Marx Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 It seems some VIP paedophiles are given cottages by our future king. That was after he (and several others) intervened back in 1991 to stop the bishop from being prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 did you see the panorama broascast? to be honest it was shocking. aleadged victims had been "groomed" by police or social services. they were shown photos of folk they had never named, given locations they had never named and stories of abuse they had never reported. the 2 men interviewed both appeared to have had their entire stories fabricated by others and then indoctrinated with the "facts". it would be interesing to see someone do a similar fit up of tom wood and see what a media storm can do. certainly the high profile names who were implicated appeared to have no tangible evidence against them, but also appeared to have a very short life span after the "allegations" surfaced I think it was more interesting for what it didn't say, than what it did. No mention of Geoffrey Dickens, the various lost dossiers, the 1,400 other alleged victims from all over the country, Barbara Castle and her journalist friend, or the lengths MI5 agents have gone to to keep things covered up. That's just for starters... Lots of other glaring omissions. Instead we had a none-coherent fudge of fact, non-fact and opinion. This was either a very bad piece of TV journalism, or a deliberate attempt to discredit the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 did you see the panorama broascast? to be honest it was shocking. aleadged victims had been "groomed" by police or social services. they were shown photos of folk they had never named, given locations they had never named and stories of abuse they had never reported. the 2 men interviewed both appeared to have had their entire stories fabricated by others and then indoctrinated with the "facts". it would be interesing to see someone do a similar fit up of tom wood and see what a media storm can do. certainly the high profile names who were implicated appeared to have no tangible evidence against them, but also appeared to have a very short life span after the "allegations" surfaced No, I never saw the program . I guess the legal teams of VIP's / Celebrities who have been convicted of historic sex crime will be interested in the allegations that alleged victims may have been 'groomed' by Police if they are considering launching apeals for their clients . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) I think it was more interesting for what it didn't say, than what it did. No mention of Geoffrey Dickens, the various lost dossiers, the 1,400 other alleged victims from all over the country, Barbara Castle and her journalist friend, or the lengths MI5 agents have gone to to keep things covered up. That's just for starters... Lots of other glaring omissions. Instead we had a none-coherent fudge of fact, non-fact and opinion. This was either a very bad piece of TV journalism, or a deliberate attempt to discredit the investigation. Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting programme and journalism at its worst. The only dirt they were interested in was on Chris Fay's light switch, which we had to see in all its glory more than once. Mentioned Chris Fay's past conviction but failed to mention the past convictions of those VIPs accused. ---------- Post added 08-10-2015 at 20:31 ---------- It seems some VIP paedophiles are given cottages by our future king. That was after he (and several others) intervened back in 1991 to stop the bishop from being prosecuted. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/07/bishop-peter-ball-escaped-charges-mps-royal-family-intervened-court Absolutely shocking. And for the DM lovers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263475/Bishop-abused-young-priests-naked-prayers-got-away-two-decades.html The comments section is worth a look. Edited October 9, 2015 by Hesther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The comments section is worth a look. Indeed it is. I can't wait until Lizzie is retired and this clueless idiot takes over. What other job does one spend one's entire life waiting to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Indeed it is. I can't wait until Lizzie is retired and this clueless idiot takes over. What other job does one spend one's entire life waiting to do? Take over a family business, much the same as royalty. ---------- Post added 09-10-2015 at 11:47 ---------- Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting programme and journalism at its worst. The only dirt they were interested in was on Chris Fay's light switch, which we had to see in all its glory more than once. Mentioned Chris Fay's past conviction but failed to mention the past convictions of those VIPs accused. ---------- Post added 08-10-2015 at 20:31 ---------- http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/07/bishop-peter-ball-escaped-charges-mps-royal-family-intervened-court Absolutely shocking. And for the DM lovers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263475/Bishop-abused-young-priests-naked-prayers-got-away-two-decades.html The comments section is worth a look. I thought it was an excellent well researched programme, but there again I wasn't prejudging anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 One way forwards might be to enable defamation actions to be continued- or even started- after death of the claimant. Odd, isn't it, that supposed victims appear only the supposed defendant is dead and therefore cannot sue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 One way forwards might be to enable defamation actions to be continued- or even started- after death of the claimant. Odd, isn't it, that supposed victims appear only the supposed defendant is dead and therefore cannot sue! can we have this in laymans terms Jeffrey (you been on the drink when you wrote this ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 posted in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Now, it seems, it's the turn of Tom Watson to have his career ruined, for speaking out for the victims of child abuse. Just like Geoffrey Dickens before him. You take on the full force of the Establishment at your peril... It really is time one of these cases was tested in a court of law, rather than in the gutter press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now