VIP paedophile ring

[exxon]

Again you've proved my point.

 

Are you talking about the rape case which Tom Watson asked to be investigated and was subsequently dropped for lack of evidence, or the other multiple cases against Leon Britton which are still being investigated. Or are you talking about the carefully edited and confusing Panorama programme on TV which wasn't specifically just about Leon Britton, and mixed up several cases, and claims?

 

You see your post shows you aren't talking about one case at all.

 

Actually I am talking about the trumped up child abuse claims made by Tom Watson involving victims who were primed with false stories. It may have escaped your notice that Leon Brittain is dead. But before he died Watson dredged up a whole load of nonsense that has been totally discredited. Brittain even had the cast iron alibi of being on overseas duties for the government at the time of one of the alegations. Another of the victims has appeared on TV to say it never happened and he had never met Brittain. The whole house of cards has come apart.

 

Now the DPP would have to decide if it is in the public interest to pursue any similar lines of investigation 30 years or more after the event when the accussed is dead and no longer able to answer the charges. In light of the clear evidence that there is tainted evidence and primed witnesses that's not really a call that is difficult to make. So if there were a case to answer, and after 30 years I doubt there is, it is pretty certain that the DPP would decide that it isn't in the public interest to pursue. So good on Tom Watson and his mates. You have them to thank for that.

Edited October 23, 2015 by exxon

[Anna B]

You said mainstream media was the last place to go for the facts...why do you use it?

 

 

 

and the internet is full of people with axes to grind one way or another..

 

I use mainstream media for comparison purposes and to see what is being said. It's arguably where most people get their information from and consequently the most influential. I read articles critically right to the end, not just the banner headlines or the first couple of paragraphs. It's amazing the stuff that's shoved in at the end that people often don't get to. Sometimes it contradicts the entire mainstream article.

 

I've also worked in radio and television and know how seamlessly things can be edited to convey the opposite of what was intended.

 

The internet is certainly full of people with axes to grind, and no source is sacrosanct which is why it's important to check and cross reference, starting with the footnotes, etc. Some sites are obviously more reliable than others.

 

All this started with a high profile case I was interested in. I dilligently read the court reports of what was actually said, and then read the newspapers to see how it was reported. The spin was unbelievable. But of course which do you think was most widely read? So Public Opinion was duly manipulated and formed.

 

As for the VIP paedophile scandal, I am still not sure.

Which is why I want to see it go to court.

 

This seems to be something they are desperate to avoid which makes me wonder why?

They also seem to want to shut down the public enquiry.

We will no doubt be hearing about how much it's costing, (£millions) and how we can't afford it etc. We can and must. There are bigger things at stake.

[exxon]

I use mainstream media for comparison purposes and to see what is being said. It's arguably where most people get their information from and consequently the most influential. I read articles critically right to the end, not just the banner headlines or the first couple of paragraphs. It's amazing the stuff that's shoved in at the end that people often don't get to. Sometimes it contradicts the entire mainstream article.

 

I've also worked in radio and television and know how seamlessly things can be edited to convey the opposite of what was intended.

 

The internet is certainly full of people with axes to grind, and no source is sacrosanct which is why it's important to check and cross reference, starting with the footnotes, etc. Some sites are obviously more reliable than others.

 

All this started with a high profile case I was interested in. I dilligently read the court reports of what was actually said, and then read the newspapers to see how it was reported. The spin was unbelievable. But of course which do you think was most widely read? So Public Opinion was duly manipulated and formed.

 

As for the VIP paedophile scandal, I am still not sure.

Which is why I want to see it go to court.

 

This seems to be something they are desperate to avoid which makes me wonder why?

They also seem to want to shut down the public enquiry.

We will no doubt be hearing about how much it's costing, (£millions) and how we can't afford it etc. We can and must. There are bigger things at stake.

 

It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up. You get all your information from the media.

[Anna B]

It doesn't matter how you want to dress it up. You get all your information from the media.

 

Of course I get information from 'the media.' Short of talking to the actual people concerned, what other source is there?

 

However, 'the media' covers multiple sources, and it's how you use the media that's important.

And believing everything you get from one source, without comparing it with other sources leads to one dimensional thinking.

 

It's also important to reflect on what you're not being told, often the most important aspect of all...

[truman]

Of course I get information from 'the media.' Short of talking to the actual people concerned, what other source is there?

 

However, 'the media' covers multiple sources, and it's how you use the media that's important.

And believing everything you get from one source, without comparing it with other sources leads to one dimensional thinking.

 

It's also important to reflect on what you're not being told, often the most important aspect of all...

 

Why do you assume everyone (except you of course) does this?

[Anna B]

Why do you assume everyone (except you of course) does this?

 

I don't.

 

But you can tell the ones who do.

[vanner]

Again you've proved my point.

 

Are you talking about the rape case which Tom Watson asked to be investigated and was subsequently dropped for lack of evidence, or the other multiple cases against Leon Britton which are still being investigated. Or are you talking about the carefully edited and confusing Panorama programme on TV which wasn't specifically just about Leon Britton, and mixed up several cases, and claims?

 

You see your post shows you aren't talking about one case at all.

 

So Leon Brittan is guilty by innuendo?

As there is no evidence this must be the case.

The strangest fact about this case is that ALL the people accused are conservatives. It seems clear that Tom Watson had an axe to grind.

[redfox]

Why would it be impossible to bring the evidence to court?

Exxon - please tell us? Point me in the direction of the legal basis for such an assertion. Not a wiki link - try a piece of legislation maybe or a decision of the court of appeal or the Supreme Court.

 

You are blinded by your distaste for a politician. Is that because of his party perchance ?

[Longcol]

I use mainstream media for comparison purposes and to see what is being said. It's arguably where most people get their information from and consequently the most influential. I read articles critically right to the end, not just the banner headlines or the first couple of paragraphs. It's amazing the stuff that's shoved in at the end that people often don't get to. Sometimes it contradicts the entire mainstream article.

 

I've also worked in radio and television and know how seamlessly things can be edited to convey the opposite of what was intended.

 

The internet is certainly full of people with axes to grind, and no source is sacrosanct which is why it's important to check and cross reference, starting with the footnotes, etc. Some sites are obviously more reliable than others.

 

 

So apart from "mainstream media" what other sources do you use - the thing is on all the threads where we've "crossed swords" - David Kelly and Princess Di for example - I honestly can't recall you ever posting a link to a source.

[exxon]

So Leon Brittan is guilty by innuendo?

As there is no evidence this must be the case.

The strangest fact about this case is that ALL the people accused are conservatives. It seems clear that Tom Watson had an axe to grind.

 

He seems to have a lot of axes to grind.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3285795/Tom-Watson-anothher-sexual-abuse-claim-intervention.html