VIP paedophile ring

[exxon]

Yes, it's a great principle that should be held and applied at EVERY level of society regardless of status. In the case of Thatcher her decision could have been deferred, not unlike many court cases that need further information to asses validity of evidence, or social or mental capacity of the person involved.

 

You've already been banned for accusing others of lying when no lies have been made..only information tendered, information that is on record. No one has accused Britten of being guilty of paedophilia on this forum..what has been put forward is a vast amount of documented data being swept under the carpet or magically 'disappearing'. Because of your bias ( I love all things Tory) and a myopic view of power and corruption you are personally insulating that bias.

 

Without information or evidence as you say, a case will likely fall apart..but if information that would or could condemn goes magically missing (especially when it concerns a minister and his office who that information goes through) as well as other highly alarming pointers regarding information within other government establishments, then it's obvious to the majority that something could be deemed highly suspicious. After all, suspicion is the first criteria of a guilty outcome as well as innocence..and in this case there is plenty to be suspicious about, unless you're a Tory ass wipe, so, in that instance, what you believe in is relevant. It would seem that in order for those of high status to be called to book they have to die first..which is pretty handy for those who could be part of the cover up with "Have some respect, the poor man is dead" which is just perfect for the sentimentalists or those with hidden agendas.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2015 at 10:57 ----------

 

 

Yes there was. If you applied for a post that involves looking after children and it was pointed out that information is available indicating that you were a kiddy fiddler that might be good enough reason to defer your decision on the post.

 

 

 

 

Idiotic statements like this really do compound the fact that paedophilia shouldn't be taken seriously...after all. it's just "minutae".

 

So what you are saying is people are innocent until proved guilty unless you assume guilt, in which case they are guilty until proven innocent.

[cassity]

Deferred until when? Until the Director of Public Prosecutions changes their mind to agree with you?

 

Deferred until after all the information was deemed insufficient...or in Smiths case, sufficient. Information put on Thatchers desk wasn't a school boy "minutae" prank. Smith was a kiddy fiddler, thatcher rewarded him...suck it up.

 

 

Building arguments with hindsight is really idiotic.

 

It wasn't an argument, it was a direct statement.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2015 at 11:32 ----------

 

So what you are saying is people are innocent until proved guilty

 

Correct

 

 

unless you assume guilt, in which case they are guilty until proven innocent.

 

Incorrect. Assuming guilt isn't confirmation of guilt.

 

I think (assume) you're a paedophile apologist simply based on your biased politics..that isn't confirmation you are.

[Eric Arthur]

The DPP said there was no case back in the day and that's it. There is no more to it unless you're an idiot (your choice of words) in 2015.

 

You're not worth the effort of further repetition if you don't have the intellectual horsepower to understand how things work. Go and find a paediatrician to annoy instead.

[cassity]

The DPP said there was no case back in the day and that's it. There is no more to it unless you're an idiot (your choice of words) in 2015.

 

You're not worth the effort of further repetition if you don't have the intellectual horsepower to understand how things work. Go and find a paediatrician to annoy instead.

 

Yeah, like the DPP couldn't get it wrong or warned off.

 

And in the meantime children went on to be abused sexually and violently.

 

Has to be asked..was there evidence or was the evidence covered up? On reflection? Covered up...bit like Saville.

 

The whole issue isn't about guilt..it's about information and data mysteriously being lost by "pickfords", yeah right! - scratch my back and I'll scratch yours-, as long as it's a young child scratching some fat perverts back.....

[Eric Arthur]

Amazing. A tin foil hat on a ducking stool.

[cassity]

Amazing. A tin foil hat on a ducking stool.

 

Question. Do you believe in the existence of high level establishment corruption in order to satisfy individual/combined personal needs, or do you think it's a load of old cobblers and a figment of the tinfoilhat brigade?

[Eric Arthur]

As a scientist I don't believe one thing or the other until I see reliable evidence.

 

Why do you believe things that there is no reliable evidence for?

[cassity]

As a scientist I don't believe one thing or the other until I see reliable evidence.

 

Why do you believe things that there is no reliable evidence for?

 

 

 

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

[Anna B]

As a scientist I don't believe one thing or the other until I see reliable evidence.

 

Why do you believe things that there is no reliable evidence for?

 

But there is evidence. Many reliable people (policemen for example) have seen reliable evidence and would be more than happy to stand up in a court of law to say so. That is the reason why the establishment are so determined it will never come to court.

[Eric Arthur]

There is rumour, which isn't even close to being evidence. I've heard stories about Cliff Richard from policemen who say they were there but I don't go repeating them as truth.

 

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

 

Wisecracks aside you could quickly learn to understand what separates evidence from theory if you were remotely interested. Anna B is a lost case but you seem a bit more switched on.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Eric Arthur