VIP paedophile ring

[*Belle*]

There was a culture of cover up, people in high places did get the benefit of the doubt.

 

They absolutely did not get the benefit of the doubt. The information was used to blackmail them into being establishment puppets. This short clip tells us as much:

[Eater Sundae]

I thought a lot of this would be obvious even to you, it's certainly in the public domain.

 

First of all Tom Watson didn't pick political targets, they were named to him . They accused political targets not him. However he believed them and did what was necessary.

 

He brought it up in Parliament because it had to be made public. He needed to protect himself using Parliamentary Privilege otherwise he could have been sued. It had to be made public because other victims who had suffered similarly, would be encouraged to come forward, knowing that, this time, they would be taken seriously.

 

This has been the method deemed necessary ever since the Jimmy Saville case highlighted the fact that famous, well-connected people have a certain level of deference and protection, that ordinary people don't have, and that must be overcome. Jimmy Saville was able to hide in plain site for years because no one would believe his accusers, in fact the accusers were often threatened by the police if they didn't go away. So in certain cases it was made public that certain high profile people had been accused, and they were able to defend themselves in court.

 

Politicians and Establishment figures are on a higher level even than that. As they are also the ones who make the law, and are generally considered to be above suspicion. They also command the services of the police force and Secret Service, and can order those services to hide evidence etc via the official secrets act. Declaring certain names in Parliament meant they could no longer do that so easily.

 

According to Chief Constable Simon Bailey, Head of Operation Hydrant, (tasked with co-ordinating the different historic VIP inquiries, and reporting to Justice Lowell Goddard,) he says that there are 76 politicians accused, plus 43 from the music industry and 135 from Film, Radio and TV, (although there are also over 216 dead.) The size of the operation has stunned police who estimate there may be tens of thousands of victims. People are still afraid to come forward for fear of not being believed, and repercussions when they are.

 

So it's a big problem. Extremely complex, and by its very nature often a crime committed in privacy and without witnesses, so difficult to prove. But in this case we may be dealing with a paedophile network so victims might be able to corroborate evidence. Dealing with these very important and powerful people adds layer upon layer of difficulty. But personally I'd say there's no smoke without fire, and enough evidence to know that something very dark is going on. It needs very careful and clever handling to get at the truth. The upper echelons of society are very close, interconnected and influential, with friends in extremely high places, so will be very hard to pin down. However there has to be a solution or it will continue, and the victims deserve justice.

 

"There's no smoke without fire".

So, once someone is named it is" proof" that they are guilty. This justifies Watson naming them in the first place, because they must be guilty. Is that how it works?

 

Edit. An acceptable defence if you are sued for defamation is that you have a reasonable belief that what you say is true. Watson hid behind parliamentary privilege. If he had reasonable belief in what he said he could have said it outside parliament.

 

VIPs are being investigated. They would have been whether he named them in public or not.

 

There might be a case for publicising names in order to elicit victims to feel confident to come forward, but that decision should be left to the people responsible for the investigation, not to some arrogant self important politician who thinks he knows best.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Eater Sundae

[I1L2T3]

I don't want it either way. I contend that Watson is interested in the politics more than the allegations.

 

I would contend that you are actually. The fact that Watson is a Labour politician seems critically important to you, and others on here.

 

I can see past that and wholeheartedly support both Goldsmith and Watson for what they are doing to help victims.

[drummonds]

"There's no smoke without fire".

So, once someone is named it is" proof" that they are guilty. This justifies Watson naming them in the first place, because they must be guilty. Is that how it works?

 

Edit. An acceptable defence if you are sued for defamation is that you have a reasonable belief that what you say is true. Watson hid behind parliamentary privilege. If he had reasonable belief in what he said he could have said it outside parliament.

 

VIPs are being investigated. They would have been whether he named them in public or not.

 

There might be a case for publicising names in order to elicit victims to feel confident to come forward, but that decision should be left to the people responsible for the investigation, not to some arrogant self important politician who thinks he knows best.

 

the good news is tom watson is heading towards the political dustbin. he is damaged goods and his reputation in tatters. that is the problem when you attempt to smear folks with crap. it is very easy to end up covered in it yourself.

[Anna B]

the good news is tom watson is heading towards the political dustbin. he is damaged goods and his reputation in tatters. that is the problem when you attempt to smear folks with crap. it is very easy to end up covered in it yourself.

 

Why don't you just try reading this thread, instead of just mouthing off?

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 16:53 ----------

 

There was a culture of cover up, people in high places did get the benefit of the doubt. That is wrong, they should have been prosecuted as long as the evidence stacked up.

 

The fact is that you dont need evidence, once you hear that "someone" is guilty of some vile offence you automatically assume the worst.

 

Can you tell me why Tom Watson will not apologise regarding Leon Brittan? What are your feelings regarding William Roache and other personalities whose lives and careers have been besmirched?

 

Tom Watson has not apolagised because the rape charge is only one of 144 charges against Leon Britton. Watson has said something to the family, but to be honest I can't be bothered to find it, as it seems no one is going to read it. If you want to know, Google it, it'll be on there somewhere.

 

I agree that it is a vile accusation to be levied against anyone as it's a particularly vile thing to do. I'm glad Bill Roache and the others have been found innocent, and don't think their career's have been harmed. I was very sad shocked about Rolf Harris and Stewart Hall who I had always liked and had thought must be innocent. I feel most sorry for Dave Lee Travers who has been financially ruined and never harmed a child in his life, but has got mixed up in the public's mind with all this.

[drummonds]

Why don't you just try reading this thread, instead of just mouthing off?.

 

i read the thread and don't agree with the tripe you post. i think thats the way these things work. ton watson has destroyed his career by trying to smear others. it seems to be a tradition with his ilk. damien mcguire did something similar. filth.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 17:00 ----------

 

but to be honest I can't be bothered to find it

 

perhaps you should instead of telling others their business.

[Eric Arthur]

I would contend that you are actually. The fact that Watson is a Labour politician seems critically important to you, and others on here.

 

I couldn't give a fig what party they belong to and I resent the insinuation that I am guilty of the political interest that I say Watson is. Watson is the person at the centre of the current stories, the rest are side shows at the moment.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 17:03 ----------

 

Why don't you just try reading this thread, instead of just mouthing off?

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 16:53 ----------

 

 

Tom Watson has not apolagised because the rape charge is only one of 144 charges against Leon Britton. Watson has said something to the family, but to be honest I can't be bothered to find it, as it seems no one is going to read it. If you want to know, Google it, it'll be on there somewhere.

 

I agree that it is a vile accusation to be levied against anyone as it's a particularly vile thing to do. I'm glad Bill Roache and the others have been found innocent, and don't think their career's have been harmed. I was very sad shocked about Rolf Harris and Stewart Hall who I had always liked and had thought must be innocent. I feel most sorry for Dave Lee Travers who has been financially ruined and never harmed a child in his life, but has got mixed up in the public's mind with all this.

 

 

 

These two stories just hit the Guardian and you would do well to read the full versions. This is what happens with the "no smoke without fire" approach shared by you and Watson. Are you so happy now that politicians hide behind parliamentary privilege to make accusations?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/16/leon-brittan-inquiry-report-met-too-afraid-of-media-reaction

The Metropolitan police were too afraid of “media criticism and public cynicism” to end a rape investigation into Leon Brittan after finding no evidence to support the allegation, it has been revealed.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/16/police-withdraw-claim-that-cyril-smith-visited-south-london-guest-house

Doubts have been cast over the Metropolitan police service’s claims that Cyril Smith attended a house in south London which was allegedly used by a VIP paedophile ring.

[Anna B]

"There's no smoke without fire".

So, once someone is named it is" proof" that they are guilty. This justifies Watson naming them in the first place, because they must be guilty. Is that how it works?

 

Edit. An acceptable defence if you are sued for defamation is that you have a reasonable belief that what you say is true. Watson hid behind parliamentary privilege. If he had reasonable belief in what he said he could have said it outside parliament.

 

VIPs are being investigated. They would have been whether he named them in public or not.

 

There might be a case for publicising names in order to elicit victims to feel confident to come forward, but that decision should be left to the people responsible for the investigation, not to some arrogant self important politician who thinks he knows best.

 

Smoke without fire is a generic comment regarding the establishment, not against any particular individual. There have been far more accusations against Establishmenr figures, and for a longer length of time, than against any celebrities, yet not one has even got to court. Can you explain that?

 

I've already explained why Tom Watson had to speak out in court and use parliamentary privilege to do it in an earlier post.

 

However, if it makes you feel any better, I doubt very much if it will be forgotten and a price will be paid.

Just ask other MPs who have tried to out wrongdoing amongst colleagues.

[Eric Arthur]

I've already explained why Tom Watson had to speak out in court and use parliamentary privilege to do it in an earlier post.

You were wrong. He was wrong, and now it's all starting to fall apart.

[Anna B]

i read the thread and don't agree with the tripe you post. i think thats the way these things work. ton watson has destroyed his career by trying to smear others. it seems to be a tradition with his ilk. damien mcguire did something similar. filth.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 17:00 ----------

 

 

perhaps you should instead of telling others their business.

 

You've read the thread yet have not come up with one single argument against anything I've said.

 

Insults, and calling something 'tripe' does not constitute an argument.

 

Besides I have not said anything that is not backed up by what the police and other authorities have said. So make a cogent argument or shut up.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 17:20 ----------

 

You were wrong. He was wrong, and now it's all starting to fall apart.

 

What have I written that is wrong?