VIP paedophile ring

[exxon]

You asked why the police were not convinced. I replied that they were convinced enough to start several investigations and the Home Secretary; an expensive public enquiry.

 

Your question clearly answered I would have thought.

 

Remember the rape charge which has been dropped is only one of many allegations against Leon Brittan.

 

I do share in Tom Warson's sentiments towards the family of Leon Brittan, it must be very hard for them, but these things have to be investigated. If we've learnt nothing over the past 30 years, surely we've at least learnt that.

 

So what you are saying is there is no evidence, no charges, nothing other than rumours spread by gossip and Tom Watson which all seems to stem from unreliable testimony much of which was dictated to vulnerable people for them to repeat. It is no wonder so many of those involved have resigned.

The only joy coming from this is that it will probably ruin Ton Watson's carear. It has certainly destroyed his reputation.

[Anna B]

So what you are saying is there is no evidence, no charges, nothing other than rumours spread by gossip and Tom Watson which all seems to stem from unreliable testimony much of which was dictated to vulnerable people for them to repeat. It is no wonder so many of those involved have resigned.

The only joy coming from this is that it will probably ruin Ton Watson's carear. It has certainly destroyed his reputation.

 

What I'm saying is that inquiries and investigations are still ongoing. in spite of efforts to change public opinion and get them shut down.

 

There are thousands of allegations.

Some of them will be found wanting. But all of them? I doubt it.

A lot of the accusers are now grown up, respectable people, with long memories. They are not children any more. Whether their testimony is unreliable or not should be tested in a proper court of law.

[Eric Arthur]

There are thousands of allegations.

Some of them will be found wanting. But all of them? I doubt it.

 

The no smoke without fire argument. You'd have done well in the Birmingham Six jury.

[exxon]

What I'm saying is that inquiries and investigations are still ongoing. in spite of efforts to change public opinion and get them shut down.

 

There are thousands of allegations.

Some of them will be found wanting. But all of them? I doubt it.

A lot of the accusers are now grown up, respectable people, with long memories. They are not children any more. Whether their testimony is unreliable or not should be tested in a proper court of law.

 

What a pity that stupid idiot Tom Watson decided to stick his oar in where it clearly wasn't wanted. We have a justice system that may not be perfect but it works. It isn't helped by some fat moron shouting out the names of "the accused" and writing articles about them in the newspaper. That isn't justice. That is a smear campaign. It may well prevent any actual evidence ever being admissible, but as long as it ends his political career that might be a small price to pay.

[Anna B]

What a pity that stupid idiot Tom Watson decided to stick his oar in where it clearly wasn't wanted. We have a justice system that may not be perfect but it works. It isn't helped by some fat moron shouting out the names of "the accused" and writing articles about them in the newspaper. That isn't justice. That is a smear campaign. It may well prevent any actual evidence ever being admissible, but as long as it ends his political career that might be a small price to pay.

 

A 30 year cover up shows the police need help when up against the full might of the Establishment. If it hadn't been for people like MPs Geoffrey Dickens and Barbara Castle tryiing to bring this to public attention we would probably never have heard of this at all.

Just think how much misery could have been saved if they'd been taken seriously 30 years ago.

 

Tom Watson is from a similar mould. Determined that the 'little people's' voice be heard, in spite of stirling efforts to dismiss it out of hand and sweep it under the carpet.

Can I ask what Tom Watson has ever done to you for you to dislike and disrespect him so much? Calling him a 'fat moron' and wishing him ill tells me a lot more about you than it does about him.

[redfox]

Exxon - how will it prevent evidence being inadmissible ? I am intrigued to learn.

 

He has gone about this in a manner that has upset a few people - he may well have kept the pressure up and the spotlight on making as sure he can be that the police did the job properly - Simon Danczuk did very much the same thing didn't he ?

[Eater Sundae]

What a pity that stupid idiot Tom Watson decided to stick his oar in where it clearly wasn't wanted. We have a justice system that may not be perfect but it works. It isn't helped by some fat moron shouting out the names of "the accused" and writing articles about them in the newspaper. That isn't justice. That is a smear campaign. It may well prevent any actual evidence ever being admissible, but as long as it ends his political career that might be a small price to pay.

 

Yes, but when there are some " no smoke without fire" supporters, then he must be right, mustn't he?

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2015 at 19:16 ----------

 

A 30 year cover up shows the police need help when up against the full might of the Establishment. If it hadn't been for people like MPs Geoffrey Dickens and Barbara Castle tryiing to bring this to public attention we would probably never have heard of this at all.

Just think how much misery could have been saved if they'd been taken seriously 30 years ago.

 

Tom Watson is from a similar mould. Determined that the 'little people's' voice be heard, in spite of stirling efforts to dismiss it out of hand and sweep it under the carpet.

Can I ask what Tom Watson has ever done to you for you to dislike and disrespect him so much? Calling him a 'fat moron' and wishing him ill tells me a lot more about you than it does about him.

 

I know that this was aimed at someone else, but I feel it necessary to comment. It has nothing to do with what he "did to you". It is that what he did was WRONG. He used the protection of Parliamentary Privilege to libel someone. He showed himself to be a cowardly bully.

[Anna B]

Yes, but when there are some " no smoke without fire" supporters, then he must be right, mustn't he?

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2015 at 19:16 ----------

 

 

I know that this was aimed at someone else, but I feel it necessary to comment. It has nothing to do with what he "did to you". It is that what he did was WRONG. He used the protection of Parliamentary Privilege to libel someone. He showed himself to be a cowardly bully.

 

That's what Geoffrey Dickens had to do. It resulted in the outing of Peter Hayman, and his resignation as a diplomat. Without that, none of this would have come to light. I rather think it's the Establishment and their dubious methods that are the bullies.

[exxon]

Exxon - how will it prevent evidence being inadmissible ? I am intrigued to learn.

 

He has gone about this in a manner that has upset a few people - he may well have kept the pressure up and the spotlight on making as sure he can be that the police did the job properly - Simon Danczuk did very much the same thing didn't he ?

 

That is pretty easy. There is a thing called false memory syndrome. It is a symptom of the rehabilitation of victims of sex crimes over a long period of time. So victims of crimes from 30 or 40 years ago are very suggestable to details that never happened. So when an amateur Sherlock Holmes starts sticking his nose into things he doesn't understand it is very easy to get victims to imagine details of people they have never met and locations they have never visited. This was certainly the case with both the cases involving Leon Brittain and Lord McAlpine, both of whom had cast iron alibis for days when certain imaginary events occured.

The panorama program highlighted an interview with a victim who admitted that names he recited were names he had been given in conversation. In a nutshell the victims have now become unreliable witnesses. Their testimony will be laughed out of any court of law.

Well done Tom Watson.

[redfox]

You didn't answer the question. How would it make things inadmissible please?

 

Have you any legal experience or expertise? Have you ever been involved in the investigation process or the prosecution process? Enlighten us

 

As for false memory syndrome - thats called telling lies isn't it - I think our process is quite able to deal with that. And while your at it please provide some evidence (not a wiki link) of the scientific basis for such