VIP paedophile ring

[rinzwind]

It seems that Tom Watson has become the story here.

 

Tom Watson is not and has never been the story. the title of this thread is "VIP paedophile ring." Tom Watson wasn't the story in any of these confirmed cases of widespread child abuse...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal

 

 

But a full investigation could have been carried out without the need to smear folk in the press or on PMQs.

 

It is likely there would be no full investigation right now without the public outcry that has resulted from what Exxon describes as smearing people. A full investigation should have been carried out when the authorities received the dossiers of evidence provided by Geoffrey Dickens and Barbara Castle many years ago. Instead Lord Britton lost them.

 

I ally myself with the comments of Exxon. There is no evidence of a crime, there is no evidence of the cover up of a crime.

 

Several police officers, intelligence agents and even MP's have come forward and blown the whistle by saying there is both evidence of crime and cover up?

 

Alan Ludd demands evidence now. Exxon says that people should not be given evidence by the press. What part do these two think the public should play in public discourse?

 

3 & 19.

 

Having watched the Panorama program actually speaking to "witnesses" who say that nothing actually happened and they were told what to say by activists

 

That would be singular. A single "witness." appeared on Panorama. I already pointed that out. Exxon himself also pointed out that we shouldn't always listen to witnesses in the media. I think this especially true for a media outlet that is itself up to its neck in paedophile scandal. If activists can corrupt witnesses, so can Panorama.

 

"Real" people are reluctant to stand for political office due to the scrutiny they are put under.

 

Are you suggesting everybody who is not standing for political office is in fact a criminal? Nice twist.

 

Lets just zoom in on the scrutiny of Public figure Jimmy Saville and without the help of Tom Watson. We know that he was a close friend of the royal family and had close ties to the Thatcher government. We know that the intelligence services scrutinize anybody who has close ties to the royal family and the government. So why didn't the intelligence services warn anybody about Jimmy Saville? Are they incompetent? What role should our intelligence services have played when they first got access to any of this information?

 

So isn't the best bet to have a body to look into these matters without shouting about it to the media before any rumour...sorry "evidence" is tried.

 

Like parliament, the police, the intelligence services or if all these fail, the media.

 

There are those among us who believe that criminals should be prosecuted without fear or favour, no matter what their political beliefs or social background but only if there is sufficient evidence to convict.

 

Most people will agree to this. Most people will also know for a fact that they see people getting away with breaking the law all the time.

 

Keep up, the one that's just been thrown out. The"Nick" accusations have also just fallen apart. What have you got left apart from innuendo and slander?

 

Missing dossiers, all the other witnesses, whistleblowers, Jimmy Saville, various on going investigations and inquiries, millions in compensation payments to victims, dead bodies and all this.

 

Wasn't Nick the same one in the Panorama program? What do you have about the rest of it?

Edited October 31, 2015 by rinzwind

[Alan Ladd]

Tom Watson is not and has never been the story. the title of this thread is "VIP paedophile ring." Tom Watson wasn't the story in any of these confirmed cases of widespread child abuse...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_child_abuse_investigation_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal

 

 

 

 

It is likely there would be no full investigation right now without the public outcry that has resulted from what Exxon describes as smearing people. A full investigation should have been carried out when the authorities received the dossiers of evidence provided by Geoffrey Dickens and Barbara Castle many years ago. Instead Lord Britton lost them.

 

 

 

Several police officers, intelligence agents and even MP's have come forward and blown the whistle by saying there is both evidence of crime and cover up?

 

Alan Ludd demands evidence now. Exxon says that people should not be given evidence by the press. What part do these two think the public should play in public discourse?

 

3 & 19.

 

 

 

That would be singular. A single "witness." appeared on Panorama. I already pointed that out. Exxon himself also pointed out that we shouldn't always listen to witnesses in the media. I think this especially true for a media outlet that is itself up to its neck in paedophile scandal. If activists can corrupt witnesses, so can Panorama.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting everybody who is not standing for political office is in fact a criminal? Nice twist.

 

Lets just zoom in on the scrutiny of Public figure Jimmy Saville and without the help of Tom Watson. We know that he was a close friend of the royal family and had close ties to the Thatcher government. We know that the intelligence services scrutinize anybody who has close ties to the royal family and the government. So why didn't the intelligence services warn anybody about Jimmy Saville? Are they incompetent? What role should our intelligence services have played when they first got access to any of this information?

 

 

 

Like parliament, the police, the intelligence services or if all these fail, the media.

 

 

 

Most people will agree to this. Most people will also know for a fact that they see people getting away with breaking the law all the time.

 

 

 

Missing dossiers, all the other witnesses, whistleblowers, Jimmy Saville, various on going investigations and inquiries, millions in compensation payments to victims, dead bodies and all this.

 

Wasn't Nick the same one in the Panorama program? What do you have about the rest of it?

 

Tom Watson was right to look into the information handed to him. He failed to be dispassionate and even handed and as a result damaged his case.

 

A full investigation at the time of the offences may well have led to prosecution of some/all of the persons mentioned. There wasnt one, why? No evidence was produced.

 

I doubt Lord Brittan did his own filing.

 

Who are the Police Officers/Security persons etc you mention, did they produce credible evidence or just more repetitive bleating?

 

Re Saville, and his connections, he was vetted, he had no criminal convictions, no evidence at all was produced at the time to say he was other than a respectable person.

 

You can bang on as much as you like and can attempt to take the mickey out of my name but be thankful you live in a country where there you are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. As are many of those falsely accused.

[redfox]

Innocent until proven guilty is a laudable aim - I am sure Shaker Aamer clung to that during his 14 years in prison without any charge being brought against him, having been cleared by the Bush and Obama administrations for release - I think since 2007 -

 

When you mention Jimmy Saville I suggest you reflect on how he was enabled to commit grave offences against so many vulnerable people in so many locations without being detected - and when issues were raised (and they were 'at the time') they were simply brushed aside for a variety of reasons . He was a powerful well connected man - doing what he could to keep his secrets just that - doing no more than anyone would to keep his sexual habits out of the public eye -

[exxon]

Innocent until proven guilty is a laudable aim - I am sure Shaker Aamer clung to that during his 14 years in prison without any charge being brought against him, having been cleared by the Bush and Obama administrations for release - I think since 2007 -

 

-

 

So Shaker Aamer must be guilty because not only have folks talked about it he was questioned. Therefore by your deffinition he is guilty.

[redfox]

Alan wishes us to be thankful we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, I provided an example rather a recent one where one individual may not quite be so thankful - and don't you use a spell checker at work ?

[exxon]

Alan wishes us to be thankful we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, I provided an example rather a recent one where one individual may not quite be so thankful - and don't you use a spell checker at work ?

 

So by the same criteria there is no case to answer for Brittan.

 

I don't bother with a spell checker as I use a phone. It only seems to bother the politically correct, but even then it's better if they check their own house is in order.

 

The cost involved in locking them all up, interviewing them all, charging with affray for example and then prosecuting them is now the all important consideration.

 

Actually not affray - but s.4 POA - thats summary only so can only be dealt with in the magistrates court.

 

Quicker / cheaper and better for the statistics - FPN -

Edited November 2, 2015 by exxon

[Anna B]

Tom Watson was right to look into the information handed to him. He failed to be dispassionate and even handed and as a result damaged his case.

 

A full investigation at the time of the offences may well have led to prosecution of some/all of the persons mentioned. There wasnt one, why? No evidence was produced.

 

I doubt Lord Brittan did his own filing.

 

Who are the Police Officers/Security persons etc you mention, did they produce credible evidence or just more repetitive bleating?

 

Re Saville, and his connections, he was vetted, he had no criminal convictions, no evidence at all was produced at the time to say he was other than a respectable person.

 

You can bang on as much as you like and can attempt to take the mickey out of my name but be thankful you live in a country where there you are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. As are many of those falsely accused.

 

On the other hand, Margaret Thatcher knew all about Cyril Smith, and still insisted he be given a knighthood. What does that say about her..?

[Alan Ladd]

On the other hand, Margaret Thatcher knew all about Cyril Smith, and still insisted he be given a knighthood. What does that say about her..?

 

What did she know? How do you now that she knew?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:31 ----------

 

So Shaker Aamer must be guilty because not only have folks talked about it he was questioned. Therefore by your deffinition he is guilty.

 

I doubt you will receive a reply to that one.

 

PS, when they start correcting your spelling you know they are in trouble.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 17:03 ----------

 

Innocent until proven guilty is a laudable aim - I am sure Shaker Aamer clung to that during his 14 years in prison without any charge being brought against him, having been cleared by the Bush and Obama administrations for release - I think since 2007 -

 

When you mention Jimmy Saville I suggest you reflect on how he was enabled to commit grave offences against so many vulnerable people in so many locations without being detected - and when issues were raised (and they were 'at the time') they were simply brushed aside for a variety of reasons . He was a powerful well connected man - doing what he could to keep his secrets just that - doing no more than anyone would to keep his sexual habits out of the public eye -

 

Had the terrorist Shaker Aamer been incarcerated in this country he would have been released years ago. He was arrested by either Afghan or Pakistani forces and handed over to the Americans. Using him as an example in this particular discussion is irrelevant as it is about British justice.

 

In fact your statement reinforces the fact that in the UK we have a better system than elsewhere. You should be grateful and proud of that.

 

Regarding Saville, if anyone can name the cop they complained to, the individual in power who could have done something to bring this vile creature to justice and who did not act then we should be told, I have not read or heard any such names exposed, only that Thatcher and the Royal family feted him. They do not do their own vetting.

 

I should however share one fact with you, I met Saville twice. I found him very weird (and I said so at the time). On one of the occasions I was in the company of Fred Trueman the famous cricketer. They shook hands and had some pictures taken and Saville wandered off. Fred said "theres a story there tha knows". I asked him what he meant and he replied I am not sure but hes never right."

 

I agreed then, I had no idea of the scale of the mans crimes.

[Anna B]

What did she know? How do you now that she knew?

 

Regarding Saville, if anyone can name the cop they complained to, the individual in power who could have done something to bring this vile creature to justice and who did not act then we should be told, I have not read or heard any such names exposed, only that Thatcher and the Royal family feted him. They do not do their own vetting.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31789827

 

Margaret Thatcher was made aware of child abuse allegations involving Cyril Smith before he was knighted in 1988 Cabinet Office documents have shown."

 

Regarding Savile: We have been told many times by many victims that Savile's behaviour was reported to the police at the time, and they took no action. The names, forces etc are part of an ongoing enquiry alongside the VIP enquiry, and will be part of Judge Goddard's report which is due to be finished in 2020.

[exxon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31789827

 

Margaret Thatcher was made aware of child abuse allegations involving Cyril Smith before he was knighted in 1988 Cabinet Office documents have shown."

 

 

Yes allegation. That seems to be enough for you.

 

I watched the program about this too. It seems that Smith was put forward for the honours list. Someone brought up the "ALLEGATIONS" but as the DPP had already ruled that there was no proof of the "ALLEGATIONS" and no likelyhood of there being charges, the knighthood went ahead.

 

It has something to do with the British system of a person being presumed innocent until PROVED otherwise. What part of that particular part of English law is it that you don't understand?

 

Of course Cyril Smith was a high profile Liberal MP. So not a friend or colleague of Thatcher. Just one of the names of politicians from other parties put forward for honours. To turn them down when there have been no charges against them would merely make Thatcher a target for accusations of political bias from folk like you.

Edited November 4, 2015 by exxon