Alleged No 10 links to paedophile ring

[ronthenekred]

 

Your faith in the system seems upheld by this happening to people who are regarded " the establishment.

 

 

The faith is that those being arrested are being arrested by the establishment, the same said establishment you seem to have given up on.

[annbaker]

Erm yet again you are stating I have faith in the 'system'. I haven't actually said one way or other whether I have or not so please don't make incorrect assumptions.

 

They aren't named ? That's pretty normal till they have something credible to say that x has been charged with etc. DLT etc weren't named when the investigation to them first started either. Otherwise it's potential libel! They won;t name anyone unless they are pretty sure they have a valid enough case as is the right of any human being.

 

Let's just say I speculated as you are that you were up to no good on hearsay - howwould you feel about that? I don;t think you;d be very happy about it. No-one would. Yet you seem set on doing it about other people.

 

No-one's saying here there is no case to answer but until it's been investigated no-one should be pointing any fingers. i ask again how do you think going on about some sort of conspiracy here is going to help anyone especially the victims?

[yellowperil]

On the article i read they had breakdowns of accusations and statements from witnesses so its much further along than just the start but still no names!

 

The police were also quoted as saying they wouldnt be naming names until the day before any charges were brought "if at all" was the quote.

 

The celebrities were named whilst being investigated.

Im sorry but its different and you have to ask yourself why.

[Obelix]

Wondered how long it would take you to surface for a feed Halibut

......

If youre going to start trolling me again

 

Godwins Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" and as such the first person to do so loses.

 

I propose Yellowperils law thusly: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone being called a troll approaches 1" and the person doing the calling loses because they have no real argument to make.

[yellowperil]

You need to check out my post history mate, its not the first time its happened.

[Obelix]

What that you've tried to shoot down one of Halibuts reasonable arguments by calling him a troll?

 

I know it's not the first or second time you've pulled that stunt, hence the proposal above.

[annbaker]

The celebrities were named because they had enough evidence to charge on and subesquently CPS were going to pursue them. This isn't at that stage yet so names can't be published.

 

There isn't some sort of special arrest, name and shame category for celebs compared to anyone else. You can't charge anyone and take them to court without evidence.

 

I could make up all sorts of crap about you or anyone else I chose and have doubt hanging over you if I wanted and I don't even know you. That could have all sorts of implications for you if someone believed it or maybe wasn't quite sure but took the no smoke without fire route. You'd not be too chuffed with me if I did that and if I was clever enough about it you might even get arrested and then have to prove you didn;t do it.

 

I wouldn't even entertain the idea of doing that to anyone but this is why the police have to be very careful about what they publish. They have obviously seized info which they are investigating but feel they have a prima facie case which if there is enough evidence will get to the CPS at some point who then decide if they will prosecute or not.

 

Again I ask you how is your conspiracy theory on SF going to change anything?

[yellowperil]

Reasonable arguement is a relative term in this instance.

When someone consistently misquotes me or just highlights parts of a full sentance to suit their point of view and to their own ends, thus not giving the full picture of what was actually meant then id hardly call that reasonable.

 

Didnt realise you two were friends, sorry if by asking for him to not do it again i offended you.

 

The pm system on here is great isnt it.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2014 at 02:02 ----------

 

The celebrities were named because they had enough evidence to charge on and subesquently CPS were going to pursue them. This isn't at that stage yet so names can't be published.

 

There isn't some sort of special arrest, name and shame category for celebs compared to anyone else. You can't charge anyone and take them to court without evidence.

 

I could make up all sorts of crap about you or anyone else I chose and have doubt hanging over you if I wanted and I don't even know you. That could have all sorts of implications for you if someone believed it or maybe wasn't quite sure but took the no smoke without fire route. You'd not be too chuffed with me if I did that and if I was clever enough about it you might even get arrested and then have to prove you didn;t do it.

 

I wouldn't even entertain the idea of doing that to anyone but this is why the police have to be very careful about what they publish. They have obviously seized info which they are investigating but feel they have a prima facie case which if there is enough evidence will get to the CPS at some point who then decide if they will prosecute or not.

 

Again I ask you how is your conspiracy theory on SF going to change anything?

 

Here is the article i found online, sorry its from the daily mail as i know youve mentioned them already but its the first that came up when i searched.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694204/Police-blitz-paedophiles-leads-arrest-660-suspects-including-doctors-teachers-Scout-leaders-care-workers.html

 

See the bit where it mentions the "secret police" not naming people.

Also look at the evidence they already have in the cases mentioned and arrests already made.

 

By contrast heres the story from itv about william roache being " arrested on suspicion"! No evidence needed to name him there was there.

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-05-01/coronation-street-star-bill-roache-held-over-rape-claim/

 

They are not naming where previosly they have, different treatment.

Doesnt matter if you think they should or shouldnt name suspects, the fact is its being conducted differently and you have to wonder why.

 

Its not MY conspiracy theory, just one im interested in the more i see.

[annbaker]

Please tell me you don't take what the Daily Mail says seriously! Tho the posts you have been making suggest to me you do. Sorry it's no different at all and it's clear you don't understand the judicial system. There are loads of news articles you could have chosen that reported events in a more realistic and factual way than the Daily Mail.

 

If that's your chosen source of news - oh dear! and just remember you can't believe everything you read in the papers (especially the DM). This is a legal matter and I thinkas has already been said above, you should not be speculating in outcomes.

 

You still have failed to answer me after I think 3 times now how you think your conspiracy theory is going to help the victims here? I'd love to know cos I can't see how it helps any victim whatsoever.

[Obelix]

Reasonable arguement is a relative term in this instance.

When someone consistently misquotes me or just highlights parts of a full sentance to suit their point of view and to their own ends, thus not giving the full picture of what was actually meant then id hardly call that reasonable.

 

Didnt realise you two were friends,

 

Please remember you are not the sole arbiter of "reasonableness". As for friends I wouldnt know - I've never met him but I find his arguments usually tend to be erudite, well reasoned, constructive and thought provoking and I've never known them to even approach that of being a troll....