Longcol Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 The post you refer to was to point out a serious error another poster made. Take it in the context it was meant. I wasn't getting at you - apologies if it appears that way - just stating that the initial premise of the thread - a paedophile ring with links to the heart of government - hasn't been borne out by the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I wasn't getting at you - apologies if it appears that way - just stating that the initial premise of the thread - a paedophile ring with links to the heart of government - hasn't been born out by the facts. Remember, that the Bryn Estyn cases are a diversion. Tom Watson was not referring to Bryn Estyn but other cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Thanks for the link. Take particular notice of this bit before you post any more stupid stuff: In his first police statement, on March 30, 1992, he said he was physically assaulted by three people, indecently assaulted by two male care workers, Peter Howarth and Stephen Norris, and that two female care workers had sex with him. Both Howarth and Norris subsequently stood trial and were convicted. Like you say. "IN HIS STATEMENT". As he has proved to be a very unreliable witness it appears his statements are not to be believed. He may well have been abused. I never said he hadn't. but those convicted were convicted for a series of sex offences and nothing I have read anywhere in these reports is conclusive proof that this isn't further fabrication. Indeed as often happens folk will jump on any band wagon when they smell compensation. So when you tell folks what they can and can't post lets just remember that the "facts" have changed dramatically since this thread started so don't you try stifling debate just because someone doesn't post quite what you want to read. Remember, that the Bryn Estyn cases are a diversion. Tom Watson was not referring to Bryn Estyn but other cases. Tom Watson may well need to check a few facts before he starts posting again on his blog. He didn't exactly get a ringing endorsement from Harriette Harman today on Sunday Politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Like you say. "IN HIS STATEMENT". As he has proved to be a very unreliable witness it appears his statements are not to be believed. He may well have been abused. I never said he hadn't. but those convicted were convicted for a series of sex offences and nothing I have read anywhere in these reports is conclusive proof that this isn't further fabrication. Indeed as often happens folk will jump on any band wagon when they smell compensation. So when you tell folks what they can and can't post lets just remember that the "facts" have changed dramatically since this thread started so don't you try stifling debate just because someone doesn't post quite what you want to read. You have seriously lost the plot. I'm telling you not to post saying that Messham is not an abuse victim for your own good, not to make a point. Don't take my advice is you don't want to. I'm not discussing this particular point any more because you are taking yourself onto very shaky ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 David Icke has been naming names, household names, in his books for years, calling them child rapists and killers etc, and none of these people ever sued him.That's because he's mad and has no credibility. That doesn't mean he's wrong, of course, but it's unlikely that anyone would listen to the ramblings of a madman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 You have seriously lost the plot. I'm telling you not to post saying that Messham is not an abuse victim for your own good, not to make a point. Don't take my advice is you don't want to. I'm not discussing this particular point any more because you are taking yourself onto very shaky ground. I think it is you that has lost the plot. I am merely pointing out that in this case we shouldn't believe anything that people who have been proved to lie repeatedly say. This thread is about Tom Watson claiming that there was a paedophile ring in government. But as his evidence was based on false statements it has fallen apart. Perhaps you haven't noticed all those grovelling apologies on the BBC or the folks falling on their swords because they took statements from unreliable witnesses as the factual truth. Perhaps you should take your own advice and chillax and have another glass of wine. In your clear haste to highlight one sentence that you liked from the linked article you clearly missed these.. A victim of his delusions: Astonishing story the BBC DIDN'T tell you about its troubled star witness He assaulted QC at inquiry and was branded 'unreliable witness' Triggered £400k libel payout after false sex abuse accusation Stood trial for £65k fraud at charity for victims of the scandal Even his lawyer says he may have invented stories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I think it is you that has lost the plot. I am merely pointing out that in this case we shouldn't believe anything that people who have been proved to lie repeatedly say. This thread is about Tom Watson claiming that there was a paedophile ring in government. But as his evidence was based on false statements it has fallen apart. Perhaps you haven't noticed all those grovelling apologies on the BBC or the folks falling on their swords because they took statements from unreliable witnesses as the factual truth. Perhaps you should take your own advice and chillax and have another glass of wine. In your clear haste to highlight one sentence that you liked from the linked article you clearly missed these.. A victim of his delusions: Astonishing story the BBC DIDN'T tell you about its troubled star witness He assaulted QC at inquiry and was branded 'unreliable witness' Triggered £400k libel payout after false sex abuse accusation Stood trial for £65k fraud at charity for victims of the scandal Even his lawyer says he may have invented stories What case? The cases Tom Watson raised? What Tom Watson raised in parliament was nothing to do with Bryn Estyn. You're trying to make it about Bryn Estyn and potentially libelling Messham into the bargain. You can't be that thick can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 What case? The cases Tom Watson raised? What Tom Watson raised in parliament was nothing to do with Bryn Estyn. You're trying to make it about Bryn Estyn and potentially libelling Messham into the bargain. You can't be that thick can you? How am I libeling Messham. I've merely pointed out that he is an unreliable witness who is reported in the newspapers ... He assaulted QC at inquiry and was branded 'unreliable witness' Triggered £400k libel payout after false sex abuse accusation Stood trial for £65k fraud at charity for victims of the scandal Even his lawyer says he may have invented stories I think it is you that is thick. Incidentally I think Tom Watson has seriously damaged his own credibility as well as compromised any future trials here. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/harman-i-have-no-idea-about-the-strength-of-tom-watsons-evidence/ Harman: I cannot vouch for the strength of Tom Watson’s evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I think it is you that has lost the plot. I am merely pointing out that in this case we shouldn't believe anything that people who have been proved to lie repeatedly say. This thread is about Tom Watson claiming that there was a paedophile ring in government. But as his evidence was based on false statements it has fallen apart. which false statements has Tom Watson used as evidence exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Its a matter of public record that Steve Messham was abused as a child. Indeed. This is what is getting me. Some people see him as unreliable and a fantasist. I see a very badly screwed-up person scarred by horrendous events in his childhood - to me people that ignore what happened to him are lower than scum. Even lower than this idiot: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/917590-david-mellor-slammed-over-abuse-victim-steven-messham-weirdo-attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.