Paedo Ring

Not sure I said politicians know best anywhere. I regard our body politic as absolute vermin and stopped voting years ago. If all this comes to a head (which I doubt) you're going to find yourself voting SNP yet as the last party standing

Mixing Rotherham, my own former employers, and a research progamme together, I'm reminded of an incident we had when we were placed under investigation by Channel 4's Dispatches. I fear that there could be dozens of Rotherhams.

I was aware of rumours and stories surrounding the local MP. Contrary to what yourself and Clive are trying to suggest, this particular individual is still active and very much in the present, occupying as they do, a high profile position.

What did I really know though? Stories and rumour etc seemingly backed up by decisions that were evidentially taken that would fit the conspiracy. OK the stories came from people in a position to know these things and with access to information, but there wa snever any sense that these were top secret. What do you suppose would happen to my evidence? It'd be laughed out of court. In fact it wouldn't even be allowed through the front door

Anyway, as Channel 4 were in the city filming, we were sent an email threatening us with the sack if anyone was caught speaking to their investigators. Well since I didn't care too much for my job and figured the sack might actually be doing me a favour, I chanced my arm. The researchers weren't stupid, they knew where council officers drunk in the evening, and as a regular of the alcohol circuit it didn't take me long to spot the new faces in the crowd. I duly spent a few hours with them telling them what I knew regarding what was described as "housing irregularities" (boys being put up the waiting list and placed into accommodation of personal pleasure in return votes and influence).

Perhaps not surprisingly the researchers weren't too impressed. They already had these details (I suppose they'd have to have had) and they were able to tell me a whole lot more than I could ever tell them. We did of course swap other stories and otherwise enjoyed a decent evening dissing the hypocritical British establishment. But here's the crunch.

To make any meaningful impact, they have to get it into court. They explained they'd routinely hold back 95% of their material for the expected libel case. Television and media needs to be 110% dynamite case closed to make it stick on a one in and out (aka expenses or Savile). If you haven't got that burden of proof you're struggling. You can't spin anywhere nearly as easily under oath and cross examination though. You're allowed months to plug away at the evidence and introduce all sorts of new material etc

Suffice to say, despite a reputation for litigation, the central political figure in this case didn't sue. There are of course other politicians who failed to meet the sue us if you dare challenge laid down recently with regards to their sexual activity. Can you think of any? Ask yourself why
 
Last edited:
But the other side of it is that names are thrown around as if certain people really know "what's going on" and the rest of us are "naive".

And of course if someone doesn't like cliff Richard or prince Andrew then suddenly they will be keen to believe what they want to believe. Just as that vile website highlights jews at every turn, blames them for everything from 7/7 to diseases and reminds us That such and such a paedo is a Jew, just In case we forgot (as well as being linked to some very openly anti Jew hating sites). The same with Tory mps. The talking Stalin posters will believe because they want to believe (and we will not see self appointed moderators spelling out that such accusations are dangerous).

as an aside, rotherham like most things in life was incompetence driven by stupidity. Conspiracy it was not.
 
And in a neat way, Clive completes the circle having decided that unless a politician actually comes clean and owns up, then he's not going to believe it. That to a large extent is how it works and why Grass Hopers internet auditors won't succeed in holding anyone to account

A few hours ago Clive wrote this

"Public sympathises with politicians when there are cases of paedo group sessions or whatever? You are kidding surely?"

Yet a few hours later he's neatly compartmentalised it to suit his own world view and decided that he's sympathetic to the political classes. The only thing that's going to persuade him otherwise now is a signed confession, which none of them will give. They'll deny it and hire in the best legal representation they can. Then you also have the sheer power of what these people are going up against. It's a one sided fight, and that's why it'll never come out.

So long as the population have got Mourinho's latest formation to worry about, or whether or not Judy Murray can dance an Argentinian quick step on iceskates whilst cooking a lemon souffler in a jungle, then that'll keep them occupied
 
Last edited:
As an aside

I've got a friend who has a reflex action of inserting the word "bastards" after "English" when ever he has course to use the word English. It's quite funny actually. I don't think he can help himself. I'm just wondering if Clive hasn't actually developed his own reflex lexicon based around "vile jew haters". It's a bit like 'gansta' isn't it? I mean you have to say "and shite" at the end of every sentance to make it sound more aggressive. So if you're doing something tame like making a Victoria Sponge cake, you'd say "Ive got to do some baking, and shite"
 
Last edited:
That's a ridiculous post. Ludicrous.

And quite frankly I will not have hate filled bigoted conspiracy websites "convincing me" under any circumstances. Nor supposed third hand conversations in a pub. The link I gave to he cliff richard story says it all. You would have to be sick in the head to take that particular blog post in the way the poster intended. Or thick.

pointing the finger at public figures and naming them on the net with no evidence whatsoever is a disgrace.

makes me laugh that on this site the whole gaggle of the usual sheep like posters were screaming for certain celebs privacy to be protected when there was abolsutely no doubt about the incidents in question (because it was "Murdoch press") and yet remain quite comfortable to see certain other celebs cited as paedos where there is not a shred of evidence (granted that one poster correctly questioned this strongly too). You couldn't make it up.
 
The whole point, clive, is that evidence is potentially being suppressed.......for a crime about as heinous as it gets.

It is the potential suppression of evidence that needs to be urgently investigated, because that might show us the start of the trail of breadcrumbs that leads to a genuine cover-up. The evidence that tampering may have taken place is already in the public domain (the dossier of files that went missing on Leon Brittain's watch, the subsequent identification of Cyril Smith as a paedophile etc), and whilst I'm prepared to assume innocence until guilt is proven, it is simply not good enough to equate it with the extra-curricular gymnastics of Premier League footballers and the like.

Investigate whether evidence was suppressed, and allow that to lead you somewhere....or not. Doing nothing isn't an option.
 
Warbler said:
As an aside

I've got a friend who has a reflex action of inserting the word "bastards" after "English" when ever he has course to use the word English. It's quite funny actually. I don't think he can help himself. I'm just wondering if Clive hasn't actually developed his own reflex lexicon based around "vile jew haters". It's a bit like 'gansta' isn't it? I mean you have to say "and shite" at the end of every sentance to make it sound more aggressive. So if you're doing something tame like making a Victoria Sponge cake, you'd say "Ive got to do some baking, and shite"
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at the blog before posting this patronising rubbish.

No disrespect to mowgli but the linking that blog is something that is not easy to accept on an number of grounds.
 
That is completely missing the point grass. By miles

of course it needs investigating but you think Ryan giggs "privacy" over an affair that DID happen is enforceable whereas there should be no protection orf at least self governing over accusations that cliff Richard is a paedo where there is NO evidence whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Investigate whether evidence was suppressed, and allow that to lead you somewhere....or not. Doing nothing isn't an option.
Click to expand...

They've already done it, and surprise, surprise, they found no evidence of a cover up. The Dickens dossier just went missing. It happens. It bit like the signals log for HMS Conqueror was routinely destroyed by accident as part of a documentation purge.
 
clivex said:
That's a ridiculous post. Ludicrous.

And quite frankly I will not have hate filled bigoted conspiracy websites "convincing me" under any circumstances. Nor supposed third hand conversations in a pub.
Click to expand...


Which if you could but recognise it, is precisely what I said.

"The only thing that's going to persuade him otherwise now is a signed confession, which none of them will give".

QED - the circle is complete, so you're suggestion that what I'm describing is ridiculous or ludicrous is somewhat contradicted. No one, admits to paedophilia. Our MP's will be no different. It begs the questoon therefore of where you're going to get your information from. The answer is you aren't.

You have to take a view on who has told you what, what position they hold, are they in place to know these things, what incentive might they possess, etc when (as in my case) none of the individuals are seemingly connected, but were built up over a period of about 5 years in the mid 1990's, and they all keep coming back with the same names and details (long before the internet started clouding the issue) I eventually drew the balance of probability that they were right. My sense has been added to over the years as a number of MP's who I was told were gay (some of whom seemed to be incredible accusations at the time given that they were positioning themselves as right wing leadership material) have subsequently come out and admitted it (albeit diluted versions of their sexual ambiguity - before running off to do boring series about train journeys round Britain). So i have to say, when someone tells you something that subsequently proves to be correct with the passage of time, you tend to lend it greater credance. Why wouldn't you?

You might recall that Tom Watson has intimated (well he didn't intimate it, he said it) that an allegation exists against a former Prime Minister - Yep - that chimes with what I was told too. Now don't you think the media would be crawling all over this? This is an MP from the media select committee who was instrumental in uncovering the goings on at News International after all. He's got proven form of being right.

Actually.... thinking about it further, since you were prominent in denouncing council officers for not reporting their suspicions only a few weeks ago, please allow me to patronise you again

"quite frankly I will not have hate filled bigoted conspiracy websites "convincing me" under any circumstances. Nor supposed third hand conversations in a pub".

Very often Clive, the information that you wanted people to report is little more than this. This is the level that about 95% of people who come into information, have. Very, very few people witness anything substantive first hand (largely because no one sells tickets for such events). As you said so yourself though, you wouldn't lend it any credibility, so don't be surprised when it isn't reported. I said myself that although I'd heard the rumours and could easily see how they fitted together (there was a lot of common sense behind the allegations) you're not going to get very far reporting a conversation with someone who will deny it. I would imagine there would be in the region of 200 employees in Rotherham who had strong suspicions as to what was going on but no substantive evidence, and even less faith that they could report anything that might get listened to. If I had to estimate the number of people with my own previous employer aware of that potential case, I'd say probably upward of 500
 
Last edited:
This thread is just way off track. Alun you're into Starchamber conspiracy theories and I don't buy it.

If you want to convince me or anyone else is suspect it would serve you better by not making ludicrous and irrelevant comparisons, or openly bating.

I'm firmly in the Grassy camp here, and you've posted nothing even remotely compelling to convince me otherwise.
 
Strangely enough, I'm not really that bothered about 'convincing' anybody. No need to given that its not going to make a jot of difference to anything. I'll happily bet that we can come back in years time though and nothing substantive will have changed and not a single charge will have been laid against a single MP. Most people accept that Savile was guilty now, loads of people subsequently came forward to say they'd heard the rumours but lacked the firm evidence. It's not an unusual state of affairs. This is very often how things happen. Very, very few people have a complete picture

Let's try looking at another way and see at what point people start to revise their view

1: I tell you that David Cameron is guilty of tampering with potential evidence to save a friend from criminal prosecution. Do you believe me? No
2: A month later Grasshopper tells you the same. Do you think David Cameron has done this now? No
3: 6 months later Clivex tells you. Well you're still saying no, but am perhaps a little bit more intrigued in that for the first time it comes from a supportive source
4: After a year you bump into someone who went to college with David Cameron and who keeps in touch with him. He tells you. But you still refuse to believe it
5: Then you come across a friend of David Cameron who used to work with him, who tells you that Cameron used to brag about getting a friend off a criminal prosecution by surpressing evidence. Are you still of the view that all these people are lying?
6: After 5 years you're talking to a semi connected political ally and mention this. They just laugh and say its well known, and Cameron did indeed do this with some evidence to help a friend. Do you still say I don't believe it?

The point is, you keep hearing the same story from more and more credible people. But of course the Prime Minister never admits to it. Until he does though. You take the view it can't have happened. Well he'll never do that. So that's it. These things can't happen. As we know though, politics is rife with scandal, and everyone who was ever caught from a small time expenses swindle to Watergate denied it

Having said that, you might take the alternative view that there is no smoke without fire, and that perhaps Cameron has committed some act to protect someone else in the past. He might even have coerced someone into taking the fall for him. Is that so incredulous? Well no it isn't. If you don't believe me, ask Chris Hulne. So perhaps you eventually reconcile yourself to the view that Cameron has done something illegal, but that it could be minor. You have in effect at least accepted that he's capable of it, albeit the weight of people telling you with seemingly credible access to information was decisive.

So you accept that this is possible?

Then you learn of the nature of the evidence he's tampered with, and it's bloody serious. A friendly journalist tells you that it was primary evidence in say a child abuse case, and that he's disappeared it. Now I suspect you go back into disbelieving mode? Why though? You might have made the jump previously that Cameron was capable of such deceit, but its the gravity of the offence that has sent you back into refusing to accept the possible.

What's really changed otherwise. The bigger the lie the more likely you to get away with it has of course been said before. I wouldn't allow scale to make me think something was impossible
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
This thread is just way off track. Alun you're into Starchamber conspiracy theories and I don't buy it.

If you want to convince me or anyone else is suspect it would serve you better by not making ludicrous and irrelevant comparisons, or openly bating.

I'm firmly in the Grassy camp here, and you've posted nothing even remotely compelling to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

i think Warbler is right tbh...does anyone think the Cyril Smith story for instance would have come out when he was alive?

the public don't care really..they only care when they are spoon fed half a story to turn them against someone like a footballer or popstar..people who can be named and swat to the masses for consumption. The press themselves love destroying people who are liked by the public and are from ordinary backgrounds..they love it...they don't seem too keen to blow the whistle on anyone further up the food chain though..particularly if they are in teh untouchable group..that group does exist imo.

the man in the street don't care..too many other issues to keep him busy without wondering who is giving dickie back rides to kids..or who is turning a blind eye to what

Like Warb says...maybe when they are dead it will come out..but there are a large number of individuals in this country who are completely..and that is completely...untouchable and can in effect do what the f00k they want..when they want..and probably have done...and there is nothing joe public will ever be able to do about it.

Saville was untouchable...and surprise surprise..we only found out when he was dead..even though many people suggested what he was over a number of years..but never did anything about it..because they knew they themselves would be destroyed due to the fact that he was a protected species..no one would have ever revealed publicly what they thought about what he got up to...again proving Warblers point..one comedian did...and his record was banned...how did that happen?..not by chance that is for certain
 
Last edited:
Cyril Smith was of course investigated and cleared whilst he was alive. Jeremy Thorpe is still alive and he too was of course cleared.

The McAlpine case is really interesting in that he was named as the central fixer in the original allegations when the "sue us if you dare" challenge was laid against him, and when the accussers had what they claimed was the evidence (they subsequently lost the evidence when their office was entered).

I agree with you EC. I'm struggling to believe that someone who has been making this allegation for near on two decades, never once, in this world of Google, took the time to look at an image of the person they were accussing, nor anyone of the sponsoring media took the opportunity to show him a picture of McAlpine. Not once in 20 years. Does that really sound credible? Only as the heat came on did he finally look at a picture and say sorry, wrong person. Urm..... and as you say, no one said a word

The allegation made in 2013 incidentally was different to that made in 1993. McAlpine is dead now, but it can be reported that he settled two cases privately on his terms when he was accussed of being a direct abuser. That wasn't the original allegation that he didn't challenge, albeit I'll conceed he could easily have adopted the view that it wasn't worth bothering with the original challenge as the documents weren't being widely circulated and barely anyone had picked up on them
 
I seem to recall a lot of people saying that arsene wenger was a paedo and they "knew" and it was "covered up" and there "were photos". Of course as soon as one person "knew" so did someone else. So it must be true.

god only knows how he coped and I totally admire his dignity in what was a horrible episode.
 
Well I confess I've never heard that one, so perhaps it's a London thing? or equally it could be because I follow football less and less these days

Mind you, I do recall you happily referencing the opinion about Vladmir Putin based on the Daily Mails inside man in the Kremlin (somehow I doubt the Mail has links with the Kremlin - so the most they'll get is a dissident in exile aka dodgey dossiers etc). You say on the one hand that you won't listen to malicious websites with agendas, but what you really mean is you'll select the ones that suit and are quite happy to requote the Daily Mail when the target is someone you don't like.

Personally I ain't got a clue on this one, but would suspect that the Mail were howling with laughter as they were writing it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was aimed at a completely different constituency, and that Putin is code. I never read the article, but it would probably be worth trawling through to see if there's any oblique cryptics in it
 
clivex said:
Why don't you look at the blog before posting this patronising rubbish.

No disrespect to mowgli but the linking that blog is something that is not easy to accept on an number of grounds.
Click to expand...

Clivex - I only linked that blog as it was one of the first things that comes up under a google search. I've seen a number of things posted from various sites/sources (not just blogs or social media) and I have absolutely no prior knowledge of that blog. The "jew hating" stuff you've mentioned is not something I was aware of and I did actually say I don't know what to believe when it's just on a blog. It almost damages the other info out there because some of it just seems like accusations without substance. The other point was that people are posting stuff like this and it isn't being removed, challenged etc. It certainly wasn't meant to offend anyone.

The other stuff that has come out in the mainstream about dossiers going missing and the PIE stuff suggests there has been a huge cover up. I remember hearing something when I was in the police but I genuinely can't remember who told me rather than me protecting anyone. I also remember an old monk that was about 72 getting jailed and being sent to where I worked (Armley) due to historical sexual abuse of young boys. Similar to recent cases one man came forward about 20 years later and then it snowballed to around 12-15 males, all reporting historical abuse. They didn't think anyone would listen back then and only now have found the courage to come forward and report it.

I currently work with drug and alcohol users and I'm aware of loads of abuse that went on in the 70's especially but from family members/friends of family/the uncle that wasn't really an uncle type stuff. I'm going off on a tangent here but abuse was swept under the carpet more back then, turn a blind eye, say nothing. Sadly it seems that still happens today when girls are reporting rapes and grooming and being ignored.

I totally see your point about making accusations without substance but you must also realise so much goes on or has gone on that hasn't been reported and isn't likely to be reported and there really should be a proper investigation. I know of a man that was bullied, beaten and sexually assaulted by colleagues but police investigations went nowhere, partly due to him looking like a poor witness and partly due to people that had witnessed it keeping their mouths shut due to fear. It doesn't make that person a liar, the police believed him but couldn't really take it further without witness testimonies. They were unwilling to stand in court and give evidence, not much you can do in that situation.
 
mowgli77 said:
I remember hearing something when I was in the police but I genuinely can't remember who told me rather than me protecting anyone.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe that's unusual. If you work in a political environment, or closer to the chalk face like the police, you often pick up these half bits, but that's all they are. You keep hearing the same names and descritpions from different sources and eventually form a view based on the weight of numbers and apparent credibility and diversity of where its coming from (people who don't necessarily have an incentive, but critically, they do jobs that potentially gives them access to information or people with information). You wouldn't stand a chance though if you tried to report these things. You ain't got the smoking gun, even if you can see a lot of circumstantial evidence fits. That's why Saviles disclosure unleashed a wave of people who'd had suspicions for years

If you require a signed confession though before you're prepared to accept something you're unlikely to get it. No politician who ever did anything wrong ever admits it. Chris Hulne pleaded guilty eventually, but only after he failed to have the case thrown out and the game was up.

As Mowgli says (and indeed I made the point myself) emotionally shattered and abused people make lousy witnesses when they're being sent up against Old Etonians like Jeremy Thorpe, and presided over by establishment judges. The judge even started to fall in love with Mary Archer! And that way of course you don't get your verdict, and Britain can sleep happily ever after because all our politicians are fine upstanding individuals
 
Warbler said:
I honestly don't believe that's unusual. If you work in a political environment, or closer to the chalk face like the police, you often pick up these half bits, but that's all they are. You keep hearing the same names and descritpions from different sources and eventually form a view based on the weight of numbers and apparent credibility and diversity of where its coming from (people who don't necessarily have an incentive, but critically, they do jobs that potentially gives them access to information or people with information). You wouldn't stand a chance though if you tried to report these things. You ain't got the smoking gun, even if you can see a lot of circumstantial evidence fits. That's why Saviles disclosure unleashed a wave of people who'd had suspicions for years

If you require a signed confession though before you're prepared to accept something you're unlikely to get it. No politician who ever did anything wrong ever admits it. Chris Hulne pleaded guilty eventually, but only after he failed to have the case thrown out and the game was up.

As Mowgli says (and indeed I made the point myself) emotionally shattered and abused people make lousy witnesses when they're being sent up against Old Etonians like Jeremy Thorpe, and presided over by establishment judges. The judge even started to fall in love with Mary Archer! And that way of course you don't get your verdict, and Britain can sleep happily ever after because all our politicians are fine upstanding individuals
Click to expand...

Those at the top are either fiddling with the kids or their expenses while readers of The Sun go mad at the immigrants with the big house and shed load of benefits. The politicians really are the scum of the earth but then I also hold that opinion of defence lawyers. I can just imagine a solicitor feeding Tom Queally the defence of sleepwalking to get off with a drink drive charge. It's just like the "glass slipped out of my hand" to get a Section 18 wounding dropped to a section 20 wounding (without intent) that everyone is aware of now.

As you say there are a lot of people with little bits of evidence or hearsay but nothing that would stick in court. I'd heard things about Steven Gerrard's family being threatened by Liverpool gangsters if he moved to Chelsea about 6 months before it made the media and that's to be expected if football intelligence officers communicate but I had nothing to prove that but also no reason to disbelieve it.

I always thought Saville had skeletons in his closet. There was a thread on another forum when he died and I suggested that things might come out but was told I couldn't make that assumption just because he was an eccentric.

What chance do the victims have when the police or parliament won't investigate, the judges won't prosecute and they're all protecting each other?
 
The reason Saville wasn't investigated prior to death was the info he had on all of them....ALL the way up to the TOP. This stuff happened and it disgusting that the BBC have managed to ignore a huge news story that appeared in the national press.
 
Digger said:
The reason Saville wasn't investigated prior to death was the info he had on all of them....ALL the way up to the TOP. This stuff happened and it disgusting that the BBC have managed to ignore a huge news story that appeared in the national press.
Click to expand...

but that's why all the untouchable are untouchable..they know where the bodies are buried and so can use influence to keep their names well away from any scandal..they all protect each other

thats why i used him as a typical example of being untouchable..he is the epitome of what one individual can get away with...and that was just power that a working class bloke garnered..he didn't have the privilege and public school connections many untouchables have..he started with no power or connections...and yet managed to build a protection around him very few can ever muster.
 
I think people can get a bit overly paranoid about so called conspiracies and elites sticking together.
 
clivex said:
I think people can get a bit overly paranoid about so called conspiracies and elites sticking together.
Click to expand...

and to be fair,..its that attitude that enables such as Savile and similar to stay under the radar

i don't believe 99% of conspiracies...but i do believe a reasonable selection of people look after each other though..no conspiracy there..just helping people that can help you at some point

its one of the reasons why the ordinary man doesn't get away with the same things the untouchables do..they don't stick together...and when they do..ie unions..the media and those they spoon feed don't like it..in fact one government went to any length to smash such joining together...pity they didn't spend as much time and effort at the other end of the scale.

the ordinary man only gets to hear what they are allowed to hear...and if its anything bad about someone that's admired by the working man its whipped up into a frenzy by the media...the same media that are afraid to tackle an untouchable. If Savile had been an ordinary Joe he would have spent most of his life in prison...not many seem bothered about why he didn't though...its all about ..oh isn't it disgusting..what an animal.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top