There seems to be a movement from blogs and social media into the mainstream press now in calls of asking for answers and investigations. I'm sure many have died very dodgy deaths to prevent them speaking and I'm sure there are others now fearing for their lives (especially any whistleblowers) and there will be more covering of arses than ever before. I wonder how many will be thrown to the wolves to protect others or if we'll ever see any justice for this massive cover up. My hope for 2015 is that this gets blown wide open and the victims get to tell their story and those guilty of heinous crimes face some kind of punishment and justice. They say no one is above the law, clearly that hasn't been the case.
Paedo Ring
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
thats a pretty ridiculous thing to state. for a start they are entirely different and rotherham is here and now whereas this is 40 years ago.
naturally people are more concerned about left wing councils endorsement of rape when it is current
as for making "capital" we know full well what the handwringers were doing for a good number of years and they are filth imo. why shouldnt that be highlighted? we also know why they allowed the endless rapes to continue. it is a refelction on labour and exposes a revolting frame of mind within a certain section of that party, as the ex local mp freely admitted
you cannot nail current conservatives for the alledged incidents for 40 years ago as much as you are trying to do so. you can nail current labour or at least a section of it for rotherham
Last edited:
Thrash around as much as you like Clive but I doubt you're fooling anyone, other than the most one-eyed tory who wants to adopt the selective see no, hear no, speak no. You tried to make captial. No doubt about that (indeed you're trying to do so again). But can we establish something at this point. Are you seriously suggetsing that crimes can't be prosecuted once they pass a sell by date, and that people can't make judgements about those who've kept a lid on it because of the damage they fear it's going to do to their party popularity? Glass houses and stones come to mind. And just for context, this involves murder as well
The 'influential' paedo ring is not just historical its contemporary, and that implicates a number of current conservatives who've covered up for it and also been engaged. The biggest single name that could come crashing down is a Labour one, but the numerical ballast is definitely conservative, including previous prime ministers who disapproved of it but turned a blind eye. Are you not just a tiny a little bit suspicious by now that it's taken the Home Secretary 6 months, and she still can't find anyone to whitewash this for her. Can you possibly find another public enquiry that's been dogged with this kind of obstruction. The only one I can think of is Hillsborough - and we know why now (albeit most of us realised long before the government clean).
You'd be a lot better advised to disown the whole bloody rotten lot of them rather than trying to excuse them on grounds that its old news - pathetic excuse
The 'influential' paedo ring is not just historical its contemporary, and that implicates a number of current conservatives who've covered up for it and also been engaged. The biggest single name that could come crashing down is a Labour one, but the numerical ballast is definitely conservative, including previous prime ministers who disapproved of it but turned a blind eye. Are you not just a tiny a little bit suspicious by now that it's taken the Home Secretary 6 months, and she still can't find anyone to whitewash this for her. Can you possibly find another public enquiry that's been dogged with this kind of obstruction. The only one I can think of is Hillsborough - and we know why now (albeit most of us realised long before the government clean).
You'd be a lot better advised to disown the whole bloody rotten lot of them rather than trying to excuse them on grounds that its old news - pathetic excuse
just like another poster here, as soon as it gets a bit desperate, complete fabrications about what i said come out
where did i say they shouldnt be prosecuted?
and no. you cant "disown the lot of them" because we dont know who knew what. and we probably never will.
where did i say they shouldnt be prosecuted?
and no. you cant "disown the lot of them" because we dont know who knew what. and we probably never will.
Last edited:
did i really have to repeat this?
You didn't, but I wanted to establish your view on it ahead of anything that might come to light, for I suspect that should some of the names start to roll we'll see excuses from you, as there is potentially a loophole between those who are active participants and those who've covered for them or disappeared evidence (even that put forward by investigative journalists with a track record of exposees)
Bear in mind that the Whips office have known about these people for decades. Indeed, there's heresay evidence to suggest that the whips office even encouraged some activity as it makes for a very useful sword of Damocles to hold over MP's. Francis Urquhart wasn't the only MP who rose out of the whips office to become PM about the time some of this was going on either
I do believe there is something institutionally perverted that runs deep within the parliamentary conservative party, and also around some of those on the fringes in the party management. There is also far too many people from a certain profession that has strong influence over young people who are high profile conservative endorsers too who are in the frame. I actually think it's sinister, but I think you can equally sleep confidentally in that there is no way the extent of it will come out, and indeed the media (who are also well aware of the scale) are already softening us up to accept about dozen names of minor civil servants or dead MP's
There is a controlling aspect to lots of politicians . That's why they go into it. There are also over 600 mps and you cannot simply tar the lot of them as "perverted".
people will be running away with this story because of what they want to believe.
since when is the media "softening" up? Because its is not behaving like a conspiracy website? The fact is that this being 40 years ago it's pretty unlikely that any involved are alive.
people will be running away with this story because of what they want to believe.
since when is the media "softening" up? Because its is not behaving like a conspiracy website? The fact is that this being 40 years ago it's pretty unlikely that any involved are alive.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I think when child murder is involved Clive..the number of years ago don't matter..its a bit like Nazi hunting..you keep going even if they die the day before they have to answer
I think trying to excuse a group of alleged murdering paedos because you don't like that they will be mainly Tories involved is a bit wrong..and comparing being an alleged murdering paedo to some politically correct numpty in Rotherham isn't really a comparison that holds up..i think the murdering paedo is worse than some scared politically correct spineless councillor
depends on your values i suppose..for me..the paedo is worse..just by about 10 miles
I think trying to excuse a group of alleged murdering paedos because you don't like that they will be mainly Tories involved is a bit wrong..and comparing being an alleged murdering paedo to some politically correct numpty in Rotherham isn't really a comparison that holds up..i think the murdering paedo is worse than some scared politically correct spineless councillor
depends on your values i suppose..for me..the paedo is worse..just by about 10 miles
Last edited:
I realise you're an appalling apologist for parliament Clive, (shocking in fact) but one day, just one day, you might wake up and say "you know what. This is broken. It ain't good enough. We demand better".
It shouldn't be asking too much to keep your duly elected representatives on the right side of the law and moral decency
Something that clearly isn't going into your shell is that these incidents are not as historical as you would like to pretend they are. They're actually engrained in the parliamentary culture, and the conservative party in particular. Politics attracts a disproportionate number of frankly weird, deviant and criminal types (you can call them controllign if you want). I realise you approve of this, as you've called it "natural" in the past in the context of how parties form, and inter-dependent alliances (corruption in any other language) takes shape. Only last week I was talking with someone who went to school with a high profile politician (conservative) and he basically said the same. The indvidual concerned didn't have a single friend. Was a complete loner but had been adopted by the Tories. As politics became a more central point of his life (mid to late teens) he was spotted with 'strangers' with increased frequency around town in venues known for their reputation. Political parties can groom you know
I would also point out that some of these stories pre-date the internet Clive. I really don't think you can dismiss them as conspiracy websites. Luckily the Metropolitan police aren't doing. They've taken the unprecedented step of saying they believe 'Nick'. Largely because I suspect there is a whole resevoir of prominent names (inlcuding those currently in government) who've shorn this up for decades, and people now starting to put a little bit more volume to the whisper. Don't fall for the mock idignation from areas of the media feigning shock at disclosure either. Some of these names have been widely known to people in media circles for a long time (ask yourself what background some of today's politicians have as well)
As regards running away with the story because it's what people want to believe, I'm afraid you're doing exactly that. Burying your head in the sand because you don't want to contemplate the possibility that about 10% of politicians are deviant perverts, and in the conservative party its a higher percentage. Imagine what sort of a society we'd have if our country was representative of our body politic. Thankfully we aren't
Personally I'd like to see a massive protest "The People Demand Better" which could cut across all areas of politics
what a load of rubbish.
To claim the formation of political parties or alliances as "corrupt" is just weird. Of course it's natural for very obvious practical reasons. What are you talking about?
to claim that 10% of mps are deviant perverts is just unsubstantiated nonsense.
I said already that I believe this should be thoroughly pursued but it is quite ridiculous to claim otherwise.
EC1
On a break
oh right..so if there isn't murder then maybe its all lies is it?
we will see..or probably not
I don't think we can make league tables really Clive..Rotherham isn't even connected to this..that was turning the other way through fear and cowardice.....this looks a bit more than that
to me though....giving kids dickie back rides then killing them,,if true..is possibly a big story..in fact if you think Rotherham is..then so is that
you will be ok anyway i think..your alleged Tories will be safe when any other potential witness's start getting amnesia or disappearing off face of earth..your guys will be safe i'm sure
Last edited:
I am getting a bit fed uo with the insinuation from yo and warbler that I would prefer his covered uo when my first post on the subject was exactly the opposite of that. How many times doi have to repeat that?
and no one here knows whether that lelement of the story is true or not. That is a simple fact.
and no one here knows whether that lelement of the story is true or not. That is a simple fact.
EC1
On a break
Well..you don't seem to have same appetite for it that you had with the Rotherham affair ..to be fair.
I doubt anyone alive will get named bar a few throwaways that the lodge aren't connected with anyway.
I doubt anyone alive will get named bar a few throwaways that the lodge aren't connected with anyway.
There's nothing "weird" about it Clive. It's how history unfolded and more or less exactly how both the Conservative and Whig parties came into being. A very small proportion of the landed male population were allowed to vote for a fraction of the landed male population, who were allowed to represent. The question is who did they represent? Well with no accountability for the most part it was themselves, their estates, and their personal landed interests (as things matured accountability and representation switched to the party) but what they realised (and it's a classic demonstration of 'Game Theory') is that they could get more of their own agenda adopted if they co-operated with each other. I'll vote for your measures if you vote for mine. Now this leads to sub-optimal decisions (its bound to), and it isn't hard to see how this quickly becomes corrupt is it?(even if you regard corruption as a natural state, as you clearly do - you might right incidentally).
What happened is that like minded people with similar landed interests came together to form alliance and voting pacts which later begat parties and later private gentlemens clubs to reinforce the sense of mutual support. MP's would very quickly find themselves supporting measures which they knew to be wrong or flawed, but realised that this was a deal they could justify to get their own ideas supported.
As we progressed of course the new age industrialists and merchant classes were allowed to join the scam (in return for tax) and by 1832 we had the Great Reform Act which allowed men who earned a certain amount of money, and who owned property, and were over the age of 25, to vote as well. Also wealthy industrialists were allowed to stand for parliament now and their interests were slightly different. The landed estates of the aristocracy weren't so important to them. They represented an altogether more mercantile class and we saw the first signs of social reform (1848) as they realised that a healthy workforce was also a more productive one. They too drew the same conclusions. If those with similar capitalist agendas voted together they could affect a you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours, arrangement, regardless of whether or not the policy in question was in the best national interests. So we saw the formation of the Liberal party
Both parties functioned primarily for the benefit of their parliamentarians and sponsors, and if you find that state anything other than corrupt, then ... well so be it. You call it natural ("Of course it's natural for very obvious practical reasons") and yet also call it "weird". Do you not think it's a sad indictement on parliament that it can't function without having to sate mutual benefit first? I do. I think it's tragic that as a society we can't move beyond this, and when you trace the evolution back up stream you quickly find it resolves to the formation of the all corrupting political party. Remember MP's were elected to represent the people - in theory - but they end up representing an unhealthy cocktail of party and personal interest.
Eventually the Labour party would be allowed to emerge, largely as a permitted concession in the face of fear to rising militancy across Europe in the period 1890-1920. The first world war had, had a galvanising effect. Municipal provision of services (notably libraries) and meeting areas (assembly rooms) had given the masses a voice. The labour party hurriedly adopted 'clause 4' as a sop to socialism to try and head off what was happening in places like Russia and to a lesser extent Germany, France, and Italy. The latter named experienced a communist uprising in 1919 whilst municipal governments in France and Italy went communist. In the UK the intelligence services mobilised to lie to the population with the Zinoviev letter which sought to discredit labour, whilst the population were scared by set pieces such as the suppresion of the Red Clydeside. Turbulent times, and of course Irish nationalism was another contemporary issue in this age of revoultion.
By permitting rerteat and retrench Britain was able to avoid the path of direct conflict, and keep many of its institutions in place and functioning. Concessions were enshrined in The Representation of the Peoples Act. Women were allowed to vote, 21 became the new age, and suffrage was extended to a wider social block then had previosuly been the case
In Britain though the landed interests of the Conservatives had a more natural synergy with the industrial interests of the Liberals, but the first world war had damaged the Liberals and the Labour party would emerge as the new force of opposition. Not surprisingly though, because they were pitched into an adversarial party structure, making the correct decisions that were in the best interests of the country and the people wasn't always high on the agenda. Making decisions that would preserve their own personal agendas and keeping the other party out of power however, most certainly were. Ultimately this would be path that a gentirfied Labour party would always take, as indeed it did in Germany, and that way it preserves from being brought into the system, but critically, it preserves in its own image
In other words, the party system was underwritten by personal interest and that is very close to being a bedrock in any corrupt state structure. It's designed to promote and protect sub-optimal decision taking. The collorally of all this is that the party eventually mushrooms to become an all consuming embodiment of corruption as people can't move outside of it to affect change. The voters themselves have also been captured to fall within its confines
Now to return to the 10% figure. Admittedly I'd have been more confident if I'd said 10% of conservative MP's are deviant perverts as I'd accept that other parties could push my average down, but I'd still expect that I'm being generous. We know that politicians are at least four times more likely to commit crime than a member of the general public. It's actually higher I suspect because these are figures extrapolated from successful prosecutions and convictions
In 2011 the prison population of the UK was 0.13% the number of politicians in prison was 0.61% and bear in mind that politicians get more protection and blind eyes turned than a member of the public. We also know that after the MP's expenses scandal 350 were ordered to repay. That's 54% of them. I have little doubt that about half of our MP's are petty criminals, shoplifters and small time thieves. 73 (11%) of them I believe were found to have made serious breaches but strangely only 6 were ever sentanced to prison (you could easily have sent others down). I expect we'll see the same thing happen with paedo ring in truth. At the very worst case they'll settle for a few expendables and leave the rest untouched and hope this satisfies the public. For their part the public are likely to adopt the same position that you do. They won't want to consider the possibility that over 50% of their MP's are crooks and 10% are deviant perverts. People don't like things that disturb the equilbrium and structures of society. It scares them. So they possess every incentive to accept this tokenistic investigation and can then cleanse their conscience with the limp excuses that the only people who were guilty are dead (which isn't true)
As a general rule Clive
Tories = Sexual perverts
Labour = Crooked money swindlers
Too long .
parties have been formed in every democracy in the world. Independents can stand but the electorate invaiably choose parties. I have been through the reasons why it is natural that a grouping forms. They have not been contradicted and make perfect sense.
parties have been formed in every democracy in the world. Independents can stand but the electorate invaiably choose parties. I have been through the reasons why it is natural that a grouping forms. They have not been contradicted and make perfect sense.
EC1
On a break
those prison % make interesting reading don't they?
i think if they just give up the dead ones it will make the general public feel better..its like people will think only the dead ones have done any wrong..its far too much hassle trying to think that some are still alive..and just get on with going to sales..posting on twatter and facebook and never give it another thought..way too dark to be bothering general public with...then again there might be a void in the thought process now that Strictly has finished
i'd hazard a guess that it upsets general public more if their favourite gets voted off strictly/jungle etc..than to know some dirty men were running or are running round wearing kids for a hobby
i think if they just give up the dead ones it will make the general public feel better..its like people will think only the dead ones have done any wrong..its far too much hassle trying to think that some are still alive..and just get on with going to sales..posting on twatter and facebook and never give it another thought..way too dark to be bothering general public with...then again there might be a void in the thought process now that Strictly has finished
i'd hazard a guess that it upsets general public more if their favourite gets voted off strictly/jungle etc..than to know some dirty men were running or are running round wearing kids for a hobby
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
good reply that Clive..but 10 million is still a smaller % of population than that of the mps..54% wasn't it for them
EC1
On a break
i think the connection is that for every crime that 7 MP's do..just one goes to prison..whereas 7 Joe Public's all get locked up
so using that profile...if there are 100 protected paedo's then just..14 will be thrown to to the wolves..the dead uns.....whereas 100 unprotected general public paedos get sent to jail..
in fact if you are not protected..you can just be named as being arrested for alleged paedo charges..have your name falsely blackened..that never happens to living MP's have you noticed?..they never film police invading some MP's home like they did with that well known pop star.
Last edited:
I've worked for a couple of businesses where there were outright fiddles. Fraud in truth. And the police didnt want to know. I can tell you why as well...
one was fraudulent cheques which is pretty serious. I would suggest any mp doing the same with the parties cheque books would be finished.
one was fraudulent cheques which is pretty serious. I would suggest any mp doing the same with the parties cheque books would be finished.
EC1
On a break
i wasn't referring to expenses..i was referring to general crimes..some get them ignored to the tune of only 1 in 7 getting punished..14%..whereas ordinary joe is 100% not getting away with it,looking at those figures of Warblers
we already had that quote about important people giving "added complications" to bringing convictions..says it all really..we all know the added complications will involve leaning on from above..the lodges etc
2 laws exist..one for the select few..other for the mugs..us
we already had that quote about important people giving "added complications" to bringing convictions..says it all really..we all know the added complications will involve leaning on from above..the lodges etc
2 laws exist..one for the select few..other for the mugs..us
Last edited:
That does happen as does the benefit of expensive lawyers, but it's easy to imagine it happens far more than it does. The guy and his wife who were jailed for the speeding points hardy got an easy time of it. I thought that was a ridiculous sentence.