Conrod Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I've seen a variety of links by email and a 'major social website' to crackpot sites lately on this subject, including incredibly direct accusations, claiming evidence, of former PMs and other senior figures apparently buying/being supplied with/abusing/killing young kids. The only incredible thing is that some imbeciles think it's all true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I'm sure if I googled "Schofield" "Paedo" and "nonce" I could find a wealth of sites and information accusing him of unsavoury things. It really does come to something when someone thinks a trawl of social network sites might bring up "evidence" worth confronting the PM with. Actually, you can't. Your post above comes up 2nd in google though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I've seen a variety of links by email and a 'major social website' to crackpot sites lately on this subject, including incredibly direct accusations, claiming evidence, of former PMs and other senior figures apparently buying/being supplied with/abusing/killing young kids. The only incredible thing is that some imbeciles think it's all true. I'd be amazed if there weren't paedophiles serving in parliament right now. And paedophiliac "rings" do exist, this has been proven. Just because people happen to be "pillars of society" doesn't make them any less likely to be practicing paedophiles or members of a "ring", or any more likely - except of course power and influence have an effect on the level of credibility attributed to their accusers, as Jimmy Savile found out to his benefit and to the extreme detriment of his victims. What has changed, post-savile, is that now accusers will be given more credence, and the guilty parties will need to work much harder to cover up. But of course the reality is that a large majority of child abuse is carried out by family and friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I've seen a variety of links by email and a 'major social website' to crackpot sites lately on this subject, including incredibly direct accusations, claiming evidence, of former PMs and other senior figures apparently buying/being supplied with/abusing/killing young kids. The only incredible thing is that some imbeciles think it's all true. Of course it's not all true. Some of it could be though and that is where the situation becomes very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 No doubt this will only encourage "conspiracy theorists" to claim Messham has been threatened / bought into silence by the "establishment". Probably. All the time he was saying, recently, that he had been abused by His Lordship, did no-one say "Oh? Do you mean this man?" as they showed him a newspaper photograph? Mr Messham is now saying that he was shown a picture by police, back in the 80's. He identified the man in the photo as one of his abusers and says the police said that the man in that picture was His Lordship. Hence his reason for repeating his accusations. He now says that having been shown a picture of His Lordship (this week), that it is not the same man. One wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Probably. All the time he was saying, recently, that he had been abused by His Lordship, did no-one say "Oh? Do you mean this man?" as they showed him a newspaper photograph? Mr Messham is now saying that he was shown a picture by police, back in the 80's. He identified the man in the photo as one of his abusers and says the police said that the man in that picture was His Lordship. Hence his reason for repeating his accusations. He now says that having been shown a picture of His Lordship (this week), that it is not the same man. One wonders. AFAIK when I first heard the story a few days ago he had identified McAlpine from a faxed newspaper cutting - back in the 80's I hate to think how unclear a faxed newspaper cutting would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Has the MP that Ben Fellows named been questioned yet does anybody know, or is this circus being used to cover his back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 Has the MP that Ben Fellows named been questioned yet does anybody know, or is this circus being used to cover his back? I fear the circus is being used to cover a few peoples back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Probably. All the time he was saying, recently, that he had been abused by His Lordship, did no-one say "Oh? Do you mean this man?" as they showed him a newspaper photograph? Mr Messham is now saying that he was shown a picture by police, back in the 80's. He identified the man in the photo as one of his abusers and says the police said that the man in that picture was His Lordship. Hence his reason for repeating his accusations. He now says that having been shown a picture of His Lordship (this week), that it is not the same man. One wonders. Well as his lordship says that he has never been anywhere near the place that shouldn't be too hard to corroborate. I'm also assuming that McAlpine has a secretary and a diary. Billionaires movements aren't usually too difficult to track. The problem with the internet is that it is all too easy to fling mud and inevitably some sticks. Perhaps there should be an enquiry into who starts these rumours, because if you aren't a billionaire who is able to defend yourself you can have your life ruined by scum out to cause mischief. Regarding faxed photos of a newspaper cutting. Newspapers in the 80s were black & white ink printings where you couldn't tell who was who anyhow. If a newspaper photo was faxed you couldn't tell a dog from a cow. But if you were showed a photograph of this man who would you say it was? http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/24200000/MJ-Look-Alike-michael-jackson-24282846-594-445.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fanpop.com/spots/michael-jackson/images/24282846/title&h=445&w=594&sz=100&tbnid=BzVxYP_PpnQu7M:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__zdgdeAewa4uJiyLBfK5Vo-aR8FY=&docid=RGLymIExsdOHGM&sa=X&ei=UEieUKH-BMbL0AXZ9IDABA&ved=0CEEQ9QEwBA&dur=694 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Well as his lordship says that he has never been anywhere near the place that shouldn't be too hard to corroborate. I'm also assuming that McAlpine has a secretary and a diary. Billionaires movements aren't usually too difficult to track. The problem with the internet is that it is all too easy to fling mud and inevitably some sticks. Perhaps there should be an enquiry into who starts these rumours, because if you aren't a billionaire who is able to defend yourself you can have your life ruined by scum out to cause mischief. in this case wasn't it the police via the media, not just random people on the internet? The welsh guy who was abused said the police told him the faxed photo was of Lord M which he then told the media (and this information may have turned up on conspiracy websites about this sort of thing as a result). The welsh guy is now clear on seeing another photo of Lord M it was not him, which suggests the photos were not at all alike which makes me wonder - why would the police have told him it was this person when it definitely was not this person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.