Paedo Ring

No sweat, mate.

Also agree that names should probably be withheld until - something I'd extend to alleged rape cases too, for that matter.
 
The truly sick ******* here is Tom Watson who hounded a dying ex minister knowing full well that the allegations were garbage.

What a total mess labour are. What a revolting party they are. Oblivion is too good for them

If i was brittains family i would have the fat ******* beaten to within an inch of his life. They have the money so just go and do it.
 
clivex said:
Tom Watson who hounded a dying ex minister knowing full well that the allegations were garbage.
Click to expand...
But he (Watson) didn't actually accuse him (Brittan) of anything; he merely passed on evidence to the CPS and relevant authorities? Is that not right?
I'm willing to be corrected if I have read this wrongly.

Also, the charges against Brittan were dropped; that's not the same as being cleared. Perhaps I'm mistaken again?
 
naming people is wrong..the law needs changing..then again no one seems much bothered when its a celeb that has his life ruined..but get all hot when its an mp from their faith..thats wrong too..it shouldn't matter wtf gets named..it needs stopping

savile regularly got cases against him "dropped" too..so if anyone equates "dropped" with innocent of charges then they might need to look at how they work out what has happened with any of these cases..you can't because you don't know the truth..and getting cases "dropped" imo doesn't tell me personally anything..so i wouldn't be leaning in brittons corner or watsons with any confidence

none of us really ever know whats happening in these cases..so making concrete decisions about who needs to apologise or whatever..is imo not really using much judgement..unless that is your judgement is just shaped by who is involved and what the media tell you to think
 
Last edited:
i agree with the first part but he has to apologise because the accuser was exposed as a habitual liar and he knew the police had dropped the charges . Having said that i would not accept an apology and simply have him shot in the face anyway. This is not political but absolutely personal. Tom Watson is a genuinely disgusting creature

Its wrong to compare with Saville
 
Last edited:
i wasn't comparing it with saville..i was saying that one thing i learned with that case was how easy it was to get cases dropped..and on numerous occasions...and so I personally do not necessarily equate "dropped" with innocent. It seems everyone has forgotten how easy he managed it..and now the thought is dropped = innocent always...which using his case as a template..shows no one can make any clearcut decision based on it

it don't matter to me who it is..there should be the same allowance for anonimity given to accused as they give to the accuser.

why this can't be changed..and pretty bloody quickly..they change other wrong practices/laws quick enough..i really don't know.

you might as well kill someone as accuse them wrongly of paedoing.
 
Last edited:
It IS clear cut

As i understand it, the accuser made reference to an incident, a hit and run accidentin kingston, linked to the case which was quickly proved to have never occurred. He has also stated to the police that the whole accusation is a "joke"

No way can you give him any credibility after that.
 
no IT ISN'T clearcut..except to smug hindsighters...other people have also changed their minds about accusing powerful people though which makes making such a definate decision like you have again questionable..in fact one chap made out after 30 years it was mistaken identity..even though he had access to his accused pictures on the net for 20 years..changed his mind day before the case as i seem to remember.

again..possibly true he might have lied for 30 years....no one will ever know will they?... i just use my own mind to decide what i believe..same as anyone else..and no..you don't really know whats happened ..it just suits that you hate watson and will enjoy celebrating his position now...the press love celebrating in hindsight too. its beyond me..but lots of stuff they do is.

I'll leave you with your celebrating:)...enjoy
 
Last edited:

  • Lord and Lady Brittan: he died in January with allegations still hanging over him John Stillwell/Getty Images


David Aaronovitch
Published at 9:00PM, October 7 2015

On January 21 this year Leon Brittan, the former home secretary, died after suffering for a long time with cancer. His family mourned and on Twitter his former cabinet colleague John Gummer expressed sadness at the news. Noting Gummer’s comments, Tom Watson, the MP and now Labour deputy leader, wrote the single word: “Hmm”.
Those who had not been following Mr Watson’s two-year campaign concerning a possible Westminster paedophile network might have been bemused. If so, a column by Mr Watson in the Daily Mirror three days later explained all. He knew, he said, that what he was about to write would distress the Brittan family greatly, but he felt obliged to speak out where others had remained silent.
Mr Watson then itemised the charges that, during Lord Brittan of Spennithorne’s life, he had not made publicly for fear, he said, of prejudicing any trial.
“I’ve spoken to a woman who said he raped her in 1967. And I’ve spoken to a man who was a child when he says Brittan raped him. And I know of two others who have made similar claims of abuse.”
Mr Watson quoted their belief that the recently deceased peer was “as close to evil as a human being could get, in my view”, and then added, slightly unconvincingly: “It is not for me to judge whether the claims made against Brittan are true”.
All Mr Watson wanted, he said, was for a proper investigation to happen and justice to be done. And he concluded boldly: “Former home secretary Leon Brittan stands accused of multiple child rape. Many others knew of these allegations and chose to remain silent. I will not.”
Last night, however, Mr Watson was indeed silent. For the past three years, since he stood up in the House of Commons and suggested the existence of a “powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10”, journalists have been trying to investigate the truth of the allegations — some of them very general — made against Britain’s political establishment.
For more than a year the BBC’s Panorama programme has been looking at the sources for the claims made about Brittan and others and effectively repeated by Mr Watson. What the programme discovered added important information to reports that have already appeared in this newspaper, which is that the claims are so badly flawed that it calls into question whether they can be relied upon.
Yet despite these flaws, pressure from Mr Watson and other up-and-coming politicians, such as Zac Goldsmith, the new Tory candidate for London mayor, has helped to persuade the police to put scarce resources into investigations that have led nowhere and that are in danger of undermining campaigns against genuine child abuse. Unfortunately Mr Watson declined to be interviewed by Panorama on the basis, I gather, that he was “too busy”.
The origin of the great Westminster “paedo scandal” — described by the Australian television current affairs programme 60 Minutes in July as “without question the biggest political scandal that Britain has ever faced”— lies in information passed to Mr Watson in 2012 by Peter McKelvie, a social worker.
The case was that of a convicted paedophile called Peter Righton and Mr McKelvie told Mr Watson that documents implicating powerful people had been discovered and not acted upon.
One was a letter sent by Charles Napier, another convicted paedophile, and half-brother to John Whittingdale, who was political secretary to Mrs Thatcher during her last years in Downing Street and who had been chairman of the Commons media committee during the phone-hacking affair — the committee where Mr Watson had made such an impact.
My understanding is that though a police scoping exercise led to new charges against Napier being proved, nothing remotely actionable implicating anyone in Downing Street has ever emerged. However, following Mr Watson’s Commons performance a series of new and unrelated accusations began to be made concerning Westminster politicians (most of them dead).
Long dormant and unreliable writers suddenly discovered memories of lost politicians’ diaries and some tabloids gave their front pages over to preposterous claims involving illegal gay orgies in the Grand Hotel on the eve of the Brighton bombing. The late Conservative MP and anti-Satanist Geoffrey Dickens, whose famous file of who-knows-what had disappeared in the bowels of the Home Office (as had so much else) was transformed from eccentric to Carl Bernstein almost overnight.
However, once the exotica had been dealt with, three main strands of claim remained, two at least of them featuring in Mr Watson’s repetition of claims about Brittan. The first was the story, repeated now in many newspapers, in documentaries, in books, interviews and speeches, that a private guesthouse in southwest London — the Elm Guest House — had, during the 1980s, been a place where boys from a nearby children’s home had been trafficked and sexually abused by a whole series of celebrities and politicians, one of whom was supposedly Brittan.
This story had been on the edges of the internet for years (I came across it on a site run by a follower of the bizarre David Icke cult), but was now given credibility by a police operation set up to examine allegations.
Almost everything to do with Elm Guest House originates with a man called Chris Fay. Once a social worker in the area and then a Labour councillor, it is Fay who claims to have been given the list of “attendees” by the now deceased owner; Fay who claims to have spoken to many boys who were trafficked and Fay who “saw” photographs of Brittan at the guesthouse abusing under-age boys — photos now missing.
On last night’s Panorama, reporters spoke to one boy who Fay claimed was at the guesthouse and who said clearly that he was not there. Panoramaalso found a man who acted as a gay masseur in the house, who said that though sexual activity certainly went on, he never saw anyone famous or any children. Fay, it should be noted, is a convicted fraudster who went to prison in 2011.
The second strand of the accusations against Brittan concerned the supposed happenings at Dolphin Square in London in the early Eighties. Again this place had been the subject of internet rumours for years, but in the end the hard evidence boiled down to the testimony— most of it obtained by the Exaro news agency and then elsewhere — of three “survivors”: “Nick”, “Darren” and “Andrew”. Nick’s account even made it as the top item of the BBC’s Six O’Clock News last year.
Panorama chased down one of the key claims from Nick”, that he witnessed the hit-and-run murder of a schoolboy in Kingston, committed as a warning to him from his abusers. They established that no such accident happened and that no child was killed in this way in that location and timeframe.
If that murder didn’t happen, then a huge doubt must exist about his other stories, the most lurid of which (involving Edward Heath and a knife) were itemised by Harvey Proctor in a press conference last month where he protested his innocence and accused police of a witch-hunt.
Furthermore, the supposed corroboration from Darren was also highly dubious, since he is a convicted bomb-hoaxer and has been classified as delusional. The third witness, Andrew, told Panorama that he felt pressured into saying he was at Dolphin Square by Fay and the Exaro team.
Then there is the accusation of (unusually for a supposed homosexual paedophile) heterosexual rape. “Jane” contacted Mr Watson through a fellow Labour MP and claimed to have been raped by Brittan in 1967.
When the police investigated her claim a number of problems quickly arose. She said he had taken her to his basement flat, but at the time he had lived on the third floor. And friends of hers who she said could corroborate parts of her story flatly contradicted it. Finally, what she was alleging didn’t match the criteria for rape. The police concluded that they had no grounds for interviewing or arresting Brittan, who was obviously terminally ill.
And then Mr Watson wrote a remarkable letter to the DPP, in effect demanding that Brittan be interviewed and citing in addition to the case of Jane some of the other spurious allegations against him. The DPP leant on the police. The subsequent interview of the dying man resulted in Brittan’s name becoming public. In my opinion this was partly a deliberate ploy to try to “flush out” other complainants.
Now Lady Brittan is attempting to find out from the Metropolitan police what has happened to the investigation, reopened at the insistence of Mr Watson. Last night, hours before the programme was broadcast, she received a letter from the Met finally confirming that inquiries had ceased for want of evidence.
I fear it is more of a reply than she’ll get from the Labour deputy leader.
 
You are replying lazily EC. Its not good enough. It is not "changing minds" but simple fact that accusers were proved to be liars

Get the difference?

I was never a fan of leon brittan but this is truly revolting. I suspect that the actions of a man who welcomed Jenny Tonge into labour probably speak for themselves

As i say i would welcome any action taken against tom watson which ruins his life either physically or mentally or both
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
You are replying lazily EC. Its not good enough. It is not "changing minds" but simple fact that accusers were proved to be liars

Get the difference?

I was never a fan of leon brittan but this is truly revolting. I suspect that the actions of a man who welcomed Jenny Tonge into labour probably speak for themselves

As i say i would welcome any action taken against tom watson which ruins his life either physically or mentally or both
Click to expand...

yes am a bit lazy at the mo

yep..get the difference

you are probably right Clive..i've got it wrong..who knows?

dinner time anyway..a bit of lard on bread up here..grim up north:)

oh.. talking of the north..i think northern powerhouse isn't how the tories really refer to up here..on the qt it will be northern sh1thouse i reckon
 
Bit bored with whole thing in truth but would stress I would be repulsed if it was either side of political divide.

It's already a shithouse :lol:
 
Last edited:
aye me too

well you have got to have somewhere to practice fracking an dump all the refugees..so we serve a purpose

whats funny about our town has is it has an east /west bias that mirrors the north/south country bias...on the west side you have all the "nice" areas..doctors & dentists live there ..nice scenery..on the east side you use it for opencast tips ..spend next to no money on infrastructure. If you live on west side..you only have to fart and a councillor will come and wipe yer arse..on the east side you could have 300 ft crater appear overnight and it would be a month before a bloke with a yellow spray can came and put a circle round it. People are treated like sh1t in the east..completely pampered in the west..just like you soft southern barstewards:)
 
Last edited:
Can a BBC investigation into institutional paedophilia be considered impartial, given Savile, Hall and Harris were all on the payroll, and given Newsnight's ham-fisted attempts to suppress the Savile story in the first place?

I make no judgement on either Brittain or Watson. One is dead, and one is dead from the neck up.

I merely question whether any evidence gathered by Panorama/the BBC on this particular subject matter, can ever be considered objective?
 
Last edited:
I think it was pretty thorough and given the fact that the met have come across as vindictive and shoddy, there would have been blow back from them if the bbc were out of line
 
EC1 said:
whats funny about our town has is it has an east /west bias that mirrors the north/south country bias...on the west side you have all the "nice" areas..doctors & dentists live there ..nice scenery..on the east side you use it for opencast tips ..spend next to no money on infrastructure. If you live on west side..you only have to fart and a councillor will come and wipe yer arse..on the east side you could have 300 ft crater appear overnight and it would be a month before a bloke with a yellow spray can came and put a circle round it. People are treated like sh1t in the east..completely pampered in the west.
Click to expand...

Sheffield presumably. Isn't that east-west divide just a post-industrial reminder of 'muck and brass'? The thousands who once one laboured in the mucky east earnt a reasonable standard of living whilst lining the pockets of those in the brassy west: the brass remains but the east has decayed as the labouring thousands have no longer any muck to shovel, unless you believe working in call centres and filling folks' letterboxes with junk mail is rich, fertile muck

Not just Steel City, ditto the northern cities - more or less
 
So you know why in most cities the industry is in the east and the money in the west?

surprisingly there is a very good historic reason.
 
There's times I shudder to think about New Labour and the damage two ego's did to their own party.
Gordon Brown bosses an economy on its way over a cliff but then goes lecturing about economics when departing from government, while Tony bombs the hell out of Iraq and then goes parading as a middle east envoy for peace....yes guys....when departing from government!
Historians and political students will start debating the impact of these clowns in around a quarter of a century...which is too late if you ask me.......

While we're at it...............I see they want to hang one of the only decent eggs in politics ,Tom Watson, out to dry...... for exposing those dirty child molesting rings. Who kicked off this off...and who can we rely on to hang investigative/inquisitive politicians........... .the bloody BBC!

I actually find myself in agreement with another poster who said "how the **** are the beeb in a position to be making programes like this' (or words to that effect).
Power is worse than bent folks, just accept it..... or get frustrated trying to challenge it.The choice is ours.

Ps, Clivex, your comments about Tom Watson are so vile, I doubt many of the hand-wringers on here will bring themselves to challenge you, as deep down your their acceptable right wing chum (they've never met any in real life), but these things you said about Tom Watson are so vile Clivex, 'm disappointed in you. I've no doubt that if he were not deputy leader of a new/old (and different) Labour party you wouldn't be saying these things, right?
 
Last edited:
You don't seem to know the case at all marble. Tom Watson deserves anything that comes to him regardless of politics . He's a revolting individual who hounded an innocent dying man knowing he was innocent. A low life who I would happily see ruined or worse

if he was so bothered about paesoa, where was his action over Rotherham etx then

as for new labour historians wil, remeber a party that won three elections. Something the current lot wil never ever do. I'd that's ruining a party.l.
 
clivex said:
He's a revolting individual who hounded an innocent dying man knowing he was innocent.
Click to expand...

he didn't know he was innocent though??..even Britton wasn't informed the case had been "dropped"..looks to me like its the police that warrant criticism..but you won't ever criticise them in any argument Clive..including rotherham..even though their actions there were absolutely disgusting....so thats a no hoper

its a hindsight judgement.

people can't have it both ways..when it came out about Savile..those who had "known" about him for years..were criticised for not saying anything. you yourself have criticised those in rotherham who ignored allegations..and yet now you don't want people following up allegations..make yer mind up really. you either want people to turn a blind eye to allegations or actually try and do something.

To me those ignoring accusations..as you seem to think is right..are the ones that need criticism

Watson followed up what he was told...if he hadn't..he hasn't done his duty and is as bad as the rotherham disgrace

people who criticise with the advantage of hindsight are quite annoying..we have a culture in this country of judging people in this way.

life is pretty easy to be clever about when you know whats going to happen in the future isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top