[Closed] "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

You're being a bit simplistic...

A bit like saying 'All police are Freemasons'

Of course it's not [i]all[/i] the police...

There are several good police officers and detectives, who have been trying to investigate such cases.

However, as the prior failures to prosecute Greville Janner and the several others involved show, there has been a clear pattern of shady business where investigations have been halted from above... look a bit further up to the post with the Times front page for a link to an article detailing the obstruction of investigation into the Janner case.

Oh I see, not all coppers are part of this conspricy. That explains it. Some are part of an establishment paedophile ring which is vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite, and some aren't.

I guess it depends whether they are part of the establishment or not. Presumably the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire isn't part of the establishment? And presumably he also isn't answerable to Her Majesty - the chief paedophile ring leader ?

Well I have to say it all makes perfect sense.

I would have thought this isn't really the subject for scoring cheap internet points, but hey ho.

And presumably he also isn't answerable to Her Majesty - the chief paedophile ring leader ?

Thankfully, he seems to be making good use of free speech... however, it appears someone must've been in pretty cosy with the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces, the Supreme Commander of the Church of England and the Head of State of New Zealand (all the same person, that woman with the funny hat who appears on stamps n whatnot) if this is to be believed:

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-family-member-was-investigated-as-part-of-paedophile-ring-before-coverup-excop-says-10126864.html ]Royal Family member investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover up[/url]

Certainly makes you wonder who has continually been in a position of authority with sufficient sway to close police investigations and involve MI5 and Special Branch whilst several different elected administrations of the House of Commons of Her Majesty's Government have come and gone.

So here is Lord Janner's psychic spy friend Uri Geller suggesting that when he last met Lord Janner 3 years ago, Lord Janner's dementia was well advanced:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02p9j8p

Which is a bit weird, as 2 and a half years ago, Janner made this speech...

[img] [/img]

Maybe he just got the dates mixed up.

Spent quite a bit of time with Michael Jackson too...

[img] [/img]

Wonder how well he know's Henry Kissinger?

[img] [/img]

I would have thought this isn't really the subject for scoring cheap internet points, but hey ho.

There's 17 pages of it already sadly but that was a particularly smug cheap shot from ernie wasn't it.

It's a perfectly reasonable point to make that if there is evidence of corruption it's not going to include every single police officer/official in the country. But then I'm sure he knows that.

That Jay Rayner piece in the Guardian was really interesting. The thing about conspiracies is that they're generally espoused by absolute fruitloops, quoting pretty dubious sources, and then usually throwing in some aliens, or lizards, David Ike stylee, so you automatically question their credibility

So when a credible source like Rayner comes out and writes an article like that, it surely has to be taken seriously? You'd hope.

smug cheap shot from ernie

And you think letting JHJ know that you think he's "full of shit" is better than a cheap shot ?

grum - Member

No I think JHJ is full of shit

Posted 1 week ago #

grum - Member

You're not going to persuade JHJ to start thinking rationally, and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

Posted 1 week ago #

I think that JHJ's claim of a grand conspricy in which the police, the government, the monarchy, the secret service, the courts, etc, conspire to organise a paedophile ring because this is 'vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite' is nonsense.

Every time a new development concerning the tragic exploitation of vulnerable children, often in care, by wealthy and powerful establishment peodophiles makes the news JHJ's theory is undermined.

There is nothing new about peodophiles coverups - it happens throughout society. There is nothing new about peodophiles, and other criminals/law breakers, working together and helping each other. It doesn't mean that there is a state sponsored peodophile ring in the UK in which the Queen is in charge.

Just like JHJ thinks that this latest development strengthens his case that there is I think it does the complete opposite and strengthens the case that there isn't.

I choose to make my point by leg-pulling and piss-taking, JHJ has a fair sense of humour and takes it well imo, and is perfectly capable of dishing it back.

You choose to let him know that you think he's "full of shit". I don't think there's any need for that and prefer my way.

Since a credible source is reporting that both Leon Brittan and Greville Janner raped him at the same property:

http://exaronews.com/articles/5544/lord-janner-met-probes-ex-mp-over-vip-paedophile-network

Could it be that rather than being full of shit, I'm full of truth and due to the horrific nature of what is being exposed, many on here are full of denial.

I doubt that anyone is in denial of "the horrific nature of what is being exposed". I think the problem most people have is in believing that it's all part of an establishment paedophile ring headed by the Queen which is "vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite".

Can you explain how over the course of many years and:

~several different governments

~several different police forces

~several different directors of public prosecution

prominent figures have repeatedly had investigations into their sadistic paedophile activity involving procuring children from several care homes across the country shut down 'from above' often in the interests of national security?

Presumably you think it's because the Queen organised it. She's going to be very cross with that Assistant Chief Constable !

I said a couple of posts ago :

There is nothing new about peodophiles coverups - it happens throughout society. There is nothing new about peodophiles, and other criminals/law breakers, working together and helping each other. It doesn't mean that there is a state sponsored peodophile ring in the UK in which the Queen is in charge.

You're not convinced ?

Can you? And assuming you'll stick to your theory, are there ANY other possible ways that this could have happened (and continue to happen) without your grand control-structure conspiracy theory being correct?

You already know the majority of my (well researched) explanation...

Is it the only possibility?

No, despite MI5, MI6, GCHQ etc working on behalf of the Crown and the Queen having been the only constant in overt British (and Commonwealth) power since 1953, there are other possible scenarios.

[url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/246043736/The-Royal-Family-s-Paedophile-Problem ]But there is plenty of reason for suspicion [/url]

If not the Royal Family, then who else:

Has the sway to get MI5 and Special branch to intervene in investigation of prominent paedophiles over several elected administrations?

Would be in a position to arrange for Special Branch to spy on MPs and the Prime Minister?

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html ]Has jurisdiction over both UK Borders and Jersey[/url]?

If you have an explanation of your own, please share...

I've just dipped back into this thread and I have to say- WTF?

The Queen is orchestrating the cover-up of paedophile rings?

Keep taking the tablets...

ernie_lynch - Member

You're not convinced ?

Posted 35 minutes ago #

I'll take that as a no then.

Of course there's reason for suspicion. There are also things that go against your theory. Yours is a possible theory but it's not a credible one IMO even if some of the more basic parts of it are.

There could well be powerful people stopping investigations to cover up theirs and their friends' activities. There doesn't need to be an overarching conspiracy about control structures and the Queen.

Or it could just be as I said before that there are several groups of influential people with nasty inclinations who use their influence to allow it. Some may know each other but that doesn't make a grand conspiracy. The fact that these things are being dug up now and not being silenced points to this rather than your big single conspiracy.

And you think letting JHJ know that you think he's "full of shit" is better than a cheap shot ?

The point is not about 'being nice to JHJ' it's about you making smug flippant jokes about child abuse. But I'm sure you knew that too.

No one is doing a good job of explaining the involvement of MI5... or the high level machinations it would take to cover up such acts over several governments.

Of course, the fact that [url= https://pbepr.wordpress.com/scallywags-simon-regan/ ]Dr Julian Lewis, who was instrumental in the shutting down of Scallywag magazine which 1st exposed the paedophile ring operating around Dolphin Square[/url] and [url= http://www.****/news/article-2852444/Did-PM-s-adviser-try-stop-MP-linking-Brittan-claims-child-sex-abuse-Former-solictor-general-said-naming-not-wise-move.html ]Edward Garnier, who only last year warned Simon Danczuk from pursuing the matter of Leon Brittan's involvement[/url] were on the [url= http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Orders-approved-at-the-Privy-Council-30-March-2015.pdf ]30th of March this year both appointed to the Privy Council[/url] can only further raise suspicion.

And that's before you factor in that both Nick Clegg and William Hague, 2 of the 4 Privy councillors involved in making the decision, are themselves both close associates of Leon Brittan and both are implicated in the cover up...

it's about you making smug flippant jokes about child abuse.

That's quite a serious allegation grum. I don't mind people having a go at me but I suggest you edit. I have never hit the report button since I've been on this forum I think that probably warrants it.

This topic is about child abuse, you admit to 'leg-pulling and piss-taking' on the subject.

I'm not really sure what your problem is with what I said.

I admit to 'leg-pulling and piss-taking' JHJ. The claim I have made "smug flippant jokes about child abuse" is extremely offensive and totally without foundation.

We've all had a drink. Let's just make a brew before someone gets into trouble!

I admit to 'leg-pulling and piss-taking' JHJ.

Yes, about a series of real, horrific and wide-ranging child abuse/corruption cases. I find your attitude in this thread offensive so I guess we're even.

No like other people about his conspiracy theory. An example of leg-pulling and piss-taking was my above comment [i]"She's going to be very cross with that Assistant Chief Constable !"[/i]

In your twisted mind you want to claim that this represents "smug flippant jokes about child abuse"

Despite my initial disgust at your highly offensive and insulting allegation, and your complete inability to apologise, I decided not to hit the report button grum, your allegation is condemned by its own absurdity.

As regards Janner, if you read what the police themselves are quoted as saying, it all looks rather bent:

[i]the lead council appointed to the case recommended that the case go ahead. But Mrs Saunders has ruled that it is not in the public interest to pursue a conviction, as Lord Janner’s dementia means that he will not be able to hire representation or follow proceedings.

Sir Clive Loader, the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire, said: “The decision is not just wrong — it is wholly perverse and contrary to any notion of natural justice.” Sir Clive has now written to the home secretary, arguing that the Department of Public Prosecutions had “fatally undermined” justice[/i]...

And, to add further interest, another name from the Rotherham scandal crops up again; Keith Vaz.

Full article here: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/17/labour-solidarity-establishment-protection-of-lord-janner-goes-back-24-years/

More of the same from the Guardian too: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/19/establishment-stopped-me-exposing-greville-janner-25-years-ago?hc_location=ufi

More of the same from the Guardian too: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/19/establishment-stopped-me-exposing-greville-janner-25-years-ago?hc_location=ufi

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/17#post-6851331 ]Previous page[/url], fella.

Keith Vaz seems to have gone uncharacteristically quiet on the whole affair.

Just as a passing thought, do we have a strong record of regularly putting people with dementia on trial?

Assuming the various doctors are correct with their diagnosis, much as I feel for the victims and hate the idea of a potential abuser not getting tried and possibly convicted, is he getting preferential treatment at this stage over anyone else accused of serious crimes who are diagnosed with dementia?

The evils of any cover ups in the past being taken out of the equation for this point.

Just as a passing thought, do we have a strong record of regularly putting people with dementia on trial?

[url= http://www.donotlink.com/framed?689119 ]Would appear so[/url]

Personally I can't a problem with someone with dementia being put on trial for the alleged crimes. What would present a problem imo is the fact that punishment for the alleged crimes would be impossible to administer.

Still worthwhile imo as it would help to bring closure to the victims - their stories would have been heard, and the fact that they were victims recognised. Justice will have prevailed and crimes "solved", to an extent.

They have been failed by society over many years and a trial would go a small way in redressing that.

I'm not passing judgment on Janner btw, I'm just suggesting the value of justice.

This is a very serious subject but if you feed the Troll the trolling just gets worse.

Who is the troll?

There was an excellent editorial in the Morning Star last week on the issue :

[i]GREVILLE JANNER'S family insist that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decision not to proceed with charges of sexual abuse of children means that he is "entirely innocent of any wrongdoing."

Their statement echoes similar protestations by members of serial predator Jimmy Savile's family.

Savile could not face criminal charges because he was dead.

Four medical experts have expressed their opinion that the scale of Janner's dementia renders him similarly untouchable, which has been accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service.

By the letter of the law, both men are innocent, having never been convicted in a court of law.

However, no-one now believes, in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence from survivors of his abuse, that Savile was anything but a prolific, serial sex offender.

He and others whose crimes have been laid bare following their deaths escaped retribution because they were powerful, well-connected men, protected by other rich and influential people.

The boys and girls they mistreated bore their abuse in silence or found their complaints dismissed contemptuously.

Religious, political and legal institutions failed tens of thousands of children raped and abused by those with the inclination, opportunity and power to do so.

That the victims were often resident in care homes and viewed by investigators as unreliable witnesses helped the perpetrators to cover their tracks.

The volume of accusations placed against Janner, after his victims plucked up the courage to speak out in the hope of seeing him prosecuted, convicted and jailed, should persuade people not to hide behind an "innocent until proven guilty" mantra.

In suspending his membership, the Labour Party clearly feels that it cannot avoid taking a stand on this matter.

It is unusual for senior police officers to dissent as firmly over a CPS no-action decision as Leicestershire Police Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister has over the Janner case.

His observation that the decision will "do little to support and encourage victims of sexual abuse to come forward" is indisputable.

Given the scale of Leicestershire Police's Operation Enamel, interviewing over 2,000 people with a view to uncovering the truth about a number of child molesters, the sense of frustration and disappointment over the CPS announcement is difficult to exaggerate.

Janner had been on the police radar since 1991 and there were four probes into his behaviour.

This is a common story in such cases, with police acting on evidence brought to their notice before having investigations closed down as a result of pressure from on high.

It is not good enough for the CPS to admit now that it had sufficient evidence to prosecute Janner over two decades ago but had not done so because of "mistakes".

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders' comment that "there are real lessons to be learned" is too often the cop-out used by those in authority to excuse diabolical decision-making and organisational failure.

It is difficult to work up any great enthusiasm for the inquiry into its handling of the case that CPS has asked Sir Richard Henriques to carry out.

Countless numbers of children were - and doubtless still are - systematically abused by influential men who rely on networks of like-minded people to protect them from answering their crimes.

Abuse victims need to hear apologies for what they went through, but they don't need platitudes about lessons to be learned.

They need their abusers unmasked now, not when they're dead or beyond reach. [/i]

Still worthwhile imo as it would help to bring closure to the victims - their stories would have been heard, and the fact that they were victims recognised. Justice will have prevailed and crimes "solved", to an extent.

It's problematic putting someone on trial if they lack the mental capacity to mount a proper defence, especially in cases where your recollection of events long past is totally absent, although I agree with your point about the value to the alleged victims.

I notice that Janner, who was appparently diagnosed in 2009, had the capacity to carry on attending the Lords and taking part in votes until December 2013, in fact until the exact point when police coincidentally raided his home...

If his condition is genuine, and not Saunders-esque, then it seems that the slow grinding of the CPS and police has cost his accusers the chance of a day in court by a matter of months.

It's problematic putting someone on trial if they lack the mental capacity to mount a proper defence, especially in cases where your recollection of events long past is totally absent...

I think the suggestion is being made that the volume of evidence is so overwhelming, as is the case with Savile, that subtly detail doesn't need to be disputed.

Most people accept Savile's guilt despite the fact that he hasn't able to defend himself on account of being deceased.

Haven't seen any account of the strength of the evidence. I firmly hope it isn't anywhere near the scale of Saville, for obvious reasons.

But if it's overwhelming, then we just have to make sure that the victims have their day, if not in court, in the press and before a public inquiry.

Well no, I don't think it's of the scale of Savile's, but it would appear that it is because it is so substantial that the police are considering an unprecedented legal challenge against the director of public prosecutions.

I think the victims should 'have their day in court' not leave it to the press administer justice. And isn't a court just as good as a public inquiry?

According to the Daily Mail link posted by mefty :

[i]In serious cases where a judge rules a suspect is not fit to stand trial a jury can hear the evidence in the suspect’s absence and decide if the individual committed the crimes.

A suspect is not found to be guilty, or not guilty, but a jury do rule on if they have committed the crimes.[/i]

Getting your hands dirty by quoting from a Mail link. 🙂

A suspect is not found to be guilty, or not guilty, but a jury do rule on if they have committed the crimes.

That's interesting, didn't know they could do that. Bring it on.

So dementia gets a Lord off, but not commoners?

From FaceBook
[b]UK & Eire database for all crimes against children[/b]
18 April at 10:58 ·
SO the Crown Prosecution Service say they would not charge Lord Janner with multiple child sexual abuse charges owing to his poor health for Alzheimer’s & dementia
On Twitter his morning, we decided to challenge the CPS, and researched our own database where offenders with dementia have been taken to court - Remarkable response with many journalists already sharing our findings
Here is a number of cases where other paedophiles with dementia have been found GUILTY in court
72-year-old Dementia sufferer is jailed for “appalling” child sex offences committed 40 years ago http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/20…/…/07/brian-ash-millendreath/
Paedophile suffered from dementia & Alzheimer’s disease at TIME of offences - Guilty http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/…/03/12/douglas-turner-barnsta…/
Paedophile with severe dementia found guilty of abusing 6 under-age girls in a trial held in his absence http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/…/michael-collingwood-tedburn-…/
Paedophile with dementia was remanded in custody - Found guilty at trial & then jailed http://wp.me/p2gE9F-3UV
Eastham paedophile had vascular problems and resulting dementia - Found guilty in court http://wp.me/p2gE9F-41C
Paedophile suffers from dementia & heart problems - Found guilty & jailed http://wp.me/p2gE9F-6We
Judge convicts paedophile with korsakoff’s syndrome, a form of dementia. http://wp.me/p2gE9F-71N
Paedophile with dementia walks free from court after abusing girls as young as two http://wp.me/p2gE9F-8Kv
Suffers from dementia,mentally incapable of standing trial - Not be able to understand proceedings - Found guilty http://wp.me/p2gE9F-aiE
82-year-old Belfast pensioner with dementia found guilty http://wp.me/p2gE9F-fn5
Wick/Bristol paedophile Teacher recently assessed for dementia found guilty & jailed http://wp.me/p2gE9F-g3j
78-year-old Cornton paedophile who has dementia & is nearly deaf found guilty and jailed http://wp.me/p2gE9F-hgl
Harworth paedophile with vascular dementia found Guilty - However walked free from court http://wp.me/p2gE9F-hhU
Chippenham/London paedophile Teacher molested children - suffered from dementia - Found guilty & jailed for 7 years http://wp.me/p2gE9F-huk
Stoke paedophile with fronto-temporal dementia - Found guilty http://wp.me/p2gE9F-hz9
Stanmore paedophile suffered from dementia & Alzheimer’s - Found guilty & jailed http://wp.me/p2gE9F-iI2
Swindon paedophile systematically sexually abused a young girl in the 1970s - Had dementia & found Guilty http://wp.me/p2gE9F-iOG
Huddersfield paedophile unfit to plead to charges against him cause of dementia BUT was tried & found guilty by jury http://wp.me/p2gE9F-jhB
Paedophile who abused two boys over 30 years ago detained indefinitely under hospital order - Had dementia - GUILTY http://wp.me/p2gE9F-gf8

Just as a passing thought, do we have a strong record of regularly putting people with dementia on trial?

isn't it known as an "Earnest Saunders" where the stress of a potential trial make the symptoms of dementia appear for a period and when the trial is not held the same symptoms disappear?

General Pinochet, brutal Chilean dictator and personal friend of Margret Thatcher, claimed dementia when arrested for his crimes in London. In fact he was apparently so frail that he became confined to a wheelchair and had to be boarded onto a Chilean plane wheelchair bound :

[img] [/img]

However upon landing in Chile a miracle occurred and, praise the Lord, he was able to stand up and walk:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/665482.stm

Speaking of Generals, this is interesting:

[url= http://www.****/news/article-402473/War-hero-82-hits-fellow-peer-Lords.html ]War Hero, 82, hit fellow peer in Lords[/url]

Lord Bramall, 82, hit Lord Janner, a senior member of Britain's Jewish community, after making what witnesses claim were a series of 'anti-Israel' comments.

'We are very old friends, we have corresponded since then.' Asked what 'then' meant, Lord Bramall said: 'Since we had a slight argument.'

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31795110 ]
Lord Bramall's home was recently searched by Operation Midland[/url]

Operation Midland is examining claims that boys were abused by a group of powerful men from politics, the military and law enforcement agencies at locations across southern England and in London in the 1970s and 1980s.

This from the 1st link is particularly interesting, given the concerns I've raised about Lord Mountbatten and Kincora:

He was later on Lord Mountbatten's staff and became a full General in 1976.

Remembering of course that it was Prince Charles' mentor, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal family...

Don't forget, that there were two boys on the boat when Mountbatten died too.

Don't forget, that there were two boys on the boat when Mountbatten died too.

There were three actually Tim Knatchbull survived and wrote a very good book - so it must be an even bigger conspiracy.

There were three actually Tim Knatchbull survived and wrote a very good book