Alleged No 10 links to paedophile ring

[ronthenekred]

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....

 

 

"Didn't know you were friends" is simply saying..I hold you in the same troll like disregard because you disagree with me. Subtle but the same.

[yellowperil]

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.

 

What conspiracy theory are you referring to?

 

If you cant see that "arrested on suspicion" is the same whether your and actor or a doctor is the same in either case then i cant see where you are coming from at all im afraid.

 

If you want to include links from your chosen newspaper that report things any differently then ill be glad to take a look and comment.

 

Its clear we are not looking at this the same way but only time will tell if its "honest and transparent" as ive already said.

 

I have no issue with you personally ann at all by the way, im sure youre a nice person, just a different point of view.

 

I dont subscribe to any particular newspaper by the way so im afraid im not a daily mail loony as you seem to infer.

[annbaker]

I may be being thick here but I can't see how all this conspiracy theory stuff is meant to help the victims as yp claims. Does he know the victims personally? Does he know with proof who the perpetrators are? If so am assuming he/she will have reported this to the appropriate people who are looking into this? Otheriwse it's internet gossip and hearsay. Is this how we try people these days - on local forums?

 

And a small aside going much further back in the post. Anyone can order Dickens death cert from the GRO (for I think £9.50) which will show his official cause of death as certified by a registered medical practitioner. It's not that hard!

[yellowperil]

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....

 

Ive no problem interacting with anyone on the forum at all.

In doing so i would never misquote or highlight just one part of a statement in an effort to undermine anyone though.

Im up for a fair debate but would like to be treated in the same manner.

To try to defend a point i havent really made adds nothing to the debate so id choose not to interact with anyone that plays that way.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2014 at 02:40 ----------

 

"Didn't know you were friends" is simply saying..I hold you in the same troll like disregard because you disagree with me. Subtle but the same.

 

Thats just your definition of what i said.

Id think it fair to assume that anyone who defended a poster with no particular reason was a friend of theirs.

 

I have many people on here ive never met but would class as online friends.

Sorry if you were confused by the statement.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2014 at 02:43 ----------

 

I may be being thick here but I can't see how all this conspiracy theory stuff is meant to help the victims as yp claims. Does he know the victims personally? Does he know with proof who the perpetrators are? If so am assuming he/she will have reported this to the appropriate people who are looking into this? Otheriwse it's internet gossip and hearsay. Is this how we try people these days - on local forums?

 

And a small aside going much further back in the post. Anyone can order Dickens death cert from the GRO (for I think £9.50) which will show his official cause of death as certified by a registered medical practitioner. It's not that hard!

 

I dont know any victims or hold any evidence, likewise though ive named no-one either or been judge and jury as regards their innocence or guilt.

 

Youve still not told me which conspiracy theory you refer to?

[annbaker]

What conspiracy theory are you referring to?

 

If you cant see that "arrested on suspicion" is the same whether your and actor or a doctor is the same in either case then i cant see where you are coming from at all im afraid.

 

If you want to include links from your chosen newspaper that report things any differently then ill be glad to take a look and comment.

 

Its clear we are not looking at this the same way but only time will tell if its "honest and transparent" as ive already said.

 

I have no issue with you personally ann at all by the way, im sure youre a nice person, just a different point of view.

 

I dont subscribe to any particular newspaper by the way so im afraid im not a daily mail loony as you seem to infer.

 

I don't have a chosen newspaper. I read several across the political spectrum . I prefer a balanced view rather than alliegance to one paper.the fact you could only drag up a DM quote and you suggested it was correct - dear me! So from that I assumed you were a DM reader. If you're not then there is hope.

 

Arrested on suspicion I can clearly see but they aren't going to do that unless there is something reasonably substantial are they. The other thing to bear in mind is when a celeb gets arrested there is always someone who leaks it. But they aren;t stupid enough to leak it unless there is some substance there - libel laws and all that.You or me they wouldn't give a toss!

 

So if we're in agreement about time will tell why are you speculating on here about it? We won't know until the enquiry is underway and possibly complete depending on how much info they release along the way , ill we?

[Halibut]

 

You should search the web as i suggested and then see what you think.

 

Yeah, because that's where all the answers are to be found isn't it.

[yellowperil]

Its not just papers like the sun and the mail that do it!

I admire your faith in the system Ann but im afraid i dont share it.

Its right that we wont know how honest it will be until the outcome but please realise that the enquiry could take 5-10 years and some of the accused will be old already seeing as some of these accusations go back 50 years plus.

I dont think we can take the risk that it "might" be honest,we owe it to the victims to make sure its done correctly the first time.

As for speculation well im not aware that i have aired any, just a question of whether Kenneth Clarke has stepped down because he may not agree with the reform that may occur regarding joint enterprise, nothing more.

It something he doesnt think should be changed and he has spoken publicly about his views on it.

Do you think police involvement and any findings by them can be relied upon given that a quick websearch will reveal that some of those allegedly involved were high up in the ranks? I know thats based on speculation as you have pointed out but youll see the same names given time and time again on multiple blogs and forums if you look into it, you cant ignore that there may be an element of truth in there.

Thats why i said i thought it should have more than one head so no one person could cover anything up (that is if indeed there is anything to cover up).

 

You say the re-shuffle was known about well before the press release that led to this enquiry, can you clarify whether you mean the enquiry into alleged abuse being covered up or the enquiry into any reforms to be made to joint enterprise prosecutions?

In either case they both came well before the reshuffle im afraid.

The accusations of child abuse are a revisiting of an enquiry that seems to have been buried a long time ago according to reports and will have been talked about in the corridors of power long before the press release or official reveal.

As for joint enterprise being looked at by the parliamentary select comittee, well that will have been discussed already too before we knew, especially as its a continuation of being looked at previously in 2012 !.

 

Both predate the cabinet reshuffle announcement considerably im afraid.

Plenty of time for descisions to be made regarding the "re-shuffle".

 

All i ask you to do is question what you are told and have an open mind.

A previous poster has commented on the "unbelievable" nature of the accusations that have been made, its well known that sometimes thats used as a defence against any accusation,the more outlandish something sounds then the better for the accused.

Just because something sounds improbable it doesnt mean its impossible.

 

From what ive read a few of the accused (no names here!) were allegedly part of the paedophile infomation exchange or PIE as it was known.

An orginisation that was very open at the time regarding what they were about.

One of the propositions put forward by them was to lower the age of sexual consent to four! Yes thats four years old!

Now that sounds unbelievable doesnt it? Unfortunately its true im sorry to say.

 

Please feel free to look into things as i do, dont get me wrong, i dont believe everything i read or hear but when its backed up with articles and statements then it does tend to make you think about things a little differently.

 

Already answered and my thoughts explained if youd cared to read the posts.!

Given that most if not all posters on here do their research about any given subject on the internet then in most cases yes it does.

As above, when the same stories crop up and the same names on various websites then its hard to ignore.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2014 at 08:51 ----------

 

I don't have a chosen newspaper. I read several across the political spectrum . I prefer a balanced view rather than alliegance to one paper.the fact you could only drag up a DM quote and you suggested it was correct - dear me! So from that I assumed you were a DM reader. If you're not then there is hope.

 

Arrested on suspicion I can clearly see but they aren't going to do that unless there is something reasonably substantial are they. The other thing to bear in mind is when a celeb gets arrested there is always someone who leaks it. But they aren;t stupid enough to leak it unless there is some substance there - libel laws and all that.You or me they wouldn't give a toss!

 

So if we're in agreement about time will tell why are you speculating on here about it? We won't know until the enquiry is underway and possibly complete depending on how much info they release along the way , ill we?

 

If you see post 257 ann youll see that i already said it was the first article that came up when i did a websearch for the news you referred to and apologised that it was from a paper youd already mentioned.

If you have a link to a newspaper that has reported things differently then ive again also said ill happily look at it.

Arrested on suspicion must have the same "something reasonably substantial" to back it up in either case whether youre a celeb or a doctor,libel cases could come from both equally.

Do you think William Roaches reputation is worth any less to him than the doctor arrested? I think youd be more likely to be sued for damage to reputation and goodstanding from a celeb than a doctor personally, in both cases it could affect their future ability to get work.

I see no mention of if the arrest of William Roache was revealed by the police or leaked by a mole so cant comment on who leaked it.

I did however find the comment that the police would "only be releasing names the day before the accused appeared before a magistrate, if at all!!" interesting.

 

The celebs were named and the doctors, teachers and ex-police officer may never be! Surely that is treating them differently?

Maybe its me being thick!

The celebs were named "so that other victims could come forward with allegations" i remember reading,that will have been a statement by the police or the cps. Someone leaking the info wouldnt have to make such a statement to justify why they gave the information would they.

Thats why i stand my opinion that they are being treated differently.

 

Only time will tell, thats something we agree on. And we are both speculating on the outcome as far as i can see. If you agreed with me youd not be countering the opinions i have!

Ive previously said that we owe it to the victims for this to be clear and transparent and get it right first time,when i see the things happening as they are doing then my faith in the honesty and transparency is shaken to say the very least.

Edited July 17, 2014 by yellowperil

[Anna B]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28326128

 

660

suspected paedophiles arrested

 

only 39 suspects were registered sex offenders

 

"Joined-up approach

The investigation involved 45 police forces across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and an unprecedented level of co-operation, the NCA said."

 

So, an unprecedented level of cooperation by 45 police forces nationwide (establishment). Will this be considered to be a cover up? Apparently this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

How many MPs arrested?

 

We don't need to know there names just yet, after all they're innocent until proved otherwise, just that they have been arrested and are being investigated.

[yellowperil]

How many MPs arrested?

 

We don't need to know there names just yet, after all they're innocent until proved otherwise, just that they have been arrested and are being investigated.

 

Theyve said they might not say anna,thats my point too.

[ronthenekred]

How many MPs arrested?

 

We don't need to know there names just yet, after all they're innocent until proved otherwise, just that they have been arrested and are being investigated.

 

 

 

Former Ceop chief Mr Gamble told BBC News those arrested were "not people in dirty macs".

 

"They're the people that sit in doctor's surgeries," he said.

 

 

"They're involved in government. They're involved elsewhere in works and civil service and the police and whatever else. We need to make sure that no-one can hide from the long arm of the law when they are threatening our children."