in bed. He said that on another occasion he was asked to take a hamper of food to Howarth’s flat, where he was buggered by Howarth over the kitchen table.
> 
> What the BBC did not tell us was that Messham claims he was sexually abused by no less than 49 different people. He also says he has been physically abused by 26 people. In 1994 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to bring his allegations against Howarth to court. None of his allegations has ever resulted in a conviction. In 1995 one of his most serious sexual allegations was rejected by a jury after barristers argued that it was a transparent fabrication.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The newsnight story must have been festering away for years in the media and political circles - many many people must know the truth about this - why the fuck has it taken so long for it to surface?


 
Because it was assumed it had been successfully buried, but it probably left a nasty taste in some peoples mouths. So when the Savile story came out and the question 'what other stories did we ignore?' loomed large in some journalists minds, it came back. Especially as its been lurking in small corners of the net all this time, and people started speculating with great frenzy in recent weeks. And thats without even getting into how victims must feel given the Savile shitstorm.

I doubt many people know the truth about this. Some know the allegations, some know how things were dampened or covered up, but relatively few probably know the full story backed with hard facts.

What we dont know at this point is what supporting rumours about the persons lifestyle were well known within the circles of power and journalism at the time. eg compared to Peter Morrison whose tastes were apparently something of an open secret at the time. But we get to hear about that with Morrison only because he is dead.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 3, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Was that the reported photos of Heath in a gastapo uniform? Some of the tinfoil hat sites refer to it...?


 
Im sure the detials of the pics were not revealed. I think the bloke was being done for attempting to blackmail heath.


----------



## junglevip (Nov 3, 2012)

I was getting fed up with this savile thing; I dont know if I hate tories anymore than I already did but I like but the savile story seems to be uncovering the real sinister side of the ruling classes. 

The expenses fraud thing came out in dribs and drabs and it stayed high profile for much longer.  I wonder if the alleged will make it to the grave without being caught like old jimmy?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 3, 2012)

> *Louisa Loveluck* ‏@*leloveluck*
> Call for new investigation into North Wales abuse scandal: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/11/02/call-for-new-investigation-into-north-wales-abuse-scandal/ … by @*TBIJ*'s Angus Stickler. cc: @*tom_watson*


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

DJ Squelch said:


> Richard Websters website is an interesting counterbalance to the hysteria about paedophile rings going on at the moment.
> 
> - anyway here is an article about a 1999 BBC documentary "_A Place of Safety" _about Bryn Estyn which also interviewed Steven Messham
> *What the BBC did not tell us*
> http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html


 
Would have been interesting to hear his comments on Savile. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/31/richard-webster-obituary suggests he made a career out of denying abuse.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Would have been interesting to hear his comments on Savile. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/31/richard-webster-obituary suggests he made a career out of denying abuse.


 
I dont think its fair to say he made a career out of it, since it doesnt sound like he wrote for profit.

I expect his work brought some important balance to the hysterical side of sex abuse stories, but taken on his own he err'ed much too far in the other direction.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> I dont think its fair to say he made a career out of it, since it doesnt sound like he wrote for profit.
> 
> I expect his work brought some important balance to the hysterical side of sex abuse stories, but taken on his own he err'ed much too far in the other direction.


 
Just finished cutting the grass and pondering on all of this. Agree with you.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 3, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Is there a Labour MP implicated?


iirc there was a child porn website closed down in the USA (around 2006/7) and they found the server with all the creditcard details of people who had joined, I'm sure it was big news at the time in the UK with the police saying over 1000 names of UK citizens were on the list.

Allegedly, an ex-labour MP, now a lord was on that list or the payment was traced to him. It would be interesting to find the name of the police operation and see how many people were ever charged.


----------



## gosub (Nov 3, 2012)

1%er said:


> iirc there was a child porn website closed down in the USA (around 2006/7) and they found the server with all the creditcard details of people who had joined, I'm sure it was big news at the time in the UK with the police saying over 1000 names of UK citizens were on the list.
> 
> Allegedly, an ex-labour MP, now a lord was on that list or the payment was traced to him. It would be interesting to find the name of the police operation and see how many people were ever charged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore


----------



## 1%er (Nov 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore


That rings a bell, thanks.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

1%er said:


> iirc there was a child porn website closed down in the USA (around 2006/7) and they found the server with all the creditcard details of people who had joined, I'm sure it was big news at the time in the UK with the police saying over 1000 names of UK citizens were on the list.
> 
> Allegedly, an ex-labour MP, now a lord was on that list or the payment was traced to him. It would be interesting to find the name of the police operation and see how many people were ever charged.


 
It was operation Ore and it was a bit longer ago than you suggest. Unfortunately most of what has turned up on the net about it since involves people drooling about 'Blair issuing D-Notices' and the accusations you mention about an individual, which tend to get mixed in with some Dunblaine accusations. I've not exactly spent weeks studying this stuff but I never turned up anything of substance when I did look.


----------



## Dandred (Nov 3, 2012)

Is this actually going to come out in the open or will a D notice be used?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2012)

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the credit cards used on the child porn websites relating to Ore were stolen.  The investigation was a monumental fuck up, and many innocent people had their lives ruined.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> It was operation Ore and it was a bit longer ago than you suggest. Unfortunately most of what has turned up on the net about it since involves people drooling about 'Blair issuing D-Notices' and the accusations you mention about an individual, which tend to get mixed in with some Dunblaine accusations. I've not exactly spent weeks studying this stuff but I never turned up anything of substance when I did look.


Yes , wow 1999 was it really that long ago, time fly's when you're having fun


----------



## 1%er (Nov 3, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Also, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the credit cards used on the child porn websites relating to Ore were stolen. The investigation was a monumental fuck up, and many innocent people had their lives ruined.


From the link above,

_*Operation Ore* was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. It was the United Kingdom's biggest ever computer crime investigation,[1] leading to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations[2] and an estimated 33[3] suicides.[4][5] While Operation Ore did identify and prosecute a number of sex offenders, *the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations were claimed by some to have resulted in a large number of false arrests.*[3]_

When this sort of police operation goes wrong I always wonder if it was meant to go wrong


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

Dandred said:


> Is this actually going to come out in the open or will a D notice be used?


 
I've never been convinced that people have the right impression about D notices, or whatever they are called these days (DA?). People just start assuming that specific ones have been issued, when in fact there are a range of other ways to keep the press quiet which I would think would be far more appropriate for many of the scenarios being suggested.

For a start I believe that the credibility of that system is more important than protecting an individual. The state wouldnt throw away the credibility of the system in the eyes of the press lightly. I would expect them to save it for stuff that doesnt require unbelievable horseshit in order to make the censorship in question seem like a legitimate issue of national security. If they totally took the piss with it too much then I think some might be tempted to break it, ignore it.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2012)

1%er said:


> From the link above,
> 
> _*Operation Ore* was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. It was the United Kingdom's biggest ever computer crime investigation,[1] leading to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations[2] and an estimated 33[3] suicides.[4][5] While Operation Ore did identify and prosecute a number of sex offenders, *the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations were claimed by some to have resulted in a large number of false arrests.*[3]_
> 
> When this sort of police operation goes wrong I always wonder if it was meant to go wrong


 
The reason I don't see this in those sorts* of conspiracy terms, is that in this case, more people got arrested/charged than should have been.  If there was a conspiracy to cover up the wrongdoings of the 'elites', then surely more people would have gotten away with it?  You would have to play down the reliability of the evidence, set the bar higher for reasonable doubt, etc.  All this would mean those who they wanted to get off, could, along with some others who were the smokescreen. The opposite occurred with Ore.

*There was a slight conspiracy in the investigation, but it was of the old tactic of fabricating/tampering with evidence to secure more convictions.  The police lied about the webpages that the suspects were meant to have clicked on and were found out.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> I've never been convinced that people have the right impression about D notices, or whatever they are called these days (DA?). People just start assuming that specific ones have been issued, when in fact there are a range of other ways to keep the press quiet which I would think would be far more appropriate for many of the scenarios being suggested.
> 
> For a start I believe that the credibility of that system is more important than protecting an individual. The state wouldnt throw away the credibility of the system in the eyes of the press lightly. I would expect them to save it for stuff that doesnt require unbelievable horseshit in order to make the censorship in question seem like a legitimate issue of national security. If they totally took the piss with it too much then I think some might be tempted to break it, ignore it.


 
There's also the fact that DA notices are not legally binding. If they _knew _then they'd print it. It's too valuable to them, and not in the public interest to keep quiet. The DA notice almost certainly was never issued.

edit: I thought we were talking about the conspiracy theorists' alleged DA notice. My point still stands for future cases, though.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 3, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> The reason I don't see this in those sorts* of conspiracy terms, is that in this case, more people got arrested/charged than should have been. If there was a conspiracy to cover up the wrongdoings of the 'elites', then surely more people would have gotten away with it? You would have to play down the reliability of the evidence, set the bar higher for reasonable doubt, etc. All this would mean those who they wanted to get off, could, along with some others who were the smokescreen. The opposite occurred with Ore.
> 
> *There was a slight conspiracy in the investigation, but it was of the old tactic of fabricating/tampering with evidence to secure more convictions. The police lied about the webpages that the suspects were meant to have clicked on and were found out.


I don't trust the police, press or politicians, I think it is clear that they do work together to keep things out of the public domain.

I think police make more cock-ups than conspiracy's.

"After obtaining the list, the Sunday Times stated that it included the names of a number of prominent individuals, some of which were later published by the press" and some of which were not.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> I've never been convinced that people have the right impression about D notices, or whatever they are called these days (DA?). People just start assuming that specific ones have been issued, when in fact there are a range of other ways to keep the press quiet which I would think would be far more appropriate for many of the scenarios being suggested.
> 
> For a start I believe that the credibility of that system is more important than protecting an individual. The state wouldnt throw away the credibility of the system in the eyes of the press lightly. I would expect them to save it for stuff that doesnt require unbelievable horseshit in order to make the censorship in question seem like a legitimate issue of national security. If they totally took the piss with it too much then I think some might be tempted to break it, ignore it.


 
This.The "D-Notice has been issued" trope is soo retro - like claiming the Lord Chamberlain's Office has censored a play.

They're "_Defence_ Advisory" notices. There's an ancient published list, most of which are to do with protecting the new identities of Soviet defectors.

I'm not clear when formal DA Notices are issued these days. Much more is done by editors phoning up the Secretary of the Committee for guidance, or vice versa.

E2A: there's a current list of published notices at http://www.dnotice.org.uk/danotices/index.htm


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

laptop said:


> This.The "D-Notice has been issued" trope is soo retro - like claiming the Lord Chamberlain's Office has censored a play.


 
Yeah, I thought it had been replaced in the public imagination by the concept of the super injunction, but it was alive and well on twitter last night, as people with no sense of the detail of how stuff works were plucking reasons why newsnight didnt name the name out of their ass.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

kenny g said:


> According to the Nick Davis's article Lord A's son was 25 in 1979 - giving a year of birth as 1954. The one Lord who looked a suitable candidate has sons born far later than that.


 

If Lord A has since died and his son is still alive, this would mean that his paedophile son will have inherited the title... is there a 'new' Lord A who is still at it?

Lord B appears to be the real power in all of this, if the witnesses are to be believed.

Lord A + Lord A's heir + Lord B = 3 Lords


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

Trying to talk about that sensibly at a time when there are legal issues involving names is a bit like swimming through treacle. I tire of speaking in tongues, but unfortunately right now that means not talking much at all. Oh well.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> If Lord A has since died and his son is still alive, this would mean that his paedophile son will have inherited the title... .......


 
Not in the case of Life Peers.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 3, 2012)

If Newsnights information was not strong enough to name a name on TV, is it strong enough to pass to the police and will it be strong enough for them to take action over?


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> Trying to talk about that sensibly at a time when there are legal issues involving names is a bit like swimming through treacle. I tire of speaking in tongues, but unfortunately right now that means not talking much at all. Oh well.


 
Stop trying to censor discussion. I've read all your 'legal eagle' posts and am still unconvinced by your arguments.

Instead of trying to close down discussion, why not provide a means by which the discussion can progress without necessarily naming names?


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> If Lord A has since died and his son is still alive, this would mean that his paedophile son will have inherited the title... is there a 'new' Lord A who is still at it?


IIRC the Guardian article about 'Leon' had it that the son had died as well.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

weltweit said:


> If Newsnights information was not strong enough to name a name on TV, is it strong enough to pass to the police and will it be strong enough for them to take action over?


 
The strength of the evidence is for the police to assess. That is not for us or Newsnight to determine.

A formal police investigation may well be able to uncover more evidence than a journalist would. It is incumbent upon the BBC to pass the information that they have on to the police for them to assess.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Corax said:


> IIRC the Guardian article about 'Leon' had it that the son had died as well.


 
Typical.  How neat this will be for the Tory establishment if all the perpetrators have, like Savile, rather conveniently kicked the bucket before they could be brought to justice.


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Typical. How neat this will be for the Tory establishment if all the perpetrators have, like Savile, rather conveniently kicked the bucket before they could be brought to justice.


Well one of the main names in the frame, the construction one, is very much alive.  As is the political advisor.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Corax said:


> Well one of the main names in the frame, the construction one, is very much alive. As is the political advisor.


 
Yes, but will the living be exposed or will the exposure be restricted to paedophiles who are now deceased?

We're talking about a conspiracy and cover up that spans a 40 year period (at least) so what would prompt the establishment to offer up anyone who was not already dead or surplus to requirement?


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Yes, but will the living be exposed or will the exposure be restricted to paedophiles who are now deceased?
> 
> We're talking about a conspiracy and cover up that spans a 40 year period (at least) so what would prompt the establishment to offer up anyone who was not already dead or surplus to requirement?


They won't be 'offering' anyone up. But there does seem to be a weight of evidence and a certain momentum gathering, which they may not be able to prevent. Watson being on the case is certainly a good thing too, whatever people's views on him and his motivations may be.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Given that _'the dead cannot be libeled'_ why have the names of the deceased Lord and his heir not surfaced so far?


----------



## FilmRob (Nov 3, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Her Dad was fond of young girls.
> 
> 
> 
> We're back to that documentary guy and his claims again, right? Ben Fellows was it?


Ah, Ben Fellow, the pathological liar who claims on a prospectus for a film that never happened to have "won awards for his film making all over the world including a BAFTA Award for his  work as an investigative journalist on Central  
Televisions “The Cook Report”.’ ........ a very quick check of the BAFTA Awards Database will show that he never did. I noticed he has now removed that lie from his home page but many others remain.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 3, 2012)

FilmRob said:


> Ah, Ben Fellow, the pathological liar who claims on a prospectus for a film that never happened to have "won awards for his film making all over the world including a BAFTA Award for his work as an investigative journalist on Central
> Televisions “The Cook Report”.’ ........ a very quick check of the BAFTA Awards Database will show that he never did. I noticed he has now removed that lie from his home page but many others remain.


 
Interesting first post. 



> I noticed he has now removed that lie from his home page but many others remain.


 
When did it disappear from his home page? Yesterday per chance?

Was a lot disappearing from blogs and such yesterday by all accounts...



> *Labour Left* ‏@*LabourLeft* ​Numerous Labour/Left Wing sites were attacked last night, including ours. We are fixing the problem, but thank you for letting us know ​*Gracie Samuels-Pleb* ‏@*GracieSamuels* ​@*tobyornot_* @*SoniaPoulton* I don't think you are wrong & my blog along with other lefty blogs was hit by hackers yesterday! Coincidence?​


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Given that _'the dead cannot be libeled'_ why have the names of the deceased Lord and his heir not surfaced so far?


Because Waterhouse said so.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Given that _'the dead cannot be libeled'_ why have the names of the deceased Lord and his heir not surfaced so far?


 
Perhaps the heir _isn't_ deceased, and to identify the father would identify the son.

In fact, a decent _rule of thumb_ is that if your identification narrows the field down to a dozen or so, then it may be defamatory.

Hence "all footballers are thieves" is merely ranting: "all those who went out for Scunthorpe City last Saturday are thieves" is likely to be defamation.


----------



## Corax (Nov 3, 2012)

The Ben Fellows stuff is a needless distraction anyway IMO.  "Ken Clarke touched my trousers when I was 17" is pretty inconsequential when compared with the systematic, repeated, organised rape and beatings of boys as young as 11.  Not to mention the possibility of murders to cover their tracks.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Stop trying to censor discussion. I've read all your 'legal eagle' posts and am still unconvinced by your arguments.
> 
> Instead of trying to close down discussion, why not provide a means by which the discussion can progress without necessarily naming names?


 
Oh piss off, I've spent dozens of hours researching and talking about this stuff on multiple threads in recent weeks. I'm not trying to shutdown discussion at all, what I am more than prepared to do is to point out stupidity. You know, idiots shouting 'super injunction' without any clear basis in fact.

In this instance I was bemoaning our inability to talk about this stuff in a straightforward way, its a complaint about the situation we find ourselves in right now, with a gulf between two worlds - the mainstream world free from legal risk, compared to other parts of the net where cares about libel dont seem to exist.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

Corax said:


> Because Waterhouse said so.


 
Of course, almost forgot about that cover-up for a moment...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

DJ Squelch said:


> Richard Webster's website is an interesting counterbalance to the hysteria about paedophile rings going on at the moment.
> 
> - anyway here is an article about a 1999 BBC documentary "_A Place of Safety" _about Bryn Estyn which also interviewed Steven Messham
> *What the BBC did not tell us*
> http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html


 
Interesting, although the author doesn't make any allowance for the nature of memory, which would explain *some* of the evidential flaws he points out.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> Oh piss off, I've spent dozens of hours researching and talking about this stuff on multiple threads in recent weeks. I'm not trying to shutdown discussion at all, what I am more than prepared to do is to point out stupidity. You know, idiots shouting 'super injunction' without any clear basis in fact.
> 
> In this instance I was bemoaning our inability to talk about this stuff in a straightforward way, its a complaint about the situation we find ourselves in right now, with a gulf between two worlds - the mainstream world free from legal risk, compared to other parts of the net where cares about libel dont seem to exist.


 
Blah blah blah, saying nothing again....

Who are you, Michael Mansfield?

He has a knack of saying absolutely fcuk all too, in a most convincing way...

You're wearing a wee wig and gown as you type aren't you _Wannabe Michael ?  _


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

Dandred said:


> Is this actually going to come out in the open or will a D notice be used?


 
Unlikely. Very unlikely that a notice will be issued. There's too much information already in the wind to successfully deter people from seeking further information and stirring the pot. "D notices" are also pretty much rendered useless by the interweb.


----------



## laptop (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> Oh piss off, I've spent dozens of hours researching and talking about this stuff on multiple threads in recent weeks. I'm not trying to shutdown discussion at all, what I am more than prepared to do is to point out stupidity. You know, idiots shouting 'super injunction' without any clear basis in fact.
> 
> In this instance I was bemoaning our inability to talk about this stuff in a straightforward way, its a complaint about the situation we find ourselves in right now, with a gulf between two worlds - the mainstream world free from legal risk, compared to other parts of the net where cares about libel dont seem to exist.


 
Well put. I have a feeling cares about libel are going to hit those other parts before long.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2012)

1%er said:


> Yes , wow 1999 was it really that long ago, time fly's when you're having fun


 
Goes and puts on CD of Raggity Anne's "I3 Years" in honour of the flown time.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

framed said:


> Blah blah blah, saying nothing again....


 
Its not my fault if you are incapable of getting anything out of the numerous unlibelous things of substance that we can talk about here, and have done so in recent weeks. A number of people here were probing over the background to the story newsnight covered yesterday, in the other thread, about a week or more ago.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

laptop said:


> Well put. I have a feeling cares about libel are going to hit those other parts before long.


 
Cheers. I was considering rewriting the lyrics to 'video killed the radio star' to something along the lines of 'twitter killed the libel law', but it may well end up being the other way around.

If I an tetchy about some of the libellous stuff its because it risks breaking these threads. And although there is some real potential in the internet preventing coverup, there has been some rather unjustified collateral damage in recent weeks as people started throwing names around on the net as if they were solid facts instead of stories started by one source.


----------



## framed (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:


> Its not my fault if you are incapable of getting anything out of the numerous unlibelous things of substance that we can talk about here, and have done so in recent weeks. A number of people here were probing over the background to the story newsnight covered yesterday, in the other thread, about a week or more ago.


 
Ah, you're a mind reader as well, are you QC?... Do you have  record of what I've read or said about the subject here and elsewhere?

You're trying to set yourself up as a legal expert on this subject, when you are in fact a delusional censorious Plum who thinks he's Michael Mansfield QC... 

Toodle Pip!


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)




----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 3, 2012)

"The senior Thatcherite accused by Newsnight of being a paedophile may sue for libel. "I've never been a Thatcherite," he told friends."


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 3, 2012)

> It's 10 days since I raised child abuse with the PM. Here's my thoughts on what's happened since: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/11/10-days-that-shook-my-world …


----------



## kenny g (Nov 3, 2012)

He is going to have to get some pretty good coppers on side to help out.

Alot of the skills in the kind of in depth detailed investigation he is looking for have been lost with the advent of CCTV and telecon intel. Also, as previously mentioned, the nature of people's memories, especially after harrowing experiences, is that inconsistencies can creep in to witness statements.

It sounds like a sufficient weight of evidence is being gathered. Let's hope the investigative skills can be gathered and applied.

I can imagine that at this moment plenty of diaries are being lost/ shredded.


----------



## savoloysam (Nov 3, 2012)

I am going to amarillo to drink some port.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 3, 2012)

DJ Squelch said:


> Richard Webster's website is an interesting counterbalance to the hysteria about paedophile rings going on at the moment.
> 
> - anyway here is an article about a 1999 BBC documentary "_A Place of Safety" _about Bryn Estyn which also interviewed Steven Messham
> *What the BBC did not tell us*
> http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html


 
Steven Messham has taken to Twitter.  He doesn't think much of Richard Webster

https://twitter.com/smessham


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2012)

Messham is almost certainly leon btw if anyone hasn't worked that out yet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Messham is almost certainly leon btw if anyone hasn't worked that out yet.


 
???


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ???


Here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 3, 2012)

cheers


----------



## DJ Squelch (Nov 3, 2012)

It's also not hard to guess who Witness B is here, in the Lost In Care report, in the part about Gordon Anglesea's libel case against The Independent On Sunday, The Observer & Private Eye.
http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20111.htm

- and maybe why the BBC don't want to rely on him if it comes to their own libel trial.


----------



## albionism (Nov 4, 2012)

Can someone PM me the name of the Tory ?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 4, 2012)

Google Ian Bone blog.


----------



## albionism (Nov 4, 2012)

Is he back blogging again?


----------



## peterkro (Nov 4, 2012)

Yes,Parkinsons makes video a bit difficult for him.


----------



## Dandred (Nov 4, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Google Ian Bone blog.


 
Name has been removed...

So who is it?

PM please


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2012)

Dandred said:


> Name has been removed...
> 
> So who is it?
> 
> PM please


 
The name is still there - try scrolling down the blog.


----------



## caoineadh7 (Nov 4, 2012)

<ed: not worth the risk>

 Scallywag alleged that MI5 used to take foreign diplomats etc to the North Wales homes, give them boys to "play" with, secretly filmed them as they buggered, abused and tortured boys then kept the tapes as evidence.


----------



## xenon (Nov 4, 2012)

Ffs what is wrong with some of you. Might want to remove that link. Not hard to find presuming people can use the fucking internet.


----------



## Prole (Nov 7, 2012)

kenny g said:


> According to the Nick Davis's article Lord A's son was 25 in 1979 - giving a year of birth as 1954. The one Lord who looked a suitable candidate has sons born far later than that.


http://thepeerage.com/p49032.htm#i490314


> Because of the libel threat only two people can be  connected to the Jillings report. Both are now dead. One is Sir Peter Morrison, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, and one of Thatcher's key aides. His sister is Lady of the Bedchamber to the Queen. One of his more extraordinary achievements is not hearing the IRA bomb go off while staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1985.
> 
> The other is Thomas Kenyon, son of the late Lord Kenyon. Thomas died of Aids three years ago. His brother represents Wales on the EU's Committee of the Regions. These names alone give some indication of the kind of people who might have been named in the report, if they were name-able.
> 
> AU - Whistle-blowers


Thomas Kenyon, Son of Lord Kenyon, Was a Paedophile. | theneedleblog


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 7, 2012)

Prole said:


> http://thepeerage.com/p49032.htm#i490314
> 
> Thomas Kenyon, Son of Lord Kenyon, Was a Paedophile. | theneedleblog


 
That link says he had sex with a 'boy' who was two years below the legal age of consent.  I think I'm right in saying that age was 21 at the time.  Even if it meant the age of consent at the time the source article was written (1997), the law said 18 years old. 

So, having sex with a 16 (or possibly 19 year old) = paedophile now??  He was 25 at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> That link says he had sex with a 'boy' who was two years below the legal age of consent. I think I'm right in saying that age was 21 at the time. Even if it meant the age of consent at the time the source article was written (1997), the law said 18 years old.
> 
> So, having sex with a 16 (or possibly 19 year old) = paedophile now?? He was 25 at the time.


I think it was the claims of rape and molestation that led to the suggestion of paedophilia.


----------



## Prole (Nov 7, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> That link says he had sex with a 'boy' who was two years below the legal age of consent.  I think I'm right in saying that age was 21 at the time.  Even if it meant the age of consent at the time the source article was written (1997), the law said 18 years old.
> 
> So, having sex with a 16 (or possibly 19 year old) = paedophile now??  He was 25 at the time.





> This boy, who was then two years below the age of consent and was supposed to be in the care of the local authority, has now told the tribunal that Thomas Kenyon used him for sex “on numerous occasions”.


It was/is usual for children to leave care at 16 - not sure what the ages of the children in the N Wales children's homes were. The point was that Kenyon wasn't charged with an offence not named by Waterhouse yet the boy had 3 months on remand for theft. The fact that the boy gave evidence to the Inquiry supposes that he viewed it as abuse.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2012)

When trying to do historical research or surf the sloppy side of the internet we will come across issues that are muddied by homophobia or the age of consent. And the term paedophile is already commonly stretched beyond its strict definition.

However in this instance I think its the care home link that causes such terms to be used, for example see that Nick Davies article. Its not just the underage bit, its the 'from one of the homes'.

http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/0...sure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/



> The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-aged boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2012)

Or this from Davies:



> Eventually, aged 16, Leon fled from the home, into Wrexham, and ran straight into the arms of Carpenter, the army cadet instructor who had raped him at weekend camps. Through Carpenter, he was introduced to a group of some 20 men, each of whom, he alleged, took his chance to abuse him – in Carpenter’s flat, in their own homes, in cars, in the stinking red-brick toilet by the bus station. Leon said they tied him up, photographed him, pushed chair legs into him, used him for oral sex and anal sex, used him in orgies, and booked him into a hotel room so their friends could use him too. He named these men. One was a director of a major company. Another was a local authority executive. There was a market trader, two jewellers, and a Roman Catholic priest who came fingering his way into his bed at night. There was a second social worker, who picked Leon up in the toilets half a dozen times and used him for whatever sex he wanted, molesting him in his car, buggering him in Carpenter’s flat. Another was Lord A’s son. And then there was Mr B, the mysterious man with the powerful connections.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2012)

There will be similar problems if the story ever manages to travel further down any of the 'rent-boy' avenues of inquiry. Words like abuse must be joined by words such as exploitation.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 7, 2012)

I just think it's important to be accurate with this sort of stuff, otherwise, as you said elbows, words and their meanings are divorced.

If he raped someone, then calling him a rapist is enough.  Plus "paedophile" doesn't even imply an act has taken place, whereas there is no doubt about "rapist".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 7, 2012)

Prole said:


> It was/is usual for children to leave care at 16 - not sure what the ages of the children in the N Wales children's homes were. The point was that Kenyon wasn't charged with an offence not named by Waterhouse yet the boy had 3 months on remand for theft. The fact that the boy gave evidence to the Inquiry supposes that he viewed it as abuse.


 
Unless parental rights and responsibilities have been taken, and then you're normally in care until you're 18, or has this changed/is different in Wales/was different back then?


----------



## Prole (Nov 8, 2012)

> Allen opened a children's home at Bryn Alyn with 12 staff to provide for up to 20 boys in the age range of 11 to 16 years.





> (b)  Pentre Saeson Hall
> 
> This smaller country house at Bwlchgwyn, near Wrexham, was acquired in 1970 and opened on 27 September that year as a children's home for children younger then those at Bryn Alyn Hall. The provision was intended to be for up to 20 boys between the ages of 11 and 13 years.
> 
> ...


http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20123.htm


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2012)

See from about the 1 minute to 1 minute 30 mark for comments relating to a politician.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 8, 2012)

Philip Scofield has just handed Cameron a list of top Tories who are being implicated in the scandal on This Morning. 

Cameron's in real danger of fucking this up.


----------



## Santino (Nov 8, 2012)

According to Twitter Cameron is at this very moment being publically grilled on this by renowned investigative journalist Philip Schofield.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 8, 2012)

Santino said:


> According to Twitter Cameron is at this very moment being publically grilled on this by renowned investigative journalist Philip Schofield.


 
probably more likely to give him a hard time than the fucking lobby journo's

depressing as that sounds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2012)

Dan U said:


> probably more likely to give him a hard time than the fucking lobby journo's
> 
> depressing as that sounds.


 
Yep. He probably thought he was being dead smart and pulling a Blair by going on there.
Here's hoping Schofield sics Gordon the Gopher on him!


----------



## Dan U (Nov 8, 2012)

handed over a list of alleged paedo's apparently, live on air.

according to guido some of the names were visible to camera. whoops.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 8, 2012)

Tweet from Crick




> *Michael Crick* ‏@*MichaelLCrick*
> Before any MP names him in Commons, I am more + more sceptical whether "senior Conservative official from Thatcher era" is guilty as alleged


 
He's a lobby journo, not an investigative journo and therefore part of the system.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Cameron's in real danger of fucking this up.


can anyone really be expecting anything else?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2012)

Was this going to be blown open by a brave journalist or MP breaching injunctions, standing up to be counted?  No - by David Cameron not understanding the old world of pen and paper, line of sight and cameras. Excellent.


----------



## cesare (Nov 8, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Was this going to be blown open by a brave journalist or MP breaching injunctions, standing up to be counted?  No - by David Cameron not understanding the old world of pen and paper, line of sight and cameras. Excellent.


Certainly an interesting twist on publishing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2012)

the thick of it, again. philip schofield in the malcolm tucker role.


----------



## albionism (Nov 8, 2012)

.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 8, 2012)

Dave 





> There is a danger, if we're not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I'm worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now - giving me a list of names that you've taken off the internet.


 
How does this work?  Exposing Tory paedo's means open season on queer-bashing?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 8, 2012)

ffs albionism. they have made a rule


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2012)

he's saying thick proles can't tell the difference between a nonce & a queer. the cunt.


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2012)

Any screen shots worth finding?


----------



## Chuff (Nov 8, 2012)

trust Cam to spew bile, by asserting the risk he links child abuse to homosexuality, slimy shitbag.


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2012)

Dan U said:


> ffs albionism. they have made a rule



The video on Guido's website that lots of their is seem to veto has the names already blurred, so I would think it'd be safe to link to that...


----------



## Dan U (Nov 8, 2012)

chilango said:


> The video on Guido's website that lots of their is seem to veto has the names already blurred, so I would think it'd be safe to link to that...


 
yeah definitely. albionism named an actual name though.

we all know which name, but until someone in the mainstream breaks cover....


----------



## chilango (Nov 8, 2012)

Fair enough. Couldn't remember what albinism had posted...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 8, 2012)

I only caught the Schofield thing on the evening news.   Seemed like Scho handed dodgy dave a list of alleged paedos in his party and dave put it down without looking at it.

That's not normal behaviour.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 8, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I only caught the Schofield thing on the evening news. Seemed like Scho handed dodgy dave a list of alleged paedos in his party and dave put it down without looking at it.
> 
> That's not normal behaviour.





>


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 8, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Seemed like Scho handed dodgy dave a list of alleged paedos in his party and dave put it down without looking at it.
> 
> That's not normal behaviour.


 
If you're accusing David Cameron of papyrophobia then you'd better have some additional evidence.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 8, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If you're accusing David Cameron of papyrophobia then you'd better have some additional evidence.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 8, 2012)

So is Cameron saying the list is possibly full of closeted gay people but it's natural to suspect such as paedos?   He should certainly have said...this one, he's gay, he's not paedo, never.....and gone through the list....this one, hmmm...know what you mean but nothing's been proved, come on.....this one, don't know him, never met him, heard he was a bit of a prick actually.......and so on.

How long until some mp outs someone in the House?


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2012)

I gave a more detailed version of Camerons point on several occasions recently without getting much flak at all.

Read the Guardian article that names the lord and details mistaken identity issues. Its not the sole basis of Camerons point but its one reason why todays events went down so badly, and why people should hesitate before going off on one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim


----------



## Prole (Nov 8, 2012)

Newsnight attacking Tom Watson and Twitter - talk about effect rather than cause! Along with the Guardian article it feels as if this is all being reigned in now!


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 8, 2012)

Tatchell on the news condemning Cameron over the gays = paedos linkage, I think that Tatchell has too much in his past to make too much noise about paedophilia


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 8, 2012)

That This Morning thing looked so obviously scripted. Dave even fluffed his lines a couple of times.

Phillip behaved himself and shut up when the headmaster told him to mind.


There is a fair point to be made though. The internet is getting way out of hand.


----------



## mowmac (Nov 8, 2012)

sorry, but its not just about mcalpine i am afraid - that is just reduction. it is much wider than him, just cause it may not be him in particular involved makes no difference.

hello - i just registered cause this is a massive topic and i happened upon this thread - bit like walking into a pub and talking to a random group - apologies if this is rude for any of you.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 8, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> ............ I think that Tatchell has too much in his past to make too much noise about paedophilia


 
Are you suggesting that Tatchell has a paedophilic past?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 8, 2012)

mowmac said:


> hello - i just registered cause this is a massive topic and i happened upon this thread - bit like walking into a pub and talking to a random group - apologies if this is rude for any of you.


thats okay, but its your round.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 9, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Are you suggesting that Tatchell has a paedophilic past?


Of course not, but he did contribute to a book defending PIE in the 1980s


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2012)

to be honest i doubt he was the only person that did. thats not the most edifying chapter in the history of the gay rights movement


----------



## mowmac (Nov 9, 2012)

the gay rights slant was a clear trained stance that cameron had in his back pocket, or a spare of the moment slant that he fell upon that has been quickley picked up by some gayrights groups.

but sexual orientation has nothing to do with it gay/straight or other.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 9, 2012)

I think the reason it's been mentioned (homosexuality) is that "underage" in the era we're talking about does not _necessarily_ mean paedophilia, as the law was 21 back then.  They can obviously use this to shut down the interest, as they can say, "oh, the inquiry into underage sex was just because of an unjust law...if it happened today it would be perfectly legal due to the normalisation of age of consent laws" - obviously it wouldn't be said so candidly.

This is why I think people need to stop referring to the "alleged paedophiles", and start calling them abusers/rapists.  There's no squirming out of rape and sexual abuse, whereas the issue is murkier when you have a shifting age of consent.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 9, 2012)

otherwise known as the Johnathan King defence.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 9, 2012)

denied
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20267832


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 9, 2012)

Well if he did do it I'd be surprised if he admitted it.


----------



## Blanche de Vere (Nov 9, 2012)

McAlpine is a red herring to distract attention away from the assumed real culprit.

<editor: deleted>

Maybe the time is right for him to respond to those allegations in view of the suffering of young boys we now know about. It's only right to give him a chance to prove his innocence, right?


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2012)

Blanche de Vere said:


> It's only right to give him a chance to prove his innocence, right?


Maybe but it's certainly not right to put this site at risk by posting up unsupported allegations. Don't do it please.

Please read this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...threads-and-naming-living-individuals.300541/


----------



## Blanche de Vere (Nov 9, 2012)

I'm really sorry as I wouldn't want to risk this site, having just found it!  And I don't want to get anyone into trouble.  I have re-phrased my post on a similar thread which is merely asking questions, rather than making any allegations.  Thank you for bringing such indiscretion to my attention.  Mea Culpa.


----------



## scalyboy (Nov 9, 2012)

"Lord McAlpine gets man's apology over abuse claims -

Steve Messham said a case of mistaken identity had led to peer Lord McAlpine being linked to the claims.

It comes as the solicitor for Lord McAlpine threatened legal action against those who had linked him to the historical child abuse claims.

Mr Messham offered "sincere and humble apologies to him and his family".

In a statement on Friday evening, he said: "After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114

I'm more confused now than ever  The _police_ told him that a photo of someone else was McAlpine?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2012)

Relative?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 9, 2012)

Or he's baulked at the threat of legal action. As I said on the other thread, he's had _years_ to ascertain if he had the right man or not, unless he's never used google image search which I find unlikely.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2012)

Maybe it's all got a little too scary....and the threat of legal action also.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Or he's baulked at the threat of legal action. As I said on the other thread, he's had _years_ to ascertain if he had the right man or not, unless he's never used google image search which I find unlikely.


mcalpine's denial does leave him open to fairly easy rebuttal if he isn't telling the truth, because it's not as though someone would just drive into a children's home, bugger a few of the inmates and then fuck off (as it were), they'd leave a trail. for example, if someone doing that sort of thing didn't live nearby they'd likely stop in a hotel or round a friend's house. but they'd also go for a meal, for a couple of pints, for a round of golf. the sort of things a tory bigwig might be expected to do...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 9, 2012)

I suppose in McAlpine's favour, unlike Savile, there doesn't seem to be a torrent of fellow victims coming forward to verify the claims, to our knowledge.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> otherwise known as the Johnathan King defence.


 
Flimsier's old groomer boss


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Relative?


 
Brilliant piece  of speculation.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Brilliant piece of speculation.


 


It has been reported that one of LM's relatives lived nearby and that there is a possibility that the 'boys' could have mixed the two up, especially as it appears the police named him. So....take those rolls eyes, your out of the blue nastiness and try baiting someone who gives a shit what _you_ think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Flimsier's old groomer boss


 
Oooh, you bitch!!!


----------



## Prole (Nov 10, 2012)

The Mail does a decent job of keeping the focus on establishment figures and mentions both Morrison and LM's relative.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2012)

Today Interview with Entwisle

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9768000/9768406.stm


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 10, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> It has been reported that one of LM's relatives lived nearby and that there is a possibility that the 'boys' could have mixed the two up, especially as it appears the police named him. So....take those rolls eyes, your out of the blue nastiness and try baiting someone who gives a shit what _you_ think.


 
Yes, let's do some more unfounded speculation, that ended SO WELL LAST TIME


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 10, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> Yes, let's do some more unfounded speculation, that ended SO WELL LAST TIME


It's true. The McAlpine family is based in NW England and North Wales.


----------



## JHE (Nov 10, 2012)

It does surprise me that in the BBC investigation the star witness was not presented with a picture of Lord M and asked, "Is this the man who raped you?"  It is an obvious step to take and, it now seems, would have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 10, 2012)

The time line of this is that it was the internet who had ascertained who Lord A and son were i.e. Lord Kenton (both dead) It was already becoming agreed that the fusilier was a case of mistaken identity - then the article is published in the Guardian naming him on Thursday night and suddenly a firestorm of shit is whipped up in an attempt to discredit. If it had not been for internet digging over the past week very little of this would have been dug up - and very possible contenders for the role of Mr B identified.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 10, 2012)

JHE said:


> It does surprise me that in the BBC investigation the star witness was not presented with a picture of Lord M and asked, "Is this the man who raped you?" It is an obvious step to take and, it now seems, would have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.


 
In a criminal investigation  you don't show one picture of a suspect and say, "is this the man". It would contaminate the evidence. That's why you have identification suites. Truly astonished the the popo never did this. There weren't that many fat rich fuckers in rollers in the area whose photo's could have been mixed in with photos of others. If witnesses identified a particular lardie then he would be your man. Hardly investigative rocket science.


----------



## Corax (Nov 10, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> Yes, let's do some more unfounded speculation, that ended SO WELL LAST TIME


"Speculation" is right, but "unfounded" is overstating it a little isn't it?  The surname given to Meesham and photo shown to him are a foundation.  Not saying the conclusion is correct (how could I know?), but let's not pretend it's been plucked from thin air.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2012)

Corax said:


> "Speculation" is right, but "unfounded" is overstating it a little isn't it?


 
Makes you wonder what ExtraRefined is trying to hide!!


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 10, 2012)

I would like to say for the record that I've never been to Wales, and don't really know what it is. Is it in the North?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> I would like to say for the record that I've never been to Wales, and don't really know what it is. Is it in the North?


 
No. It's part of Bristol.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 10, 2012)

It's east Ireland.


----------



## magneze (Nov 10, 2012)

David Steele: "The people who run the internet have questions to answer."


----------



## Corax (Nov 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> David Steele: "The people who run the internet have questions to answer."


I reckon that entrepreneur interweb magnate with the dreadlocks has much to answer for.


----------



## kenny g (Nov 10, 2012)

How steel can speak about this after his comments on Cyril Smith fuck knows.


----------



## JHE (Nov 10, 2012)

kenny g said:


> In a criminal investigation you don't show one picture of a suspect and say, "is this the man". It would contaminate the evidence. That's why you have identification suites. Truly astonished the the popo never did this. There weren't that many fat rich fuckers in rollers in the area whose photo's could have been mixed in with photos of others. If witnesses identified a particular lardie then he would be your man. Hardly investigative rocket science.


 
Fair enough, but the situation here was not a victim going to the police, but a victim telling journalists that he identified one of the culprits to Plod and that Plod had told him the person was Lord M.  The very simple procedure I suggested would have been useful.  If the Beeb journos had followed the sort of procedure you suggest, so much the better, but the sad fact is that they didn't even perform the simplest check of the ID that had, apparently, been given to the victim by Plod.  It is surprising.  These journos are not idiots and they are habitually sceptical of what they are told, aren't they?


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2012)

Looks like it'll be al over for Iain Overton http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-scoop-rumour

What a prat


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2012)

belboid said:


> Looks like it'll be al over for Iain Overton http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-scoop-rumour
> 
> What a prat


Someone (elbows?) picked up on that drink that night last week. It looks to em like the set up that i suggested at the time. Getting rather angry over this aspect now.


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2012)

Set up?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2012)

where to said:


> Set up?


Set up as in _i'll tweet something with my non followers and you with your legion followers question me about it._


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2012)

Possible. To pressure BBC/ NN into going ahead with broadcast?

Shiv malik spoke to IO immediately after tweet and he regretted sending it already.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2012)

where to said:


> Possible. To pressure BBC/ NN into going ahead with broadcast?
> 
> Shiv malik spoke to IO immediately after tweet and he regretted sending it already.


That was my reading of it. Not very subtle pressure.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2012)

Not half as much as he regrets not showing Messham a picture of McAlpine, I bet


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2012)

Overton has resigned and two bbc news big-wigs get to 'step aside' on full pay until inquiries finsish. Entwhistle pockets half a million in cash and a million quid pension. 54 days work - which was shoddy that he was forced to resign.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2012)

Anyone seen the Mail (sunday) David Rose attack on messham? That can be taken apart piece by piece? For example:



> Newsnight’s key claim that Messham was prevented from naming Lord McAlpine and other supposed paedophiles at the Waterhouse inquiry was clearly untrue. Transcripts show Messham could say whatever he liked about anyone he chose – and that he did so with abandon over his two weeks of testimony, during which time he did allege that a man referred to only as ‘McAlpine’ had abused him.


 
The claim was that _the media_ were banned from reporting the names, not the people giving testimony. An outright fabrication that's arguably worse than the newsnight shoddyness.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The claim was that _the media_ were banned from reporting the names, not the people giving testimony. An outright fabrication that's arguably worse than the newsnight shoddyness.


 
Sadly Messham did make that claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ld-abuse-against-leading-Tory-politician.html



> “I don’t understand why on Earth we had an inquiry when we had to leave out 30% of the abusers,” Mr Messham said in his latest interview.
> “And basically I was told to do that. I was told I couldn’t go into detail about these people, I couldn’t name them and they wouldn’t question me on them.”


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 12, 2012)

Ian Bone says that the article has been taken off the website. It seems they knew it was dodgy. Instead, they've got that arsehole Andrew Pierce doing a hatchet-job on Watson.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Ian Bone says that the article has been taken off the website. It seems they knew it was dodgy. Instead, they've got that arsehole Andrew Pierce doing a hatchet-job on Watson.


It's still there under a diff url.





elbows said:


> Sadly Messham did make that claim.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ld-abuse-against-leading-Tory-politician.html


Balls


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 12, 2012)

anyone else think that all this is becoming a bit more fishy by the second, its almost like someone had been set up, and therefore creating doubt about what anyone says, its almost like the gov could see how big this was going to get and has deliberately caused somethnig to discredit the whole investigations....?

( im not a conspiraloon, but just saying, there is def something rotten in denmark, *shurgs* )


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's still there under a diff url.Balls


Found it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ory-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html


----------



## TitanSound (Nov 12, 2012)

ruffneck23 said:


> anyone else think that all this is becoming a bit more fishy by the second, its almost like someone had been set up, and therefore creating doubt about what anyone says, its almost like the gov could see how big this was going to get and has deliberately caused somethnig to discredit the whole investigations....?
> 
> ( im not a conspiraloon, but just saying, there is def something rotten in denmark, *shurgs* )


 
You don't have to be a conspiraloon to know that this kind of shit goes on all the time.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 12, 2012)

It's probably worth grabbing that article in case it goes.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 12, 2012)

funny thing is, it wasnt this part that got me thinking like this, it was Phillip Schofield, im starting to suspect him and Dave were in cahoots all along, 

( ok now im starting to sound like a loon  )


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 12, 2012)

Badger Kitten said:


> It's probably worth grabbing that article in case it goes.


I've screengrabbed parts of it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 12, 2012)

ruffneck23 said:


> anyone else think that all this is becoming a bit more fishy by the second, its almost like someone had been set up, and therefore creating doubt about what anyone says, its almost like the gov could see how big this was going to get and has deliberately caused somethnig to discredit the whole investigations....?
> 
> ( im not a conspiraloon, but just saying, there is def something rotten in denmark, *shurgs* )


Quite and the way in which the right-wing press has rallied to castigate Watson tells us a great deal. Some try to reduce this to a simplistic "it's because they hate the Tories" line. In the long run, this line of attack is going to look more and more feeble.


----------



## elbows (Nov 12, 2012)

The Daily Mail are overplaying their hand and being too obvious arent they?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...astrophic-Lord-McAlpine-Newsnight-report.html



> A senior adviser helping Lord Leveson's inquiry into press standards is a trustee of the organisation behind the shambolic Newsnight report that falsely implicated Lord McAlpine as a paedophile, it has emerged.​​Sir David Bell is on the board of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, whose botched investigation into abuse at a north Wales children's home has left its reputation in tatters.​​The former chairman of the Financial Times is also one of six senior figures aiding Leveson's inquiry, whose official report is due out this month.​


​Not related to my above point but from the same article:​​


> MailOnline has been told Mr Overton was diagnosed with a serious and life-changing illness that led to him consuming 'potent medication' and ‘taking his eye off the ball' as the investigation was put together by his staff, a source close to him said.




​


----------



## Badgers (Nov 12, 2012)

Metro paper revelling in it like the others. Also ran a photo of an 'untarnished' 14 year old Kate Moss today the fucking cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2012)

elbows said:


> The Daily Mail are overplaying their hand and being too obvious arent they?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...astrophic-Lord-McAlpine-Newsnight-report.html
> 
> ...


 
Dacre is bricking himself about Leveson, hence the snidery, flim-flam and monstering. He's convinced that Leveson is going to kick the PCC out and impose a quasi-overseen complaints process, and given he's the honcho of a paper *and* on the PCC's board, you can see that he may come out of this with a thick coating of shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Metro paper revelling in it like the others. Also ran a photo of an 'untarnished' 14 year old Kate Moss today the fucking cunts.


 
You missed the word "hypocritical" between "fucking" and "cunts".


----------



## evolution68 (Nov 13, 2012)

I am an ex of one of the victims and having gone through the first enquiry with my then husband I can honestly tell you this went wider than North Wales. When children complained they were moved into other counties, I remember sitting in my frontroom one night (1993) when West Mercier CID turned up to make enquiries.
The then victims were told only so much would come to light, those involved always knew the cover up would apply and names would not come to light. Just as victims will only tell what they can deal with. Many spent their lives fighting against the horrors they had survived and didn't want it to be rememebered at all, so they built a wall around it in their minds. Many victims found ways of coping with the horrors, some went on to work with victims themselves, some turned to crime, some to drugs, some went on to become physical abusers and less we forget the ones that could no longer live with the pain and ended their lives, whether this be through shame, not coping or just living with the knowledge nobody believed them.  Justice will never be served for them or the familes left grieving.
I spent 21 years surviving my own abuse (physical and mental) from the hands of the man that suffered at the hands of others. As much as I will never understand him for the years he took from me I do understand his pain. Once you sit with the person you love crying in your arms while he shares the horrors of his life in care homes you find it somewhere to forgive. I couldn't take it any longer and left because I knew after all that time I could not help him and I had to help myself and our children.
Although we are no longer married I hate that today he may be reliving his nightmares again, the ones he thought he'd buried when he married and had a family, ones that he thought he'd found closure on in early 2000's. I am the first to say abuse CAN NOT and MUST NOT be covered up, I can only hope and pray that this time it is investigated properly, for the sake of everyone involved. Obviously it hasn't been handled in the correct manner so far but as soon as I saw the first news clip I just knew it wouldn't be. I beg the government and those who have the power NO MORE COVER UPS..... The victims and their familes deserve better.
Sorry to go on, I know its not following on from the last comment but I just needed to post a point of view from someone who was there during the first enquiry.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 13, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Quite and the way in which the right-wing press has rallied to castigate Watson tells us a great deal. Some try to reduce this to a simplistic "it's because they hate the Tories" line. In the long run, this line of attack is going to look more and more feeble.


 
Saw some nutty Tory pumping out this "It's just a bunch of Lefties attacking the Tories line" on I think it was BBC Rolling News   -- the goon claimed that the Newnight presenters were practically drooling with (no doubt communistic) glee as they announced the unveiling of a LEADING TORY ABUSER .  Strange.. I saw the programme and I didn't detect that . And to suggest that Newsnight has any sort of Left Wing Bias (with the possible exception of Paul Mason) is a hoot -- given that on a typical evenings prog there isn't usually  anyone being interviewed to the left of the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Saw some nutty Tory pumping out this "It's just a bunch of Lefties attacking the Tories line" on I think it was BBC Rolling News -- the goon claimed that the Newnight presenters were practically drooling with (no doubt communistic) glee as they announced the unveiling of a LEADING TORY ABUSER . Strange.. I saw the programme and I didn't detect that . And to suggest that Newsnight has any sort of Left Wing Bias (with the possible exception of Paul Mason) is a hoot -- given that on a typical evenings prog there isn't usually anyone being interviewed to the left of the Wall Street Journal.


That says a great deal about the psychology of the Tories who queue up to spout that shite on telly: irrational, paranoid and of the belief that they're born to rule and anyone who opposes them is plain "evil".

I agree, there's about as much "left-wing bias" on Newsnight as there is in the Telegraph, i.e. none.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2012)

> MT @*MarkWatts_1*: It was Lord (Alistair) McAlpine who didn’t do it. There is still a seismic story involving other senior ex-Tory ministers.


 


> @*pauldrummonday* Still working on it. Shall write piece for @*ExaroNews* this week on where we are - so far as pos (necessarily limited).


 


> *Mark Watts* ‏@*MarkWatts_1*
> @*thepoettrap* @*pauldrummonday* @*Music_Mystery* We were 99% sure, but needed 100% before publishing. But yes, there's no doubt about it now.


 
https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1


----------



## Corax (Nov 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Saw some nutty Tory pumping out this "It's just a bunch of Lefties attacking the Tories line" on I think it was BBC Rolling News -- the goon claimed that the Newnight presenters were practically drooling with (no doubt communistic) glee as they announced the unveiling of a LEADING TORY ABUSER . Strange.. I saw the programme and I didn't detect that . And to suggest that Newsnight has any sort of Left Wing Bias (with the possible exception of Paul Mason) is a hoot -- given that on a typical evenings prog there isn't usually anyone being interviewed to the left of the Wall Street Journal.


You have to adjust your perspective.  Those at the right of the spectrum genuinely believe that there's a left-wing conspiracy, because they genuinely believe that anything to the left of their own neo-con PoV is socialism.



evolution68 said:


> <snip>


Nothing to add to your post evolution68, but just wanted to say thanks for posting it.  I'm sure it wasn't easy.


----------



## Woollyredhat (Nov 13, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> https://twitter.com/MarkWatts_1


 

Sounds like story which Watts is speaking of could be ground breaking.... sounds like they have some pretty solid leads; This doesn't seem to be going away.

ETA: Just to elaborate, there is the idea and it is suggested by the widow of Mark Humphreys, who was a North Wales abuse victim, that he was also shown a photograph and given the name McAlpine by police. His wife asks if the victims were misled.. i.e given a certain picture, that was misidentified by the police, seemingly not once but twice. This feeds into Watts reporting that not only is the political aspect going to be covered but also police involement. Whether it relates directly to this case is not clear, but I think it could be on a wide scale in itself, which would back up the narrative that is being purported of police cover-up, destorying evidence that could of been vital and not listening to victims complaints.
Link to Ciaran Jenkins page: https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran
The above is from C4 news report from 10th of November, in which they interviewed Humphreys wife.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2012)

Woollyredhat said:


> This feeds into Watts reporting that not only is the political aspect going to be covered but also police involement. Whether it relates directly to this case is not clear


 
Watts made it clear a few days back that its not about the North Wales stuff.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 14, 2012)

Very good account of what went wrong in new Private Eye, including a detailed breakdown of Steve Messham and previous evidence he's given. If PE's take is true, the BBC really messed it up at every level and theres no hint of conspiracy


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

I havent read the latest PE but can well imagine how they could make a compelling case about that. Although we were gentle enough not to piss on a victim on this forum, many of the problems were touched on by people on u75 well before the Guardian article, and even the hideous Daily Mail managed to construct an ugly attack piece that was not relying on utter lies to make its case.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2012)

The BBC should have gone with Cyril Smith rather than the dodgy allegations they went on with the former senior Tory


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 14, 2012)

> *Peers demand child abuse investigation is dropped*
> 
> 
> Politics.co.uk – 10 hours ago
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

I very much doubt they would dare drop it now, it would look too dodgy.


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2012)

marty21 said:


> The BBC should have gone with Cyril Smith rather than the dodgy allegations they went on with the former senior Tory


 
I'm still waiting for more about Peter Morrison, the dead Tory whose name gets bandied around by other tories but we've heard very little about the details of what he did or the evidence.

Meanwhile the Cyril Smith thing at least gets some decent mainstream attention now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20329227




> "He said: 'You've got to be punished, take your pants down' and he bent me over his knee.
> "He spanked me very, very hard - I was in tears and I asked him to stop.
> "After that, for quite a long time, he was stroking my bottom and touching me, saying: 'There, there. It's for the best'."
> Mr Fitton, who waived his right to anonymity, added the punishment had been "obviously" sexual and that he had been left feeling "ashamed".
> ...


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

See other thread for MI5 development in regards the Cyril Smith file.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

I see McAlpine's solicitor is threatening to take legal action against every single person who named him in the press or on the internet (including Tweets and RTs).


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I see McAlpine's solicitor is threatening to take legal action against every single person who named him in the press or on the internet (including Tweets and RTs).


Good luck with that is all I can say.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

I'll be in the dock - with Ian Bone.  Any others?  If he comes after me I'm going to talk about the role of McAlpine in the construction blacklisting.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'll be in the dock - with Ian Bone. Any others? If he comes after me I'm going to talk about the role of McAlpine in the construction blacklisting.


If he wanted to sue everyone on Twitter, it would take years, if not decades. He'll be dead before then.


----------



## ayatollah (Nov 15, 2012)

"Free the McAlpine 1,000,000". Just think of the benefit gigs !


----------



## where to (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I'll be in the dock - with Ian Bone.  Any others?  If he comes after me I'm going to talk about the role of McAlpine in the construction blacklisting.



Good luck with that. Worst thing you could do, will show you up as using it as opportunity to act on greivance. You'll be slaughtered.

Best defence may be attack the inherent inequity of establishment/ media etc all having acceess to this info but not us. Eg Savile, they all knew. Why should they all know and be in position to protect their kids be we can't, that sort of thing. Pointing out that at time it appeared these same people considered him guilty and were able to warn eachother about him.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

good line - but I still want to talk about blacklisting -


----------



## where to (Nov 15, 2012)

It doesn't make hom a paedo though.  Suicide.

Do libel cases have juries?


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2012)

where to said:


> It doesn't make hom a paedo though.  Suicide.
> 
> Do libel cases have juries?


Libel's a civil action, isn't it? I thought you only had juries on criminal cases. Could be wrong though.

Edit: yes, I am wrong!


----------



## belboid (Nov 15, 2012)

where to said:


> Do libel cases have juries?


Not as a rule, (mostly) abolished last year. Could be one for such a high profile case tho


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2012)

where to said:


> Good luck with that. Worst thing you could do, will show you up as using it as opportunity to act on greivance. You'll be slaughtered.
> 
> Best defence may be attack the inherent inequity of establishment/ media etc all having acceess to this info but not us. Eg Savile, they all knew. Why should they all know and be in position to protect their kids be we can't, that sort of thing. Pointing out that at time it appeared these same people considered him guilty and were able to warn eachother about him.


 
Yes his 'good character' would presumably be relevant if the court found in his favour and was setting damages. I can't see a judge agreeing that fucking over workers shows bad character, though, with judges being as they are.

I can also imagine solicitors trawling through twitter etc to issue letters to people inviting them to settle out of court, as with the record companies.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

yes I'm sure - the solicitor was on the radio encouraging people to write to them and settle because it will be cheaper that way.  But are they really going to come after every Twitter user who made a comment?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes I'm sure - the solicitor was on the radio encouraging people to write to them and settle because it will be cheaper that way. But are they really going to come after every Twitter user who made a comment?


It would cost a lot of money to pursue such a case. The money spent on pursuing people would probably dwarf any damages awarded by the court(s).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 15, 2012)

Hes saying that being a figure of widespread public hatred was 'shattering'.

Surely any defence solicitor worth his salt would point out that as a tory he should be fucking used to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I see McAlpine's solicitor is threatening to take legal action against every single person who named him in the press or on the internet (including Tweets and RTs).


 
Aside from the fact that to do so would be administratively-impossible (issuing a thousand writs would be difficult, issuing tens or hundreds of thousands a Sisyphean task), I doubt McAlpine himself is that stupid.  I do hope he hasn't retained Schillings. Their "aggressive reputation management" policies have backfired on them, of late.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> If he wanted to sue everyone on Twitter, it would take years, if not decades. He'll be dead before then.


 
One can only hope.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 15, 2012)

In situations like these don't they just line up someone suitable to make an example of?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> It would cost a lot of money to pursue such a case. The money spent on pursuing people would probably dwarf any damages awarded by the court(s).


 
Surely they'd just add their bill onto the damages claim - he'd be going for damages plus legal costs. Just because lawyers charge silly money for their work doesn't seem to dissuade judges from awarding costs.


----------



## agricola (Nov 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Surely they'd just add their bill onto the damages claim - he'd be going for damages plus legal costs. Just because lawyers charge silly money for their work doesn't seem to dissuade other lawyers from awarding costs.


 
I hope you dont mind, but I have corrected your post for you.

Meanwhile DLT has been arrested, according to the BBC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> yes I'm sure - *the solicitor was on the radio encouraging people to write to them and settle because it will be cheaper that way*. But are they really going to come after every Twitter user who made a comment?


 
Speculative bollocks _a la_ that twat working for the BPI. Anyone who does so is a muppet. As for going after every twitter user, unless you can serve a writ via twitter, they're going to have to spend some readies tracking back people from their twitter identities to their *actual* identities. It's not as simple as resolving an IP, especially givenm that a significant minority of twitterers use PAYG phones, which won't necessarily be registered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hes saying that being a figure of widespread public hatred was 'shattering'.
> 
> Surely any defence solicitor worth his salt would point out that as a tory he should be fucking used to it.


 
Fucking A!!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Surely they'd just add their bill onto the damages claim - he'd be going for damages plus legal costs. Just because lawyers charge silly money for their work doesn't seem to dissuade judges from awarding costs.


Aye, true but this kind of thing will take years. I can't see McAlpine living forever.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> One can only hope.


Fingers crossed. Without any allegations of pederasty, he's still a nasty piece of work.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Aye, true but this kind of thing will take years. I can't see McAlpine living forever.


 
So it just needs one person to take upon themselves the sins of the world to free all the rest?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Surely they'd just add their bill onto the damages claim - he'd be going for damages plus legal costs. Just because lawyers charge silly money for their work doesn't seem to dissuade judges from awarding costs.


 
The law firms still have to pay their paralegals, researchers, investigators etc in the interim, so they could be down a lot of wonga before any putative settlement.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The law firms still have to pay their paralegals, researchers, investigators etc in the interim, so they could be down a lot of wonga before any putative settlement.


 
'work experience'


----------



## teqniq (Nov 15, 2012)

@VP it is indeed speculative bollocks however the Twitter account will have been set up using a valid email address. If, like me you don't use your real name on Twitter and likewise in the linked email account then that will afford some security. Not that I have said anything at all derogatory about McAlpine on there - or indeed anything at all oh no. With this in mind someone should maybe consider starting a concerted campaign on there concerning his blacklisting of construction workers. something he will find nigh on impossible to refute.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> 'work experience'


 
The idea of them using people on Work Experience or similar to do the gruntwork on this appeals to me.
"Whoops, accidentally deleted that list of twitterers we uncovered. Oh well, what do they expect? We're only dolies, after all!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2012)

teqniq said:


> @VP it is indeed speculative bollocks however the Twitter account will have been set up using a valid email address. If, like me you don't use your real name on Twitter and likewise in the linked email account then that will afford some security.


 
Fair point. I do (mistakenly) tend to presume that other people take the same precautions as I do, but some folk *are* a bit naive about security.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 15, 2012)

Lord McAlpine: Newsnight consigned me to lowest circle of hell

Whilst I would be perhaps tempted to offer a crumb of sympathy I would like to suggest to McAlpine that the lowest circle of hell is most probably inhabited by construction workers who he denied the chance to earn a decent living. Strangely I appear to have mislaid said crumb.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

i nearly Tweeted what a fat hairy nonce DLT is - and thought I better not given he's not been found guilty yet and I can't afford one libel action never mind two


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> i nearly Tweeted what a fat hairy nonce DLT is - and thought I better not given he's not been found guilty yet and I can't afford one libel action never mind two


 
Well that raises another question. Traditionally those targeted with libel action are deemed to have enough money to make it worthwhile. Its one of the reasons Scallywag got away with some stuff back in the day, they always said 'we've got no money!".

Meanwhile in one interview I believe McAlpines lawyer was advising people to step forward voluntarily and confess their sins against McAlpine, with the implication that they can come to a financial arrangement without all the legal hassle!!!


----------



## articul8 (Nov 15, 2012)

bollocks to that - let them find me first.  And then I'll get some advice on my chances.


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

Indeed. In any case at this stage they are targeting high-profile twits such as Sally Bercow, not entirely clear whether they will go beyond 'make example of high-profile people who presumably have some money'. Monbiot is grovelling profusely.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2012)

Why has Jimmy dropped off the agenda?  Is that no longer plausible?


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

> *Sky News Newsdesk* ‏@*SkyNewsBreak*
> BBC are to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 in settlement


----------



## marty21 (Nov 15, 2012)

nice wedge - no doubt some will make it into Tory coffers


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Monbiot is grovelling profusely.


business as usual then


----------



## two sheds (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't quite understand why they had to pay that amount if they didn't actually name him.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I don't quite understand why they had to pay that amount if they didn't actually name him.


 
As license payers, aren't *we *paying him, or do the BBC have some kind of private insurance contingency stash somewhere?


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> As license payers, aren't *we *paying him, or do the BBC have some kind of private insurance contingency stash somewhere?


Same thing in any case.


----------



## Greebozz (Nov 15, 2012)

If he is worried about being publicly hated, I think going round and filling his boots with every penny of compensation he can get is not going to help his cause in that department.

I absolutely loathe his pompous pugnacious diatribes. He said he was terrified of being hated by the public, he is a Tory for fucks sake. Just another person trying to get as much compensation as they can get by doing the old Poor me act. totally odious I truly hope that he becomes more hated than it obviously is already.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 15, 2012)

> *Rakehell Obi* ‏@*Rakehell_Obi*
> McAlpine lawyer has urged those who had named him on the social media site Twitter to come forward - or else what, you deluded idiot?


 
Someone is getting a little carried away...


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2012)

So... if I tweet that he sucks donkey dong, will I get sued?


----------



## laptop (Nov 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> elbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hardly business as usual for a posh git with no analysis to grovel?

Even-posher even-gittier types do have their uses


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> So... if I tweet that he sucks donkey dong, will I get sued?


 
How reliable is your donkey?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2012)

laptop said:


> Hardly business as usual for a posh git with no analysis to grovel?
> 
> Even-posher even-gittier types do have their uses


Monobot has made a career out of toadying the right people


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2012)

I've definitely called him a twat on here. I stand by that comment though.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> How reliable is your donkey?


 
Eee-Awww't to know better!


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> How reliable is your donkey?


Never let me down when the cameras are rolling and it's time for the money-shot.


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> Never let me down when the cameras are rolling and it's time for the money-shot.


 
Can he manage reshoots ok if the first take is ruined by a hair in the gate? (RIP Peter Cook)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 16, 2012)

You're making a mule of this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> You're making a mule of this.


 
And you, sir, have just made an ass of yourself!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2012)

I'd retort in kind but unfortunately I'm a little hoarse.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2012)

I had to rein in my comments ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2012)

It was unfair to saddle you with the blame.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 16, 2012)

I bridle at this sort of thing.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 18, 2012)

Paxman's leaving Newsnight 

Cheerio horseface.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 18, 2012)

Good. He's shit.


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

The end of an era that was long past its sell by date.


----------



## laptop (Nov 18, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Paxman's leaving Newsnight
> 
> Cheerio horseface.


 

*Jeremy Paxman Back At Newsnight On Wednesday, Says BBC*


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

The thing is its obvious he has been getting steadily more pissed off with it all for ages now, and as he isnt a million miles away from retirement its only a matter of time. But I wish someone had said that him leaving was just a report in the Mirror rather than some confirmed truth.

Not that I actually bother to watch newsnight these days, and the BBC is only really fun when the establishment is divided over something, such as in the run-up to the Iraq war.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 18, 2012)

laptop said:


> *Jeremy Paxman Back At Newsnight On Wednesday, Says BBC*


 


We want Mair!


----------



## binka (Nov 18, 2012)

as if paxman would choose to leave newsnight - what does he work like 2 days a week on average?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 18, 2012)

Surely they are on a wind up?  10,000? erm, right then!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 18, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> View attachment 25212
> 
> Surely they are on a wind up?  10,000? erm, right then!


 
According to some tweets this morning, people were saying The Times had said that he'd like Twitter users who used his name to donate a nominal amount (maybe £5) to a charity 

I never checked the story though as was busy doing other things


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2012)

> Lord McAlpine sues ITV for £500,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9686691/Lord-McAlpine-sues-ITV-for-500000.html … I did not even know his name had appeared on this show till now, did you?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 19, 2012)

binka said:


> as if paxman would choose to leave newsnight - what does he work like 2 days a week on average?


funniest paxman moment was when they were doing a piece on class and the toff he was trying to hit with the class stick uturned around and said 'Lord Snowsbuy (not real name, some Lord or other) asked me to tell you he looks forward to seeing you at the manor for some grouse shooting this weekend' - Paxman genuinely caught off guard on that one.

id love to see him getting the chop, personally.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2012)

More about Peter Morrison, Simon Hoggart had this amazing anecdote in his weekly diary in Saturday's Guardian :



> More on the late Peter Morrison, the paedophile who was also Margaret Thatcher's parliamentary private secretary. Grahame Nicholls, who ran the Chester Trades Council when Morrison was the local MP, wrote describing how he'd often met Morrison, who was by the 1980s pretty well constantly drunk.
> 
> "After the 1987 general election, around 1990, I attended a meeting of Chester Labour Party where we were informed by the agent, Christine Russell, that Peter Morrison would not be standing in 1992. He had been caught in the toilets at Crewe station with a 15-year-old boy. A deal was struck between Labour, the local Tories, the local press and the police that if he stood down at the next election the matter would go no further. Chester finished up with Gyles Brandreth and Morrison walked away scot-free. I thought you might be interested."
> 
> This was only a year and a half after his failed, boozy campaign to save Mrs Thatcher. Incredible that she – presumably – had no idea, and that such deals could be struck then.


 
Incredible indeed! No further comment.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 19, 2012)

dunno if someone's posted this before but this is class!

http://newsthump.com/2012/11/19/pro...er-tweets-linking-them-to-conservative-party/


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

Paxman stepping down will mean he'll write more books about stuff


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

Paxman stepping down will mean he'll write more books about stuff


----------



## elbows (Nov 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> More about Peter Morrison, Simon Hoggart had this amazing anecdote in his weekly diary in Saturday's Guardian :
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible indeed! No further comment.


 
Thanks, thats the sort of thing I had been waiting for in regards to Morrison and I'd probably have missed it if you hadnt mentioned it.I've got some work to do right now but will no doubt rant about this more later.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 19, 2012)

I am hearing that senior prominent paedos are taking legal action after being linked to the Conservative party


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 19, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> According to some tweets this morning, people were saying The Times had said that he'd like Twitter users who used his name to donate a nominal amount (maybe £5) to a charity
> 
> I never checked the story though as was busy doing other things


 


> ...Lawyers said the McAlpine case could potentially involve the largest number of defendants in British legal history. [Alan] Davies, who appears on the BBC2 panel show QI, asked his 440,000 followers on Twitter “Any clues as to who this Tory paedophile is . . . ?” before retweeting a response naming McAlpine.
> 
> His comments were made amid intense speculation about the identity of a senior Conservative wrongly accused of child abuse on BBC2’s Newsnight programme. Davies last night declined to comment. Lawyers for McAlpine, 70, have announced legal action for libel against a “very long list” of those who repeated the false claims using Twitter.
> 
> ...


http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/People/article1165363.ece (£)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

> and will donate the money to a prominent children’s charity..


 

doing a lot for charity


----------



## laptop (Nov 19, 2012)

marty21 said:


> I am hearing that senior prominent paedos are taking legal action after being linked to the Conservative party


 
50 million people abused by senior conservative during the 1980s


----------



## Chook (Nov 19, 2012)

Waiting  for Gove to complain about the "chilling effect" this will have on Twitter users and posters worldwide. Remember, people are corporations too.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 19, 2012)

How on earth are the level of libel payout determined? Presumably the BBC settled for £185k since they thought they'd face a similar payout in court. Why would a judge think that having people think you were a pedo for a few days was such a terrible injury, that a payout dozens of times higher than most personal injury claims was reasonable?


----------



## Chook (Nov 19, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> How on earth are the level of libel payout determined? Presumably the BBC settled for £185k since they thought they'd face a similar payout in court. Why would a judge think that having people think you were a pedo for a few days was such a terrible injury, that a payout dozens of times higher than most personal injury claims was reasonable?


 
Max Mosely received much less. Wasn't Max's payout a record at the time?

From Wiki : "Mosley sought an injunction to prevent the re-publication of the video of him and five prostitutes from being put back onto the Internet. However, this was denied as Justice Eady concluded that the video was too widely available for the injunction to serve any purpose." That sound like common sense to me, however uncomfortable it might be for Max. He seems to have been able to get on with his life, in fact he has gained a lot of respect for his actions since that time.


----------



## Chook (Nov 19, 2012)

Classic bit of hypocrisy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosley_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Limited#The_missing_e-mails

"The _News of the World_ placed weight on the fact that one of the prostitutes (Woman "A") deleted e-mails prior to the trial."


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> How on earth are the level of libel payout determined? Presumably the BBC settled for £185k since they thought they'd face a similar payout in court. Why would a judge think that having people think you were a pedo for a few days was such a terrible injury, that a payout dozens of times higher than most personal injury claims was reasonable?


Paedo accusations tend to stick and can cause irreparable damage to reputations, careers and personal lives.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 19, 2012)

mosely paying women to dress up as SS and beat him is funny and noway near comporable to a peed accusation. People chuckle and move on- thinking 'irony' and 'what a dirty old sod'


Peado accusations are much worse


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2012)

Just as wrongly convicted prisoners have had their payout reduced for the 'board and lodgings' they got inside, I'd knock maybe £185,000 off his award for 'being a Tory'.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 19, 2012)

I wonder if anyone with no money who ends up being sued tries making a defence.


----------



## Corax (Nov 19, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I wonder if anyone with no money who ends up being sued tries making a defence.


Even if holding hands up to libel, there's a potential defence to shelling out if you can convince the judge he's already recovered sufficient damages.  May well have been on this thread that I read that tbh, not sure.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 19, 2012)

Yes I've read that recently, too. Private Eye? Working maximum about £225,000 (?) and there are already mitigating factors meaning that BBC settled too highly I think it was them that said.

And I don't know what libel law is like but with a normal court case you can demands copies of all sorts of documents from the person doing the suing.


----------



## diond (Nov 19, 2012)

Couldn't your defence be that you've already paid towards damages through your tv licence? That's if you have one.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2012)

In passing, all this stuff about the internet being an unregulated wild west looks a bit thin at the moment - one threat and thousands have changed their behaviour and even started queuing up to pay milord some cash.  Whilst the internet is nominally unregulated and consumer driven when it comes to the usual dicking about, power is power and money is money (as they always were).  There's potential for people to talk to people, as there was with the printing press, the telephone even CB radio, but when it comes to it, it's commercial and usually ready to line up when it comes to the demands of the rich and powerful. Pity the BBC made it so easy for them.

By the by, has anyone seen any evidence or campaigns kicking back against Milord McAlpine's threats?  I'd have been expecting to hear phrases like 'okay it wasn't you but it might have been your [now dead and beyond the libel laws] relative'.  Haven't heard anything along those lines, perhaps because even that identification might not have been reliable?  Alternatively, has Milord just managed to shut us all up?


----------



## elbows (Nov 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'd have been expecting to hear phrases like 'okay it wasn't you but it might have been your [now dead and beyond the libel laws] relative'. Haven't heard anything along those lines, perhaps because even that identification might not have been reliable? Alternatively, has Milord just managed to shut us all up?


 
There are signs of some appetite for this, including from some on this forum, and to a more fact-free extent elsewhere on the net, but not enough to run with from what I've seen. 

Its not just a problem of identification, there seems to be a lack of anything substantial from people who were there at the time and were willing to talk during previous inquiries etc. 

I've been looking to other unrelated stories myself because I dont have anything useful to work with on this front, I'd be more than willing to go back to it if anything new emerged but for now its pretty much flogging a dead horse in my book.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 19, 2012)

A certain blog has the SW article up. It's the first time I have read it. A lot of what the victims who have spoken out is mentioned in it. Was SW ever sued?


----------



## Corax (Nov 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> There are signs of some appetite for this, including from some on this forum, and to a more fact-free extent elsewhere on the net, but not enough to run with from what I've seen.
> 
> Its not just a problem of identification, there seems to be a lack of anything substantial from people who were there at the time and were willing to talk during previous inquiries etc.


The Jillings report would do nicely. And apparently it's been 'rediscovered' by multiple sources. So WTF are they _doing_ with it?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

_"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion."_
_Lord Alistair McAlpine, "The New Machiavelli", 1999_








http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/lord-mcalpine-shock-new-question-from-australia/

Other tips from our lord:

_"The key to successful public speaking? Fake a speech impediment: a sudden stutter gets the audience's attention like nothing else." source_


----------



## fogbat (Nov 19, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> _"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion."_
> _Lord Alistair McAlpine, "The New Machiavelli", 1999_
> 
> 
> ...


 
Quoted for, well, ridicule, really.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 19, 2012)

How long do you get banged up for (if at all) if you refuse to cough up libel money and you've got no property or anything of value that can be seized or whatever?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

fogbat said:


> Quoted for, well, ridicule, really.


What's your point? I have just quoted Lord McAlpine


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

Favelado said:


> How long do you get banged up for (if at all) if you refuse to cough up libel money and you've got no property or anything of value that can be seized or whatever?


You can't be


----------



## fogbat (Nov 19, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What's your point? I have just quoted Lord McAlpine



Can you guess what site is the first search result for that quote?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

fogbat said:


> Can you guess what site is the first search result for that quote?


Yes... and your point is?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 19, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Yes... and your point is?


 
What do you think?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 19, 2012)

_www.davidicke.com _


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2012)

fogbat said:


> What do you think?


I think I am clearly wasting my time attempting to reason with you.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 19, 2012)

so i just went to that site, and it says watch his gig any time you want, click on that link and wtf is the messia type pic of him there for ? then when you try to watch thew thing and of course you have to pay, there is also a tweet about someone making a lot of money from the economic crisis.

It would seem he is doing much the same.



/derail


----------



## fogbat (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I think I am clearly wasting my time attempting to reason with you.


 
We are finally in agreement.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

ruffneck23 said:


> so i just went to that site, and it says watch his gig any time you want, click on that link and wtf is the messia type pic of him there for ? then when you try to watch thew thing and of course you have to pay, there is also a tweet about someone making a lot of money from the economic crisis.
> 
> It would seem he is doing much the same.
> 
> ...


Except this isn't about David Icke, it's about Lord McAlpine. 

Who, when it suits his book sales, advocates manipulating the media and arranging for false accusations to be made.


----------



## Chook (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Except this isn't about David Icke, it's about Lord McAlpine.
> 
> Who, when it suits his book sales, advocates manipulating the media and arranging for false accusations to be made.


The style of attack your comment has received does not prove that the attacker has read the book in question and is acting on it's advice, Jazz, but it does strongly suggest that the attacker would have no difficulty writing the same sort of malevolent rubbish themselves.


----------



## Serotonin (Nov 20, 2012)

fogbat said:


> Quoted for, well, ridicule, really.


 
To be fair the story originated in The Age, a Australian newspaper and was printed in 2000. Icke just did some decent  googling.

http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/app...0&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=news000805_0179_5240


----------



## two sheds (Nov 20, 2012)

Favelado said:


> How long do you get banged up for (if at all) if you refuse to cough up libel money and you've got no property or anything of value that can be seized or whatever?


 
You declare yourself bankrupt, can only really be banged up if you've got rid of assets to pretend you've got no money.

A mate cost scientology a million pounds in legal fees and said that their lawyers' faces were delightful when it finally dawned and they said 'you really don't have any assets, do you?' and he said 'nope  '. All the assets were his wife's, all done legally.

He actually won his case, fighting it himself over a few years against a row of scientology funded barristers on the other side of the table (he's a fucking hero). He was still made bankrupt because the legal fees were 'taxed' - apportioned between him and them as to who was held responsible for what. After that, they appealed and - because he'd been made bankrupt - he wasn't allowed to fight it any more so they won the appeal.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

Corax said:


> The Jillings report would do nicely. And apparently it's been 'rediscovered' by multiple sources. So WTF are they _doing_ with it?


The LA's that have copies have handed copies to the police. They have also sought legal advice/authority to publish them in part or full under FOI legislation. A host of other people have also requested access under FOI. That's what's happening now. One of the reasons there appears to be a lull is that people, independent investigators, journalists, politicians and so on are now doing their own research, and that research involves processes such as the above - at least it does if you want to come with something that stands up and won't be turned over very easily. So this takes time. The demand _for more news right now_ that i see quite often now (and i mean amongst people who've only taken a sort of general interest in the story rather than going looking for stuff themselves - and quite probably to the BIJ journos too) partially led to the undermining of the original investigations. So i'm afraid the situation is be patient, or get cracking on your own research


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> What's your point? I have just quoted Lord McAlpine


No you haven't. You've quoted someone else. _Did you even read the interview that it came from?_ Jazzz's research skills to the fore again. Mistaking interviewer for interviewee.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Paxman stepping down will mean he'll write more books about stuff


 
So awful you said it twice.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No you haven't. You've quoted someone else. _Did you even read the interview that it came from?_ Jazzz's research skills to the fore again. Mistaking interviewer for interviewee.


I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


A pathetic quibble in that your claim that you had quoted Macalpine when you hadn't? Which reveals either

a) that you hadn't read the interview that you were quoting from
or
b) that you are so inept at source investigation that you are unable to distinguish between interviewer and interviewee.

Pity away.


----------



## JimW (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


So if I'd quoted butcher's post here to reply to instead of yours to comment on your interaction it would be just the same? Come on.


----------



## Chook (Nov 20, 2012)

For about fifteen quid a second hand copy of his book would resolve the magnitude of this issue. It's not clear whether she is quoting from his book or paraphrasing him. I had decided to get it on inter library loan, but sod it, I'll buy one. Anybody got one already?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

The issue isn't whether it's an accurate paraphrase but the special skills of jazzz to not quite get rather large details correct.


----------



## Chook (Nov 20, 2012)

But if it is a direct quote, then you will be able to get one less angel on your pin, and he won't be able to sue her.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

As regards to jazzz that's neither here nor there.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

I mean the jazzz theory here is that 20 years ago Lord Macalpine got the police to misidentify an abuser as him in order to either then freely abuse children safe in the knowledge that he could pull this misidentification out of his back pocket  or to pocket a cool 200 grand (multi-millionaire remember) - that's the claim. Not angel pinhead stuff.


----------



## Chook (Nov 20, 2012)

Looked back a hundred posts, three pages of his posts, and that looks awfully like a switcheroo. You are entitled to an extra pin, it seems. As I don't make the rules round here, I can hardly argue with that.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 20, 2012)

Does it count if you give a £5 to the anti-blacklisting campaign?


----------



## Chook (Nov 20, 2012)

When was McAlpine Wanderers relegated from the Economic League? They never could keep their best strikers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


 
That's right, it's all about you!


----------



## Corax (Nov 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The LA's that have copies have handed copies to the police. They have also sought legal advice/authority to publish them in part or full under FOI legislation. A host of other people have also requested access under FOI. That's what's happening now.


Excellent.  

How on earth do you find all this kind of thing out?  Or is it just 'connections'...?


----------



## Corax (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> If I'd quoted butcher's post here to reply to instead of yours to comment on your interaction it would be just the same.


No it wouldn't.  That's a ridiculous claim.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 20, 2012)

Corax said:


> Excellent.
> 
> How on earth do you find all this kind of thing out? Or is it just 'connections'...?


 
He pays attention to 'stuff'.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's right, it's all about you!






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The issue isn't whether it's an accurate paraphrase but the special skills of jazzz to not quite get rather large details correct.


Suggest you guys work this one out between yourselves.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

*And... back to McAlpine...*

Let's look at what has happened here. We had massive interest in a story involving grotesque sexual abuse from people in very high places. Then, we were sent into a furore by the leak that the Newsnight programme was going to name a name! Everyone was focussed on that. A name did get out and then - amazingly - it transpired to be false. The correction that Messham was not abused by McAlpine after all has had the effect of stonewalling and discrediting the entire expose, and after a few uncomfortable days, Lord McAlpine comes out smelling of roses and maybe half a million quid richer.

Now when it transpires that this man advocated Machievellian strategies including 1) playing the victim and 2) planting false accusations to discredit the accusers you have to wonder exactly what has gone on.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2012)

*You* have to wonder, yes, because you are easily distracted by anything that is tangled and smells funny to your nostrils. Meanwhile you miss out on all the important stuff, the amount of subjects you've been entirely absent from in recent years as the world heats up is quite remarkable to consider.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

elbows said:


> *You* have to wonder, yes, because you are easily distracted by anything that is tangled and smells funny to your nostrils.


Smells funny? This whole thing stinks to such a degree you should be able to smell it from another planet.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2012)

Your nostrils are polluted though, as vividly demonstrated when you bought into the Obama both certificate shit.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

elbows said:


> Your nostrils are polluted though, as vividly demonstrated when you bought into the Obama both certificate shit.


When you realise that our government is corrupted by a secret network who use their very sordidness as a method of binding themselves, you'll start to wonder about plenty of other stuff mate.


----------



## Corax (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Meanwhile you miss out on all the important stuff, the amount of subjects you've been entirely absent from in recent years as the world heats up is quite remarkable to consider.


Like what Jazzz?  What 'important stuff' are we missing out on?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2012)

Stop fucking about Corax.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> When you realise that our government is corrupted by a secret network who use their very sordidness as a method of binding themselves, you'll start to wonder about plenty of other stuff mate.


 
This is not a productive avenue for further discussion because I've been trying to tell you for years that everyone else is not asleep and many are well aware of the ills of the world, and the terrible flaws, abuse and exploitation of systems and institutions. And ideological horrors.

There are so many ways in which peoples approach to this stuff varies though. For example it is important to consider what is actually corruption and what is deliberate statecraft by design. And the difference between complicity and covering stuff up for other reasons based on 'loftier aims'.


----------



## Corax (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Stop fucking about Corax.


I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm not really surprised that the realities of libel are not sinking in with everyone on twitter.



> ‏@*paraicobrien*
> Gosh, judging by some of the (unwise) replies I'm getting, the 'McAlpine effect' still has a way to go here.


----------



## elbows (Nov 20, 2012)

So apparently if you libelled McAlpine on twitter and you have less than 500 followers, you are asked to give £5 to Children in Need + admin fee. If you have more than 500 followers then you are encouraged to formally apologise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> When you realise that our government is corrupted by a secret network who use their very sordidness as a method of binding themselves, you'll start to wonder about plenty of other stuff mate.


 
You fucking halfwit.

Our government (and *every* government) is corrupted by a plethora of "secret networks", each out to make sure that they and theirs get their due of power and influence. There's no over-arching network beyond the political and economic system that allows such corruption. There isn't a requirement for one, except by people who can't accept randomness and irrationality, and have to have everything packaged up as a unitary oppressive force overseeing anything and everything "bad".


----------



## two sheds (Nov 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's no over-arching network beyond the political and economic system that allows such corruption.


 
There might be


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

Corax said:


> I pity you that you are so driven to make a point against me that you would seize on such a pathetic quibble.


 
A fair _touché_ to his earlier post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2012)

two sheds said:


> There might be


 
There might be a monster under your bed. Which one are you going to lose sleep over?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 20, 2012)

Scary monster


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 20, 2012)

Quite a few tweets knocking around that lots of links are no longer working in connection with Government and paedophiles


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Quite a few tweets knocking around that lots of links are no longer working in connection with Government and paedophiles


 
Since most of them probably link to mental nonsense that's a very good thing!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 20, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Since most of them probably link to mental nonsense that's a very good thing!


 
yeah, but they're still funny to read


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> yeah, but they're still funny to read


 
fair enough I think reading back issues of the Leninist is a laugh


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 20, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> fair enough I think reading back issues of the Leninist is a laugh


 
I'm onthe David Icke forums.  Never been there before the last two weeks.  Some funny stuff


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 21, 2012)

oops


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm onthe David Icke forums. Never been there before the last two weeks. Some funny stuff


 
I took a look once when the Savile side of the story was at its peak and someone was trying to work out the significance of the tint of his sunglasses in one particular photo, and looking at what other famous types had worn glasses of the same colour


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 21, 2012)

elbows said:


> I took a look once when the Savile side of the story was at its peak and someone was trying to work out the significance of the tint of his sunglasses in one particular photo, and looking at what other famous types had worn glasses of the same colour


 


There's a few of them have been dissecting (not literally of course) his moles


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

It sounds like McAlpines legal team have realised that getting identities of everyone involved on twitter may be a challenge if going down the libel route, so they are meeting with police to see if they can use the Malicious Communications Act!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/21/lord-mcalpine-investigation-twitter


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2012)

After all the BS about McAlpine getting maybe £500k from TV, it sounds like they have agreed something more like £125k+costs.


----------



## framed (Nov 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> After all the BS about McAlpine getting maybe £500k from TV, it sounds like they have agreed something more like £125k+costs.


 
The Radio 4 News programme PM reported that he got £185k from the BBC for the inferences contained in the Newsnight story and £125k from ITV for the 'Schofield Paedophile List'. £310k so far and still after more...


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 23, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> There's a few of them have been dissecting (not literally of course) his moles


cameron was right about witchhunts


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 23, 2012)

framed said:


> The Radio 4 News programme PM reported that he got £185k from the BBC for the inferences contained in the Newsnight story and £125k from ITV for the 'Schofield Paedophile List'. £310k so far and still after more...



It's a lucrative business this not being a paedo.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 23, 2012)

the most most lucrative career choices for kidz leaving school should be Chelsea Manager & not being a Peado


----------



## gosub (May 24, 2013)

Lord McAlpine vs Sally Bercow judgement

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html


----------



## laptop (May 24, 2013)

gosub said:


> Lord McAlpine vs Sally Bercow judgement
> 
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html


 
What a joy to see the majesty of the law grappling with the interpretation of weak sarcasm


----------

