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

And of course I'm interested in the roles of the abusers, as I've stated many times before, when the people who make the legislation and enforce the laws are themselves involved in abuse, the system is seriously flawed.

logic fail.

But then you knew that.

You've got me there nick, I don't understand your reasoning... please explain

I'm assuming this has already been posted, but is anyone interested in this or would you just like to carry on baiting JHJ?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/541793/SNP-activist-killed-over-child-sex-files

There's some pretty suspicious aspects to the case. I don't suppose we will ever know the truth.

[i]There's some pretty suspicious aspects to the case.[/i]

there are some spurious bits of [s]journalism[/s] copywriting as well, "was said" "some maintain" "are understood" "was seen"

from the Express, that well know last bastion of truth. 😆

Indeed @nick, all those journalistic tricks to repeat false allegations, or at least those the paper itself has done nothing to try and verify. @grum a nice convenient article to stoke up anti-English sentiment ahead of the referendum, they even get the speculation in there he was killed for opposing the "dumping of nuclear waste in Scotland".

there are some spurious bits of journalism copywriting as well, "was said" "some maintain" "are understood" "was seen"

I agree about the article. But then I'm intelligent enough to critically analyse evidence for myself rather than just going 'OMG LOLZ DAILY EXPRESS'.

There's plenty of direct quotes/facts in the article as well as all the conjecture.

And what about this bit:

Just a few months after McRae’s death, Geoffrey Dickens spoke in the House of Commons about the dangers he had faced due to his attempt to expose powerful paedophiles.
He said: “Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening phone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home.

“Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer’s hit list.”

But no, carry on congratulating yourselves on how clever you all are for outsmarting a nutty conspiracy theorist, while not giving a shit about a potentially far-reaching and genuine national scandal.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/fatal-accident-inquiry-for-willie-mcrae

For the hard-of-thinking - I'm not saying I believe everything I read in the above links, at all, but I think they are worthy of interest. I find it utterly bizarre how many of you don't seem to give a shit about the very real and disturbing things that have been uncovered. JHJ seems to be doing a pretty good job of killing off any genuine interest in these matters.

or would you just like to carry on baiting JHJ?

If you bothered to look at who has been posting on this thread for the last 2 weeks you would see that it has been mostly JHJ, and you would see that his posts have mostly been ignored.

No one has laid a bait for him. In fact it is his repeated return to this thread that has been the bait which created a reaction.

You grum might think that JHJ's claim that "paedophile rings are central to the control structures of the political and religious elite" and that the Queen is the head of a paedophile ring warrants serious consideration and is no laughing matter, but that sentiment is unlikely to be shared by a great many others.

while not giving a shit about a potentially far-reaching and genuine national scandal.

You will obviously have critically analysed the evidence of this before making the accusation ?

You grum might think that JHJ's claim that "paedophile rings are central to the control structures of the political and religious elite" and that the Queen is the head of a paedophile ring warrants serious consideration and is no laughing matter, but that sentiment is unlikely to shared by a great many others.

No I think JHJ is full of shit and is distracting from important related issues - I just find the smug supercilious complacency of various posters on this topic quite infuriating.

Is proving that JHJ is a nutty conspiracy theorist the key issue here? Hasn't that been established months ago?

You will obviously have critically analysed the evidence of this before making the accusation ?

Yes I have - the evidence of this thread is that you are all far more concerned about making yourselves look clever than you are about corruption and paedophilia/abuse.

Oh sorry everyone, I'll just make some shit jokes about lizards shall I?

Yes I have - the evidence of this thread is that you are all far more concerned about making yourselves look clever than you are about corruption and paedophilia/abuse.

I'm not concerned in slightest about posting on a cycling forum about peadophilia conspiracies.

That does not mean I'm not concerned about the fact that paedophiles exist.

If you think it does, then your critical analysis isn't is as good as you think it is.

I just find the smug supercilious complacency of various posters on this topic quite infuriating.

Presumably you want us to overcome our smug supercilious "complacency" by organizing anti-paedophile lynch mobs ? Perhaps a few bricks through the windows of suspected paedophiles, or failing that pediatricians, and "nonce" painted on the front of their houses ?

Nah, just post a load of photos of Jimmy Saville, that'll resolve the issue

I'm not concerned in slightest about posting on a cycling forum about peadophilia conspiracies.

And yet you've posted many times on this thread, talking about paedophilia conspiracies. How strange. 🙄

Presumably you want us to overcome our smug supercilious "complacency" by organizing anti-paedophile lynch mobs ? Perhaps a few bricks through the windows of suspected paedophiles, or failing that pediatricians, and "nonce" painted on the front of their houses ?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, well done. 🙄

Personally I find stuff like this quite concerning/interesting - apparently that makes me weird/a conspiracy theorist:

Another day, another set of shocking headlines about allegations of historical child abuse and high-level coverups, this time a dossier being handed over by the Metropolitan police themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to examine 14 allegations of Scotland Yard’s own complicity in the alleged coverup of a high-level paedophile ring.

Two weeks ago it emerged that former MP Harvey Proctor’s grace-and-favour home in Belvoir Castle had been raided by police investigating historic allegations of child abuse. Proctor has denied any involvement in, or knowledge of, the alleged establishment abuse. Other claims fester. A raid was also made on the home of the former home secretary Leon Brittan.

All have denied charges levelled by alleged victims, some of them in files passed on by current MPs convinced of an extensive establishment coverup that lasted decades. But so did Cyril Smith, who got his knighthood in 1988 despite officials warning Margaret Thatcher of paedophile allegations against him, confirmed only after the former Liberal MP was dead. Freedom of Information (FoI) papers filled in fresh details this month. Smith is again central to today’s claims.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, well done.

Yes it was a ridiculous suggestion wasn't it ? Of course you have got a much better suggestion of how we can overcome our "complacency" which you are now going to tell us.

Well, in my crazy imagination I had the idea that on a discussion forum people might sensibly discuss the actual issues involved rather than smugly congratulating themselves and taking the piss out of a nutty conspiracy theorist (over and over and over again), but LOLZ HE BELIEVES THE QUEEN IS A LIZARD PAEDO is clearly the way forward.

My apologies.

And yet you've posted many times on this thread, talking about paedophilia conspiracies. How strange.

If you can be bothered to actually do some research before accusing people of "not giving a shit" you would find that on this thread, many times and on many other threads, I have pointed out that JHJ does more harm than good with his conspiracy shit.

I've pointed out that it distracts attention away from the real investigations, by actual investigators, that may achieve actual results.

It makes more people think of the whole subject as "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it. Doing more harm than good for the actual victims.

You would know that obviously, if you analysed the evidence before making accusations.

In my professional career, I've dealt directly with 4 cases of child abuse, in both a clinical and school setting. Each time the perpetrator was known to the victim, (close family or step/ half relative) and some were in positions that put them in close contact with other kids.

In conversations with other safeguarding professionals around the country the vast vast vast majority of child abuse is Family (some 95%+) the rest is made up of grooming from positions of trust (religion, doctors, scout leaders teachers and so on), and a tiny proportion is predatory. It is estimated that 10 of thousands of kids are abused by their families every year...

Families abusing their kids doesn't sell newspapers, or draw people to websites. However, accusing politicians, or making up accusations about peodophiles networks and MI5 and so on does...

I don't give a shit about JHJ's wild theories.

I've pointed out that it distracts attention away from the real investigations, by actual investigators, that may achieve actual results.

It makes more people think of the whole subject as "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it. Doing more harm than good for the actual victims.

Only if people keep going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on and on) about every minute detail of everything he says.

Only if people keep going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on and on) about every minute detail of everything he says.

Details are important.

They are difference between actual criminal activity, and made up shit.

If he stops making shit up, people will stop pointing it out.

Simple.

In my professional career, I've dealt directly with 4 cases of child abuse, in both a clinical and school setting. Each time the perpetrator was known to the victim, (close family or step/ half relative) and some were in positions that put them in close contact with other kids.

I'm really not sure how your personal experience is relevant here. So you haven't experienced an MP abuse case personally therefore it's not relevant to anyone? It's possible to care about family-based abuse AND corruption/abuse amongst the elite - weird I know.

I don't give a shit about JHJ's wild theories.

Oh look another one who doesn't care yet keeps opening the thread and posting, how bizarre. I don't give a shit about JHJ's wild theories - I do give a shit about the stuff talked about here though:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure
/p>

Predatory MPs may not be the biggest problem in child protection (obviously) but the fact that people may have been able or are still able to get away with things like this due to holding positions of power should concern anyone who gives even the slightest of shits about democracy.

grum - Member

Well, in my crazy imagination I had the idea that on a discussion forum people might sensibly discuss the actual issues involved rather than smugly congratulating themselves and taking the piss out of a nutty conspiracy theorist (over and over and over again), but LOLZ HE BELIEVES THE QUEEN IS A LIZARD PAEDO is clearly the way forward.

My apologies.

It's rather hard to have sensible discussion with someone who claims the Queen is the head of a paedophile ring and someone else who rants about [i]"smug supercilious complacency"[/i] in a rather smug manner.

OK then, LOLZ HE BELIEVES THE QUEEN IS A LIZARD PAEDO

[img] [/img]

As you were.

I do give a shit about the stuff talked about here though

🙄 Yes because everyone else on here thinks that paedophilia is just fine. ffs

It's possible to care about family-based abuse AND corruption/abuse amongst the elite - weird I know.

Yes it is.

And it's should also possible to think JHJ talks a load of shit

Without getting accused of "not giving a shit" about paedophiles.

But it seems that's not possible for some reason.

After the pathetic "nudge nudge" insinuations re Mountbatten it's hard to give JHJ any credit. "Two young boys on the boat with him. Eh? Eh? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge."

As mentioned above, this sort of shit detracts from any real purpose or truths, in fact it can even obfuscate them completely. No one pays attention to nutjobs and if you make yourself sound like one.....

After the pathetic "nudge nudge" insinuations re Mountbatten it's hard to give JHJ any credit. "Two young boys on the boat with him. Eh? Eh? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge."

That was a spectacular low point. Even for him.

Details are important.

They are difference between actual criminal activity, and made up shit.

If he stops making shit up, people will stop pointing it out.

Simple.

What do you think you are achieving though? You're not going to persuade JHJ to start thinking rationally, and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

Yes because everyone else on here thinks that paedophilia is just fine. ffs

Well I didn't say that did I. What I did say is that you're all far more interested in the sound of your own voices. Plenty of evidence for that.

You can't really accuse me of killing off interest in the matter~ no other bugger is raising the issue in the 1st place~ you don't have to agree with my analysis (though I have done a shiteload of research and stand by my claims) but the fact that even the mainstream media are beginning to report aspects of the larger network are encouraging.

If you look back at the David Icke thread:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/david-icke-at-wembley-last-saturday

though the thread itself got a bit silly, many of the cases I raised back then have proved to have substance, such as:

~[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-man-murdered-for-exposing-paedophile-ring ]Lambeth[/url]:

[img] [/img]

([url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-notorious-paedophiles-centre-nationwide-4727494 ]Not forgetting that Lambeth is linked to North Wales and Dolphin Square[/url]):

[img] [/img]

~[url= http://exaronews.com/articles/5523/leon-brittan-ipcc-investigates-claim-of-cover-up-for-top-tory ]Leon Brittan being an abuser[/url]:

[img] [/img]

~[url=www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/re-written-letter-child-abuse-inquiry]Fiona Woolf's links to Leon Brittan[/url]

[img] [/img]

(which turned out to be more extensive than suggested in the above image)

Many may dismiss me as a loon, but I've been on the money time and again.

Oh and for the record, the 1st person to post this diagram on the thread was in fact ernie:

[img] [/img]

I've never claimed it to be fact, but given the apparent extent of people in powerful positions involved, it would be silly to dismiss it entirely:

[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 was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover up
[/url]

The mainstream media is doing a good job under the circumstance, but there is far more yet to be exposed to reveal the full extent of the wider networks.

As for Mountbatten, just wait and see...

What do you think you are achieving though?

And what do you think you are achieving grum?

If you want to talk about paedophile politicians, police, etc, then go ahead and do so, who exactly is stopping you? Why the obsession with the reaction that JHJ creates? Look at how much time and effort you've put into ranting about that.

If you want to talk about paedophile politicians, police, etc, then go ahead and do so, who exactly is stopping you?

Well I have done that haven't I. But no one seems interested. Oh well

I don't give a shit about JHJ's wild theories.

Therein lies the problem, you seem to assume I haven't done my research, yet time and again I've come through with the goods, before it later made the news.

It isn't wild theory~ it's made Sky News, ITV, BBC, Channel 4, Newsnight etc and is still a developing story.

As time goes on, I'm able to provide more credible sources as it becomes available in the public domain.

When you mention abuse within the family, remember that some of the kids who were subjected to rape and torture were provided to elite paedophile rings by their families... sick, but real.

Whatever it is that drives people to do such things with their own children is still questionable, but remember, we aren't just talking about the abuse of kids, we are talking about the perversion of justice, the collusion within the system to cover it up and the very real potential that military involvement exposes:

that such activity is used to pursue agendas, which given the extent those involved are prepared to go to, are highly unlikely to be for the common good.

Denial isn't going to solve that...

....no other bugger is raising the issue in the 1st place

What, you mean there is a cycling forum and nobody is talking endlessly about elite Paedophile conspiracy theories for months and months!

You are right, something needs to be done.

Cycling forum is here neal:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/forum/bike-chat

Anyhoo, you might want a read of that Lambeth link I've posted above, after all, you wanted evidence all those months ago:

nealglover - Member

Whatsmore, there was what appears to have been a sex dungeon in a Lambeth Police station:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-lambeth-police-station-sex-chamber/

When you say "what appears to be" what do you mean exactly ?

There must be some EVIDENCE of it surely.

You provided a link to PROVE what you are saying was true didn't you.

On no wait, I read your link and all it confirmed was ....... Nothing.

The investigation found ..... Nothing
The Freedom of information request found ..... Nothing

In fact, all that was proved, was there is indeed a small room in that building. Wow.

Not only that, it's not even a building used by Police officers!
It's a building used entirely by Civilian Clerical support staff.

And all that information is from a link YOU provided,
And you provided it to prove that high ranking police officers had a Sex Dungeon under a police station that was used to abuse kids and produce child pornography.

Even by your standards, that's poor "evidence"

Onward to victory...

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-know-its-early-days-but-please-please-please-please

jivehoneyjive - Member

I don't give a shit about JHJ's wild theories.

Therein lies the problem, you seem to assume I haven't done my research, yet time and again I've come through with the goods, before it later made the news.

It isn't wild theory~ it's made Sky News, ITV, BBC, Channel 4, Newsnight etc and is still a developing story.

The original topic of this thread - specifically abuse of children in Rotherham - initially had one main facet of discussion; the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but it has since become obvious that there are many other salient factors which impacted on this case and are in common with others throughout the UK.

Corruption and cover-ups, for various motives - not least self-serving and also politically motivated - are a recurring theme.

yet time and again I've come through with the goods

A £50 donation to a charity is somehow evidence of a "link", that and having lived on the same street in London for a bit ?

Oh dear Jambo, guess you don't keep up with the news...

you could of course just click the link I provided, but I'll give you another, to accommodate your political slant:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11198771/Fiona-Woolf-letter-went-through-seven-re-writes-and-amended-details-of-her-link-with-Leon-Brittan.html ]A formal letter between Mrs Woolf and Mrs May was re-written seven times, with Home Office assistance. [/url]

Having multiple dinner parties and social engagements with the Brittans then editing her letter with Home Office assistance isn't quite the casual coincidence you seem to suggest.

In fact, even after editing the letter 7 times, it later emerged that she had met the Brittans more recently than she'd disclosed.

Soon after she resigned as chair of the inquiry.

However, it still hasn't been disclosed on whose advice the letters were redrafted...

[img] [/img]

(bear in mind the photo was taken on the morning of 21st October 2014~ that afternoon, Fiona Woolf went before the Home Affairs Select Committee and stated she wasn't linked to the establishment...)

JJ she resigned as she just couldn't be bothered with all the irrelevant nonsense.

bear in mind the photo was taken on the morning of 21st October 2014~ that afternoon, Fiona Woolf went before the Home Affairs Select Committee and stated she wasn't linked to the establishment...

So she dresses up as Lord Mayor of London in an 18th century costume and stands behind the Queen at a formal event expecting that no one will notice her or take her photograph?

On exactly the same day that she denies any links to the establishment?

Well I don't think she has covered her tracks very well.

Have you got any more examples of important people being photographed in clearly damning circumstances?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/1960s-hit-pop-band-visited-same-notorious-flat-frequented-by-jimmy-savile-10159630.html

JJ FYI the judge in the US has ordered that any reference to Prince Andrew be removed from the record regarding the "under-age prostitution" allegations. It was always just a publicity stunt from the lawyers.

jambalaya - Member
JJ she resigned as she just couldn't be bothered with all the irrelevant nonsense.

I thought it was because the victims groups has no faith in her independance so her opinion and final report wouldve been worthless (that and she was making May look even more incompetent)

@kimbers, all part of it. A bit harsh of me to describe the victims groups in that way but there you go. So we get someone from New Zealand instead. May was very forthright in setting up the enquiry, she didn't have to do it, she elected to do so. May has been outstanding in this regard.

jambalaya - Member
May was very forthright in setting up the enquiry, she didn't have to do it, she elected to do so. [u]May has been outstanding in this regard.[/u]

that is on of the most remarkable statements Ive ever read on the internet, you are a credit to you convictions Jamby, 64million other people may disagree with you but you are of course entitled to your opinion

Anyhoo, you might want a read of that Lambeth link I've posted above, after all, you wanted evidence all those months ago:

I did ask for evidence "all those months ago" and as usual you failed to provide anything at all.

And a newspaper article asking lots of questions like "was this man murdered to cover up....etc"
still doesn't constitute evidence

If they ask a question in a headline, it means that the article won't contain any evidence that will prove the answer.

You do realise that don't you ?

I'm not saying nothing happened. But you don't have any evidence that it did either.

That's your problem, you are happy to make accusations of individuals without understanding what real evidence actually looks like.

It undermines your credibility and makes people believe everything you claim is incorrect. If there is enough of you doing the same thing, That weakens public opinion that these things actually need investigating.

I seem to remember later in that thread, you went on to state that a dictionary was a good example of credible and verifiable evidence...

I would use that as credible and verifiable evidence that you don't really know what you're talking about, whereas, as the development of the story has continued to prove, I do.

Of course, when it comes to questioning credibility, the fact that Cyril Smith was a good friend of Jimmy Savile would suggest that the credibility of the official account that Savile was a lone abuser who groomed the nation may be a touch ropey.

I say that with sufficient confidence that once again my words will ring true in time...

I fear you actually believe this

I seem to remember later in that thread, you went on to state that a dictionary was a good example of credible and verifiable evidence..

Pretty sure we all said these words meant what the dictionary said when you asked us what they meant...

That's how I remember it.

We asked for evidence.

He asked us what that meant

We told him to use a dictionary and look it up.

Either way, my point still stands, if a newspaper article has a headline that contains a Question

"Was this man killed to cover up..etc"

It can be guaranteed that the article contains no evidence that he was, and certainly will not prove that he was.

Hmm, perhaps you can dig up the thread to prove your claims...

Also seem to remember you both went a bit conspiracy mental and accused me outright of being kaesae...

either way, that is a minor point, what is evident is that today's allegations have sufficient gravity to pass the verification required for broadcast on a credible news programme, and is also sufficient to receive the backing of many Northern Irish Politicans (thankfully, not everyone is bad) as well as Amnesty International.
[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/mi5-kincora-richard-kerr-brian-gemmell-child-abuse ]
This from Channel 4 shows there is growing evidence for the involvement of MI5 in these matters[/url] Which, combined with similar accounts surrounding Cyril Smith, Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square among others, certainly has sufficient gravity for further investigation.

As regards the Lambeth case, there is much to suggest Bulic Forsythe was killed because he was set to reveal those involved in abuse in Lambeth, abuse on a very disturbing scale, said to be linked to a member of Tony Blair's cabinet.

Though there may not be material evidence linked to the killing (evidence of the abuse, as discussed and refuted in the initial thread is clearly sufficient for it to be reported), the other evidence is sufficient to make national news... whether the same level of evidence would stand up in a courtroom would depend on many variables, such as the judge, the defence, the prosecution, the jury.

As cases such as OJ Simpson show, even a vast amount of evidence can be manipulated away with sufficient financial influence...

(As an aside, that reminds me, Alan Dershowitz, who has been named as an abuser in the Jeffrey Epstein case was on OJ Simpson's defence team... why didn't Prince Andrew take the opportunity to refute the claims against him under oath?)

I struggle to recall any instance where an article alone has been sufficient to prove beyond all doubt the culpability of a case and pass sentence, but they often have sufficient background to spur further inquiry.

perhaps you can dig up the thread to prove your claims.

I stopped reading then as it I assume it was just the same irrational pish as usual and clearly you dont get how debates work.

you say something you prove it...its really basic stuff and yet still beyond you.

Yes. Here it is.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/credible-and-verifiable-evidence

You asked what Credible and Verifiable Evidence meant.

I told you, that the words you don't understand can be found in a dictionary, that would give the definitions you needed.

Do you need any other help remembering things ?

You asked what a edible and Verifiable Evidence meant.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_to_the_Slaughter ]This, perhaps? 😉 [/url]

either way, that is a minor point, what is evident is that today's allegations have sufficient gravity to pass the verification required for broadcast on a credible news programme

What is evident from that, is that the Credible News Program have verified that allegations have been made.

They are not commenting on wether those allegations have "sufficient Gravity" to be true, because they can't verify that.

I think that's the bit you don't understand.

So, given the judge has now struck out the claims made against Prince Andrew, it's now clear to us that HM the Queens hold over the former colonies remains as strong as it ever was!

either way, that is a minor point, what is evident is that today's allegations have sufficient gravity to pass the verification required for broadcast on a credible news programme

Really? Just like the allegations made against Paul Gambaccini? 'Gravity' means nothing, they're allegations and confirm nothing as fact.

Jamby, 64million other people may disagree with you but you are of course entitled to your opinion

Like the allegations made against Jimmy Savile then, or the allegations made against Rolf Harris... yes, some will be without firm basis, but many others will be factual~

If allegations such as this are made:

IPCC to investigate allegations of historic corruption relating to child sexual abuse in the Metropolitan Police

1) Allegation of a potential cover up around failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offences in South London and further information about criminal allegations against a politician being dropped.

2) Allegation that an investigation involving a proactive operation targeting young men in Dolphin Square, was stopped because officers were too near prominent people.

3) Allegation that a document was found at an address of a paedophile that originated from the Houses of Parliament listing a number of highly prominent individuals (MPs and senior police officers) as being involved in a paedophile ring and no further action was taken.

4) Allegation that an account provided by an abuse victim had been altered to omit the name of a senior politician.

5) Allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring, in which a number of people were convicted, did not take action in relation to other more prominent individuals

6) Allegations that a politician had spoken with a senior MPS officer and demanded no action was taken regarding a paedophile ring and boys being procured and supplied to prominent persons in Westminster in the 1970s.

7) Allegation that in the late 1970s a surveillance operation that gathered intelligence on a politician being involved in paedophile activities was closed down by a senior MPS officer.

8 ) Allegation that a dossier of allegations against senior figures and politicians involved in child abuse were taken by Special Branch officers.

9) Allegations that a surveillance operation of a child abuse ring was subsequently shut down due to high profile people being involved.

10) Allegations of child sex abuse against a senior politician and a subsequent cover-up of his crimes.

11) Allegations that during a sexual abuse investigation a senior officer instructed the investigation be halted and that that order had come from ‘up high’ in the MPS.

12) Allegation of a conspiracy within the MPS to prevent the prosecution of a politician suspected of offences.

13) Allegations against a former senior MPS officer regarding child sex abuse and that further members of the establishment including judges were involved. It is claimed that no further action was taken.

14) Allegation that police officers sexually abused a boy and carried out surveillance on him. Further allegations of financial corruption in a London borough police force.

Or these...

The three new referrals to the IPCC are:

An allegation that a child abuse investigation in central London gathered evidence against MPs, judges, media entertainers, police, actors, clergy and others. The file was submitted to start proceedings against those identified and, it is alleged, two months later an officer was called in by a senior Met officer and told to drop the case

Two allegations about police actions during a child abuse investigation in the 1980s. Further details of these have not been given

The IPCC is also assessing a further six referrals it has received from the Met Police relating to "similar matters".

It certainly seems prudent to pursue them...

what's more, given the extent of alleged prior cover up, it seems wise to ensure as many people know about it as possible, to ensure sufficient scrutiny to prevent further cover up.

Discussing these matters may be unsavoury, but it's necessary if we are to expose the truth, whatever it may be.

It certainly seems prudent to pursue them

Yes it does.

And when persuing them, people that know how to use a dictionary, will be looking for Credible and Verifiable Evidence to find out if the allegations are true or not.

Rather than just believing the allegations blindly as you seem to.

well they may disagree with me or perhaps the 64 million may agree with me. Neither of us can speak for them.

Well this is very true but your comment on the previous page :

[i]"May was very forthright in setting up the enquiry, she didn't have to do it, she elected to do so. May has been outstanding in this regard"[/i]

is rather bizarre.

You claim that Theresa May has been [i]"outstanding"[/i] with regards to setting up the inquiry and yet Theresa May herself has felt the need to apologise :

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/03/theresa-may-apologises-for-resignation-of-fiona-woolf_n_6096084.html ]Theresa May Apologises For Resignation Of Fiona Woolf, Second Chairwoman Appointed To Child Sex Abuse Inquiry[/url]

Kimbers might have exaggerated the point but your claim that the person responsible for something which has proved so far to have been a shambles has been "outstanding" clearly isn't in step with widely held opinions, including it would appear with the opinion of the person in question.

Being as I (allegedly) just believe allegations blindly, it's quite convenient that all of this has come to light since I mentioned such matters several months ago before they were reported in the news:

It's almost as if I'm quite selective in what allegations I feel are worth pursuing due to extensive research on the matter...

Yes but for you they would have got away with it 😕

I assume you are being called as an expert witness?

It's almost as if I'm quite selective in what allegations I feel are worth pursuing

Yes we have all seen the prudent way in which you pursue only the important stuff like the Queen and her armies.

These are strange threads and part of me wants to rip the piss* whilst the other part fears we are witnessing some sort of mental breakdown/delusional behaviour and we should not mock but pity and help you save yourself from yourself.

I am leaving these threads as I fear the later and pity the former.

* i cannot achieve the heights set above by ernie on jamby though 😆

Being as I (allegedly) just believe allegations blindly, it's quite convenient that all of this has come to light since I mentioned such matters several months ago before they were reported in the news:

Which proves you believe the allegations in the absence of any credible and verifiable evidence.

It's almost as if I'm quite selective in what allegations I feel are worth pursuing due to extensive research on the matter...

And yet this "extensive research* has yet to uncover any credible or verifiable evidence.

(* reading other people websites and watching YouTube videos isn't really "extensive research" it called web browsing)

Yes we have all seen the prudent way in which you pursue only the important stuff like the Queen and her armies.

Strangely though, every time you say you ignore my posts, or won't post on the threads as it's all clearly delusional bobbins (despite reports by the media corroborating what I've been saying for months) you then come back and spout shite...

Of course, the Queen and her armies and intelligence services have some relevance here...

After all, MI5 and Special Branch have to be acting on someone's behalf and they clearly outrank Police and even it would seem military intelligence in some cases...

it's quite convenient that all of this has come to light since I mentioned such matters several months ago before they were reported in the news

To be fair JHJ this thread was started 7 months ago and you were posting direct links to newspaper articles then, so I don't know how this fits in with your claim that you were mentioning it before it was in the news.

And yet this "extensive research* has yet to uncover any credible or verifiable evidence.

Hmm, obvious troll is obvious, or living in a bubble...

Do you think the police and IPCC are simply relying on evidence that is neither credible or verifiable?

Would the media report cases which would bring their credibility into question?

reading other people websites and watching YouTube videos isn't really "extensive research" it called web browsing

Does that mean GCHQ just do web browsing and whatnot? On whose behalf do they do it?

As you're no doubt aware ernie, this isn't the only thread I've been mentioning such matters on...

😉

Do you think the police and IPCC are also simply relying on evidence that is neither credible or verifiable

No.

I'm saying that [b]you [/b]are.

And you've posted nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

Does that mean GCHQ just do web browsing and whatnot?

They don't get their evidence of anything from the websites you always post links to.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not in any way an "investigator"

You read websites. It's not the same thing.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are in no way qualified to pass such judgement.

Of course, the fact these things are being revealed in the real world are secondary to your clear desire to prove me wrong, no matter how much evidence mounts up to the contrary.

Once again. For the hard of hearing.

I'm not trying to prove that paedophiles don't exist. I'm not trying to prove that some of them (a very small percentage though) are not people in powerful positions.

You keep saying I am, but I'm not.

I'm criticising you for believing specific allegations without any proof.

Proof may eventually come. But that won't make your blind belief in any allegation any better.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are in no way qualified to pass such judgement.

I've no idea what "qualification" I would need.

But either way, I sincerely hope you haven't managed to convince anyone that you are, and that nobody is directly relying on you for any sort of justice.

That's just a scary thought.

You probably ought to invest heavily in nappies then...

I'm trying to think of some facetious joke that I can contribute but I'm struggling with the subject matter

(EDIT: aaah yeah.... got one! I'd better not though)

[i]After all, MI5 and Special Branch have to be acting on someone's behalf and they clearly outrank Police and even it would seem military intelligence in some cases...[/i]

One of the reasons I believe that these sorts of cases come to light is in my view probably the complete opposite of what you understand. I've no real problem with believing that "intelligence services" knew about various groups or individual child abusers. The reason nothing is done, is because of [u]lack[/u]of oversight, rather than some overarching controlling cabal.

Their job (intelligence officers) is gather to leverage over people and information, and given the paranoid world in which the intelligence service operate I can well imagine a scenario where something like Child abuse would be observed rather than acted upon, I bet they're doing the same with MPs and others who are using drugs and prostitutes and pretty much anything else you can think of.

It goes on probably because there isn't enough critical oversight and control over individual officers cases (probably because those bodies don't really exist, who watches the watchmen etc etc)

It's appalling for the innocents captured in the centre of these "scandals". It probably won't stop.

I can see your logic nick, but it doesn't tally with the facts that MI5 have repeatedly intervened in Police investigations and shut them down when they involve influential figures.

A good example of this is Cyril Smith:

http://www.channel4.com/news/mi5-child-abuse-cover-up-allegations-home-office

though as the IPCC cases listed a bit further up show, he was far from the only one.

This Newsnight investigation goes some way to uncovering the circumstances surrounding Smith:

similar intervention preventing investigation occurred in Lambeth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28316874

and Kincora:

[img] :large[/img]

There are many similar cases across the country.

JHJ

it doesn't tally with the [b]facts[/b] that MI5 [b]have[/b] repeatedly intervened in Police investigations and [b]shut them down[/b] when they involve influential figures.

C4 link provided

As the IPCC announces it is looking into [b]claims[/b] detectives covered up child abuse by politicians and police officers, MI5 faces questions [b]over what it knew[/b] and [b]whether[/b] it tried to suppress evidence.

allegation is not fact until proven and even if it turns out to be correct (which I believe is quite possible or likely even), as set out by nickc, it's only conjecture for now. Unless of course your 'research' has uncovered proof/evidence in which case we'd all love to see it.

And even if it does turn out to be proven (with real evidence!), it doesn't then prove that there's an overall conspiracy. That would require further evidence (reminder - NOT just allegation or "A links to B links to C"). Again, as nickc pointed out, while's it's not as exciting as this big masonic conspiracy of CONTROL STRUCTURES, there are plenty of other explanations which are at least as credible and probably others that are similarly wild.

Your logic is good nemesis, but if Kids were being trafficked between Kincora, Elm Guest House, Dolphin Square, Lambeth etc (as certainly appears to be the case) for abuse by powerful people and in all of those instances investigations were shut down by MI5 or Special Branch, then not only do we have a clear pattern, we also have clear links between the various venues. From that it is reasonable to assume they were all part of the same network.

I appreciate there is little reason to believe the Masonic aspect at this stage, though the fact that some children were introduced to the paedophile rings to be raped and tortured by their parents certainly raises questions as to why the f*ck anyone would stoop so low.

We also have to wonder just how it is that all these high profile figures came together to indulge in group abuse

if, appears, assume.

I agree that it [b]looks[/b] like something dodgy was going on. It's what conclusions you draw about the reasons for that happening IF it is proven to be the case that's the issue. It could be as pointed out any number of reasons, some far fetched, some conspiracies, some not.

And the thing with high profile people is that they tend to have money and influence so can arrange to fulfill their desires in a way that normal people can't. They don't need to be linked to a bigger conspiracy for that to happen. In fact, it's far more likely that there were several smaller rings of influential people doing similar things that sometimes overlapped.

But then that's not as exciting for the conspiracy theorists as a big, global, masonic conspiracy, is it?

Some questions we'll need to answer to get to the bottom of this include:

How did high profile people arrange for care homes to provide children to be abused?

How did these smaller rings of high profile people procuring children from care homes to be abused all somehow manage to get Special Branch and MI5 to intervene on any unfortunate snooping by the common everyday police?

No. We can't get to the bottom of this. We don't have the evidence. All 'we' can do is put forward theories which we will find credible to differing degrees.

For example, off the top of my head

How did high profile people arrange for care homes to provide children to be abused?

Because they had money and influence and there actually are 'bad' people out there who'll do unspeakable things with the right influence.

How did these smaller rings of high profile people procuring children from care homes to be abused all somehow manage to get Special Branch and MI5 to intervene on any unfortunate snooping by the common everyday police?

All? Are you sure? It seems to me that some didn't get away with it. And it's several separate allegations that MI5 stopped investigations so if for example one allegation is found to be false does that then 'prove' that they're all false or does it just offer the possibility that MI5 felt (probably in a misguided way) that it was in their interest to stop an/some investigation for reasons we don't know.

It's all conjecture. I could come up with any number of wild theories too but without evidence, it's just a p-do crime solving fetish and nothing to do with actually stopping it happening.

If anybody would like to take a short break from this and do something practical about it...

https://www.justgiving.com/Mike-Dudley3/

OK?

Carry on. 😉