Paedo Ring

Digger is a serial conspiracy-theorist, clivex, and sees spies under every bed.......but he's lovable with it, so it's OK.
 
Yes grass. there are useful institutions for that sort of thing

On a more serious note, we have been through that linked site before and i would rather not see it here myself. is there a board policy regarding linking of certain sites with a bit of a racial agenda?

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpr...rty-tricks-and-the-vip-paedophile-connection/

i think anyone who is taking this site seriously ought to look at the "footnote" on this link (and the approved comments) and think again.
 
Last edited:
Front page of papers tomorrow. Leon abuse victims talk. But its just a theory!
 
Last edited:
BennyB said:
The net's closing around Sir Cliff.
Click to expand...
I could be proven wrong in time, but, this thing smells of opportunism to me.
Opportunism by the three new "victims" who have come forward only since the raid on Richards home. And opportunism ( smokescreening ?) by the Chief Constable who disclosed the new allegations on the very same day that an independent report criticised South Yorkshire Police for their "deal" with the BBC in relation to that raid.
 
You might be right. However he's an odious, smarmy little **** and I hope he goes down. He deserves 20 years for Mistletoe and Wine alone.
 
icebreaker said:
I could be proven wrong in time, but, this thing smells of opportunism to me.
Opportunism by the three new "victims" who have come forward only since the raid on Richards home. And opportunism ( smokescreening ?) by the Chief Constable who disclosed the new allegations on the very same day that an independent report criticised South Yorkshire Police for their "deal" with the BBC in relation to that raid.
Click to expand...

totally agree

they have started something that has embarrassed them and now mysteriously others come forward..very suspicious imo.

why do people trust anything the police do?..particularly this force who have never been made to answer why they have spent shedloads on this whilst aiding paedo's in Rotherham to go about their business for years

its quite clear to me that there is a jealousy amongst police forces since the saville affair..its like...lets get a celeb and lift our profile...ignore the day to day paedo commiting 100's of offences..go for glory

i'm sure there are many people out there who would love this to be true...why i don't know..personally i don't think Cliff is guilty of anything..might be wrong..but i certainly would not trust a force that's been embarrassed once to not want to justify the resources they have already wasted on this
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
totally agree

they have started something that has embarrassed them and now mysteriously others come forward..very suspicious imo.

why do people trust anything the police do?..particularly this force who have never been made to answer why they have spent shedloads on this whilst aiding paedo's in Rotherham to go about their business for years

its quite clear to me that there is a jealousy amongst police forces since the saville affair..its like...lets get a celeb and lift our profile...ignore the day to day paedo commiting 100's of offences..go for glory

i'm sure there are many people out there who would love this to be true...why i don't know..personally i don't think Cliff is guilty of anything..might be wrong..but i certainly would not trust a force that's been embarrassed once to not want to justify the resources they have already wasted on this
Click to expand...

Many would have said exactly the same thing about Jimmy Savile, not so long ago.

Rumours (and I acknowledge that's what they are) have circulated about SCR for a long time. Let's see what the investigation establishes, before we question the motivation behind it, or dismiss it as waste of time/money.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Many would have said exactly the same thing about Jimmy Savile, not so long ago.

Rumours (and I acknowledge that's what they are) have circulated about SCR for a long time. Let's see what the investigation establishes, before we question the motivation behind it, or dismiss it as waste of time/money.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between SCR case and JS is that once one person came forward there was an avalanche of people who came forward with JS...and now there is no fear of coming forward you are going to get people falsely accused...alongside genuine accusations.

One thing about this sort of thing is that when someone is a paedo ..they don't do it part time...they've usually done it all their life ..so if someone is 70 years old and has had access to his area of fancy through celebrity then there will be more than one or two coming forward imo..there will be a lot. We are now in a time post JS where if you were abused by a famous person you have every chance of being believed so unlike before JS the floodgates should now open. Look at Glitter..he's still been at it at his age..people like this don't just abuse a couple throughout their life ..not when you have the access that fame privilege brings...you leave a long trail of abuse behind you.

I'm very suspicious when you have someone who..if they are that way inclined..and famous..will have abused probably hundreds throughout their life..have only one or two people accusing them. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but you would expect a history. Obviously if loads come forward then its clear there is an issue. The issue is it only takes one accusation if you are famous and your name is dragged through the mud...being a male celebrity now is a risky business isn't it?

If you think throughout your own life if you have annoyed or upset just one person..given someone a reason to hold a grudge against you..if you are famous..you are in a very vulnerable position in the time we are now in..where there is an element in society who have used this sort of accusation to settle a score. That may not be the case here..but i'd be needing to see more than a couple of people coming forward with someone like this to convince me..thats just my view though.

There can be far more to accusing someone than meets the eye in some cases as well..look at what happened to Michael Le Veil..Kevin off the street....one accuser...nothing on his computer..nothing in his house to suggest any thing wrong. Thats not really the profile of someone with paedo tendencies is it?

Look at what happened with Bill Roache just a week or two after he said it was wrong to name the accused..he himself was accused.

re rumours...when you have a very famous person..who isn't married..then there will always be "rumours"..the rumours i have heard about SCR are not about him being a paedo its usually someone saying he is gay.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be investigated, because the accusers have questionable motives?

That's exactly what happened with Savile's victims, Cyril Smith's victims, and pretty-much anyone who spoke-up about what had been done to them at the 'VIP parties' at Dolphin Square - and by not investigating, the abuse was allowed to continue.

And who is to say this is the first time that victims of SCR (if that's what the investigation establishes) have come forward? We've spent the last several pages discussing how victims were utterly failed when speaking-out previously, becsuse the system either dismissed their claims outright, or refused to lift a finger to investigate. They are perhaps now prepared to come forward again because - for the first time ever - they see that the authorities are prepared to take them seriously.

I can't quite understand your attitude in this one, EC. I mean, WGAF whether it's a celebrity or the man in the street? If an allegation is made, it MUST be investigated.
 
Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be investigated, because the accusers have questionable motives?

i think you are putting words in my mouth there..i didn't say that.

I think exactly the opposite actually...firstly he should not be named..that law needs changing..then it should be investigated as it would be for anyone else. The stopping of the name being revealed has to happen..people are who are wrongly accused are having their lives damaged. Wrongly accused people should have rights too imo..thats all.

Yes we know what happened in the past re JS CS etc..people were scared..thats irrelevant now..they aren't scared to come forward..in fact its encouraged..so we aren't in those times now

I have not once said allegations should not be investigated. What I am saying is that the accused must not be named ..its blatantly wrong.

We now live in a society where people are assumed guilty before they even answer to a charge imo..law by headline

and if not assumed guilty..then you get the no smoke without fire brigade
 
Last edited:
Back
Top