dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 **** paedophiles : what an awful breed of mankind I think it's important to note the distinct difference between the likes of Rolf Harris and those who strangle children to death. This latest batch of allegations horrifies me, but maybe I've become a little dulled towards Harris and his kind. They all repulse me of course, but this latest strength of feeling is up there with the Watkins case. I generally want to see people bought to justice before a court of law, but in the case of Watkins, Saville and this alleged high society ring I feel personally ashamed for man kind. Put me in a room with them and I would butcher them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted November 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted November 17, 2014 Just out of curiousity and discussion - what is to be gained or lost, in terms of a (current) cover up?- I mean if they were to do a proper investigation, and whatever was to be found out, who of the current decision makers on an enquiry /cover up would either gain or lose anything? I think I'm asking what motivation is there to cover things up now? surely all the people allegedly involved are either deceased or not in power? Would it be a party political thing? like, say if the Gov't at the time was whichever party (probably tory) is it that if the then tory gov't was shown to be riddled with child molesters that it would be taken as bad for them now - more so than getting to the bottom of it all? would that be a reason to just hide it all away? I can definitely see an incompetence thing, with the choice, twice, of unsuitable people to chair the investigation. I don't trust the tories as far as I could kick them, but I don't see that Teresa May or Cameron have a reason to deliberately cover things up. What, if anything, am I missing? Well, here's my take on it. As a general rule, groups tend to protect their members, often prioritising this above ethics and the law when it seems possible that a cover-up can be got away with, or if discovered excused as not understanding the seriousness of what was covered up. This is why whistleblowing is so difficult, and people performing a public service are so often ostracised for uncovering wrongdoing. Examples abound. Deaths in police custody; Hillsborough; murders by the armed forces; systematic and planned illegality by banks. In all these cases, people knew and chose to do nothing. In respect of child abuse, both private schools and churches have notoriously and repeatedly covered up abuse, preferring to move on the abuser to carry on elsewhere, than to confront the situation. It's such a regular response by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations that we shouldn't be surprised. In fact, getting people to behave in a different way often has to be the subject of planned and repeated training and support. I suppose part of the thinking is about protecting the institution, either for apparently altruistic reasons or more probably because it's pretty grim to think you have dedicated your career to working in an organisation where corruption and abuse are rampant. Part of it might be about protecting individuals, though personally I think that's less likely to be it. It's not a party political thing. Dickens was a tory who was seeking to expose things about people in his own party. I suppose party loyalty is a factor when the abuse is less serious - for example the contortions of the libdems when dealing with allegations of Rennard's "inappropriate touching" last year. Part of it might be people convincing themselves that the abuse was in the past, it's over, so what point is there in creating a media circus over something that can't be changed. Then there's the role of groups which are either informal, or secret. Membership of the same group of friends, moving in the same social circle, having occasional dinners and going on charity junkets with your near neighbour from down the street. And secret groups like PIE or the Freemasons, whose loyalty is explicitly to one another in defiance of the law and the obligations of whatever organisation employs them. So I suppose I can see a range of motivations for covering things up, on a scale from deliberate and planned subversion of the law, to misguided calculation of the rights and wrongs of dealing with it, to some sort of self-deception that ends in a lack of action. With this one, I can imagine the sense of horror that members of the government would feel when faced with exposing something which shows senior politicians, security forces, judges and other pillars of the establishment being involved in paedophile rings. The natural inclination is to ignore it, as they have for decades, possibly trying to take some informal action to stop it. When the point is reached at which it can't be concealed any longer, then they will want to show it is past, contained, less serious than might be imagined, and oh my, look over there! So the terms of reference of any inquiry, the membership of it, and the nature and quality of evidence which is "no longer available due to the passage of time" are all important. They will perhaps mentally resolve that such a thing will never happen again, but in the meantime, it's water under the bridge, so let's have some sort of inquiry to show willing, but let's not get too deep in the mire. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 **** paedophiles : what an awful breed of mankind I think it's important to note the distinct difference between the likes of Rolf Harris and those who strangle children to death. This latest batch of allegations horrifies me, but maybe I've become a little dulled towards Harris and his kind. They all repulse me of course, but this latest strength of feeling is up there with the Watkins case. I generally want to see people bought to justice before a court of law, but in the case of Watkins, Saville and this alleged high society ring I feel personally ashamed for man kind. Put me in a room with them and I would butcher them. vigilantly justice FTW the high society ring is all allegations at this moment and not proven , what happens when it turns out an innocent man has been butchered to death ? there are internet conspiracy theorists that say we didn't land on the moon and that the twin towers didn't get hit by planes .... I'm not saying this latest rounds of child abuse allegations are in the same delusion category but I'd also be a little bit cautious about jumping to any conclusions based on stuff read on the internet ... somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... I'm just a little bit cautious of theories like that so I'd rather let the experts do their work before I start butchering people (of course there is the concern that the experts won't do their work ) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 ...As a general rule, groups tend to protect their members, often prioritising this above ethics and the law when it seems possible that a cover-up can be got away with, or if discovered excused as not understanding the seriousness of what was covered up. This is why whistleblowing is so difficult, and people performing a public service are so often ostracised for uncovering wrongdoing.... Thanks for the considered reply, Peter. Just on the quoted bit, this seems to be a particular thing with the UK. I don't have any evidence to compare, but I have a feeling that we as a society are somehow inherently more prone to this "shooting the messenger" and blaming/disbelieving the victim than elsewhere. The general reaction to whistleblowers in this country is absolutely appalling, and the way in which the "system" up to and including judges and politicians seems to collude in it is a disgrace.I don't know if it's a class thing, an institution thing or a general human behavioural trait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ...No thats not the story, you have it a tad confused. The Dunblane Massacre was just that. A man, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School and wiped out a load of kids.The real story there is how Thomas Hamilton came by his firearms licence given that he was a suspected paedophile. Arrested at least twice, kicked out of the Scouting Movement for it plus I think other organisations. Also suspected of being a freemason which is where former Labour Foreign Secretary and General Secretary of NATO George Robertson comes into play. Robertson also a Freemason was the referee on Hamilton's firearm certificate application, which also appears to have been rushed through without proper checks being made, such as he claimed to be a member of a certain shooting club which he wasn't, not only that, the club in question used a police shooting range which wasn't licensed for the type of gun Hamilton was applying for.Where the massacre story gets conflated with child abuse is at the Queen Victoria School, a residential school for the children of Scottish servicemen just outside Dunblane. Here a former teacher claims a paedophile ring operated, similar story to North Wales, dignitaries and others would arrive and take children away for day trips etc, they'd come back distressed but with lots of money. The teacher who made these allegations (before the massacre) claims that having seen Hamilton's photo on the news at the time of the massacre, he realised he was one of the "Friends of QVS" that used to freely wander the school at all hours and take children out.There isn't a story that the massacre is a cover up for child abuse, it is however connected to abuse by Hamilton. The cover up about Dunblane is all about the gun licences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... No thats not the story, you have it a tad confused. The Dunblane Massacre was just that. A man, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School and wiped out a load of kids. The real story there is how Thomas Hamilton came by his firearms licence given that he was a suspected paedophile. Arrested at least twice, kicked out of the Scouting Movement for it plus I think other organisations. Also suspected of being a freemason which is where former Labour Foreign Secretary and General Secretary of NATO George Robertson comes into play. Robertson also a Freemason was the referee on Hamilton's firearm certificate application, which also appears to have been rushed through without proper checks being made, such as he claimed to be a member of a certain shooting club which he wasn't, not only that, the club in question used a police shooting range which wasn't licensed for the type of gun Hamilton was applying for. Where the massacre story gets conflated with child abuse is at the Queen Victoria School, a residential school for the children of Scottish servicemen just outside Dunblane. Here a former teacher claims a paedophile ring operated, similar story to North Wales, dignitaries and others would arrive and take children away for day trips etc, they'd come back distressed but with lots of money. The teacher who made these allegations (before the massacre) claims that having seen Hamilton's photo on the news at the time of the massacre, he realised he was one of the "Friends of QVS" that used to freely wander the school at all hours and take children out. There isn't a story that the massacre is a cover up for child abuse, it is however connected to abuse by Hamilton. The cover up about Dunblane is all about the gun licences thetruthseeker has the Dunblane theory I referred to on it , I read it after it was linked to in this thread (or may have been via a PM as some of the allegations are pretty wild and IMO not credible ) whilst he does cover a lot of the bits you mention , his accusations are borderline lunatic ( I wont repeat any of them here ) hence my concern over internet allegations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 The thing with this latest story though, it isn't an internet story. Its been reported in the press countless times, there have been inquiries and somehow its been gone away again. Countless victims have made allegations in the past, nothing done.Sure there are rumours and bits that will be untrue, thats true in life on or off the internet. However there is actually that much material out there, its not just internet nut jobs finding 2 + 2 = 457.You can even make a more than good guess at the names on the supposed Dickens list by reading the QC's report from last week. Appendix D iirc - additional search terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... No thats not the story, you have it a tad confused. The Dunblane Massacre was just that. A man, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School and wiped out a load of kids. The real story there is how Thomas Hamilton came by his firearms licence given that he was a suspected paedophile. Arrested at least twice, kicked out of the Scouting Movement for it plus I think other organisations. Also suspected of being a freemason which is where former Labour Foreign Secretary and General Secretary of NATO George Robertson comes into play. Robertson also a Freemason was the referee on Hamilton's firearm certificate application, which also appears to have been rushed through without proper checks being made, such as he claimed to be a member of a certain shooting club which he wasn't, not only that, the club in question used a police shooting range which wasn't licensed for the type of gun Hamilton was applying for. Where the massacre story gets conflated with child abuse is at the Queen Victoria School, a residential school for the children of Scottish servicemen just outside Dunblane. Here a former teacher claims a paedophile ring operated, similar story to North Wales, dignitaries and others would arrive and take children away for day trips etc, they'd come back distressed but with lots of money. The teacher who made these allegations (before the massacre) claims that having seen Hamilton's photo on the news at the time of the massacre, he realised he was one of the "Friends of QVS" that used to freely wander the school at all hours and take children out. There isn't a story that the massacre is a cover up for child abuse, it is however connected to abuse by Hamilton. The cover up about Dunblane is all about the gun licences thetruthseeker has the Dunblane theory I referred to on it , I read it after it was linked to in this thread (or may have been via a PM as some of the allegations are pretty wild and IMO not credible ) whilst he does cover a lot of the bits you mention , his accusations are borderline lunatic ( I wont repeat any of them here ) hence my concern over internet allegations On Dunblane, when the papers regarding the case were placed under the 100 year secrecy rule "to protect the identities of the children", it was obvious bullshit which only fuels conspiracy theories, by showing that a conspiracy exists to keep secret something which is embarassing to someone important. In this case, it may well be the connections between freemasonry, police, and George Robertson in relation to the gun licence and what was already known about the killer when he was granted a gun licence - I don't know. Some of the papers were later released. Not all. We are still no wiser about this particular conspiracy fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 **** paedophiles : what an awful breed of mankind I think it's important to note the distinct difference between the likes of Rolf Harris and those who strangle children to death. This latest batch of allegations horrifies me, but maybe I've become a little dulled towards Harris and his kind. They all repulse me of course, but this latest strength of feeling is up there with the Watkins case. I generally want to see people bought to justice before a court of law, but in the case of Watkins, Saville and this alleged high society ring I feel personally ashamed for man kind. Put me in a room with them and I would butcher them. vigilantly justice FTW the high society ring is all allegations at this moment and not proven , what happens when it turns out an innocent man has been butchered to death ? there are internet conspiracy theorists that say we didn't land on the moon and that the twin towers didn't get hit by planes .... I'm not saying this latest rounds of child abuse allegations are in the same delusion category but I'd also be a little bit cautious about jumping to any conclusions based on stuff read on the internet ... somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... I'm just a little bit cautious of theories like that so I'd rather let the experts do their work before I start butchering people (of course there is the concern that the experts won't do their work ) Clearly I meant if they were to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't think that needed pointing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... No thats not the story, you have it a tad confused. The Dunblane Massacre was just that. A man, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane Primary School and wiped out a load of kids. The real story there is how Thomas Hamilton came by his firearms licence given that he was a suspected paedophile. Arrested at least twice, kicked out of the Scouting Movement for it plus I think other organisations. Also suspected of being a freemason which is where former Labour Foreign Secretary and General Secretary of NATO George Robertson comes into play. Robertson also a Freemason was the referee on Hamilton's firearm certificate application, which also appears to have been rushed through without proper checks being made, such as he claimed to be a member of a certain shooting club which he wasn't, not only that, the club in question used a police shooting range which wasn't licensed for the type of gun Hamilton was applying for. Where the massacre story gets conflated with child abuse is at the Queen Victoria School, a residential school for the children of Scottish servicemen just outside Dunblane. Here a former teacher claims a paedophile ring operated, similar story to North Wales, dignitaries and others would arrive and take children away for day trips etc, they'd come back distressed but with lots of money. The teacher who made these allegations (before the massacre) claims that having seen Hamilton's photo on the news at the time of the massacre, he realised he was one of the "Friends of QVS" that used to freely wander the school at all hours and take children out. There isn't a story that the massacre is a cover up for child abuse, it is however connected to abuse by Hamilton. The cover up about Dunblane is all about the gun licences thetruthseeker has the Dunblane theory I referred to on it , I read it after it was linked to in this thread (or may have been via a PM as some of the allegations are pretty wild and IMO not credible ) whilst he does cover a lot of the bits you mention , his accusations are borderline lunatic ( I wont repeat any of them here ) hence my concern over internet allegations On Dunblane, when the papers regarding the case were placed under the 100 year secrecy rule "to protect the identities of the children", it was obvious bullshit which only fuels conspiracy theories, by showing that a conspiracy exists to keep secret something which is embarassing to someone important. In this case, it may well be the connections between freemasonry, police, and George Robertson in relation to the gun licence and what was already known about the killer when he was granted a gun licence - I don't know. Some of the papers were later released. Not all. We are still no wiser about this particular conspiracy fact. I can understand that and why it would cause conspiracy claims ... but this particular guy (truthseeker) then goes onto name an a certain person as a paedophile , and whatever my views on the person he named , he strikes me as a decent man and I can't give those claims any credibility and as such he then blows all the good work and the truth he has exposed away maybe that is the conspiracy and this truthseeker is here to sabotage those seeking to bring out the truth ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 **** paedophiles : what an awful breed of mankind I think it's important to note the distinct difference between the likes of Rolf Harris and those who strangle children to death. This latest batch of allegations horrifies me, but maybe I've become a little dulled towards Harris and his kind. They all repulse me of course, but this latest strength of feeling is up there with the Watkins case. I generally want to see people bought to justice before a court of law, but in the case of Watkins, Saville and this alleged high society ring I feel personally ashamed for man kind. Put me in a room with them and I would butcher them. vigilantly justice FTW the high society ring is all allegations at this moment and not proven , what happens when it turns out an innocent man has been butchered to death ? there are internet conspiracy theorists that say we didn't land on the moon and that the twin towers didn't get hit by planes .... I'm not saying this latest rounds of child abuse allegations are in the same delusion category but I'd also be a little bit cautious about jumping to any conclusions based on stuff read on the internet ... somewhere out there is a theory that Dunblane was a cover up of child abuse for example ... I'm just a little bit cautious of theories like that so I'd rather let the experts do their work before I start butchering people (of course there is the concern that the experts won't do their work ) Clearly I meant if they were to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't think that needed pointing out. I'm not your defence lawyer ..but it did for the record though Barry George was convicted beyond reasonable doubt and so have lots of other people who subsequently turned out to innocent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Fair enough. Why would I have wanted to butcher Barry George? Maybe my post was a bit emotive. But it was late and I was tired. Sorry if it offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Fair enough. Why would I have wanted to butcher Barry George? Maybe my post was a bit emotive. But it was late and I was tired. Sorry if it offended. didn't offend ..I just like being mischievous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I know. I just like to be dramatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Just seen an article saying Jill Dando was murdered to keep her from shopping a paedo ring at the BBC...I wonder if there's any substance to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 22, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2014 Just seen an article saying Jill Dando was murdered to keep her from shopping a paedo ring at the BBC...I wonder if there's any substance to that?Its been rumoured for a while. The Guardian has an article saying that two different well respected former newspaper editors have claimed they were slapped with D notices in the 80's when they were going to expose Cyril Smith. The MOD claims there is no evidence for this. Cover up looking more and more likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Why would they cover up paedophilia by mp's? 14 seconds in Edited November 23, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Just seen an article saying Jill Dando was murdered to keep her from shopping a paedo ring at the BBC...I wonder if there's any substance to that? Its been rumoured for a while. The Guardian has an article saying that two different well respected former newspaper editors have claimed they were slapped with D notices in the 80's when they were going to expose Cyril Smith. The MOD claims there is no evidence for this. Cover up looking more and more likely Thought it was a tennis loving pop star that killed her according to the interweb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Theresa May said yesterday that the recent allegations concerning the rape and murder of young boys by MP's might be the 'tip of the iceberg'. I don't see how things could get significantly worse than that, but if they are, and by some miracle it is properly investigated, then one wonders how the institutions of state can survive the fallout. I just want to machine gun them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2014 Why would they cover up paedophilia by mp's? 14 seconds in Well yes but I think the cover up here goes well beyond the scope of the position of Chief Whip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts