Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 61 total)
  • Governmental sexual abuse cover up. Latest evidence/allegations…….
  • RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Well, that escalated quickly.

    Whistleblower supplied children to ministers…….

    ….and the PM was made aware of it.

    Some very specific allegations there.

    Are the floodgates about to open?
    Or time for yet another cover up?

    I suspect this will be buried for ‘security reasons’:
    If true, it would be a severely incompetent security service that wouldn’t have used this info to compromise individuals involved.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    I suspect this will be buried for ‘security reasons’

    So why are we reading about it?

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Because we’ve been allowed to.
    Why and for what reason, I don’t know..

    Could go either way – Dave could see this as his defining moment – to be remembered as the man who cleaned up Westminster would be a fine legacy.

    Alternatively, a couple of people will be thrown to the wolves, the rest will keep schtum and we’ll never find out the truth.

    I hope it’s the former.
    I suspect it’s the latter.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Jamie
    Free Member

    So why are we reading about it?

    I guess it’s been decided it’s time to throw someone under the bus.

    I imagine this person will probably already be dead.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    So more about it being buried or not buried for political rather than security reasons?

    it would be a severely incompetent security service that wouldn’t have used this info to compromise individuals involved.

    Why would the security services have wanted to “compromise” government ministers?

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    wwaswas – Member

    So more about it being buried or not buried for political rather than security reasons?

    It’s impossible to separate the two.

    somewhatslightlydazed – Member

    Why would the security services have wanted to “compromise” government ministers?

    Because that’s their job.
    If they didn’t, someone else would.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I suspect all manner wrong doers in all sorts of “jobs” have terrible secrets that they don’t want to come out. Some of them will be politicians. The vast majority of them won’t be. Donning tinfoil hats on social media and starting internet witch hunts (remember Lord McAlpine?) probably won’t help the cause of tbe victims or justice

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    If they didn’t, someone else would.

    It’s a catchy slogan;

    “MI5 – Compromising Government Ministers So That Someone Else Doesn’t Have to Since 1946”

    ninfan
    Free Member

    One word of caution that someone flagged up recently over a ‘young boys’ comment – up till 1994, the gay age of consent was 21, so something that was ‘underage’ then, wouldn’t be illegal now. Which of course opens up a huge can of worms when people are discussing past comments or knowledge about underage sex.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    MoreCashThanDash – Member
    Donning tinfoil hats on social media and starting internet witch hunts (remember Lord McAlpine?) probably won’t help the cause of the victims or justice

    It’s not tinfoil hats though, is it?
    This guy has provided names.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    wwaswas – Member

    If they didn’t, someone else would.

    It’s a catchy slogan;

    “MI5 – Compromising Government Ministers So That Someone Else Doesn’t Have to Since 1946”

    It’s true though. 🙂

    It’s their job to ensure that government employees cannot be compromised.
    That’s why vetting procedures are so stringent.
    It’s hardly news.

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist btw, far from it.

    ninfan – Member

    One word of caution that someone flagged up recently over a ‘young boys’ comment – up till 1994, the gay age of consent was 21, so something that was ‘underage’ then, wouldn’t be illegal now. Which of course opens up a huge can of worms when people are discussing past comments or knowledge about underage sex.

    Good point.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I don’t know, I didn’t bother reading the link.

    If you want to find out how awful sexual abuse is maybe you should live with someone who works in child protection. It rather takes the shine off all the tabloids lurid headlines.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    It’s their job to ensure that government employees cannot be compromised.

    which they achieve by compromising them?

    MoreCashThanDash makes a very good point.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    MoreCashThanDash – Member

    I don’t know, I didn’t bother reading the link.

    If you want to find out how awful sexual abuse is maybe you should live with someone who works in child protection. It rather takes the shine off all the tabloids lurid headlines.
    Eh?
    I work with people who have been abused as part of my job.

    It rather takes the shine off all the tabloids lurid headlines.

    What shine?

    This could be a defining moment in a process that has been ongoing for years, gained momentum with the Savile enquiry and has gathered momentum since.

    There is a huge opportunity here.
    I’d hate to see it wasted.

    wwaswas – Member

    It’s their job to ensure that government employees cannot be compromised.

    which they achieve by compromising them?
    Yes.
    Obviously.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Why would the security services have wanted to “compromise” government ministers?

    So that they could blackmail the government and use this information to secure their agenda would be my guess.

    up till 1994, the gay age of consent was 21, so something that was ‘underage’ then, wouldn’t be illegal now

    They still get tried by the law that prevailed at the time.
    It was still illegal to use prostitutes/rent boys as well which also seems to be part of the allegation.

    Donning tinfoil hats on social media and starting internet witch hunts (remember Lord McAlpine?) probably won’t help the cause of tbe victims or justice

    Indeed but this case seems to have evidence and have named names and include witnesses.
    the choice of thehead investigator is interesting considering the family links. is the establishment allready doing a cover up?
    Also claims that Tory whips knew and covered stuff up as well to bully folk.

    I have no idea how far this one goes but there does seem to be evidence

    Solo
    Free Member

    probably won’t help the cause of tbe victims or justice

    So what ? You do realize you are participating on a forum which includes a member who’s taken the name “Peterfile”. Apparently, on this forum, child abuse is just something to be made fun of, a joke.

    http://singletrackworld.com/members/peterfile/profile/

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Internet in irony failure. There used to be someone here with the username “chatroom groomer” as well.

    Think they have to reconsider the chair of the enquiry, to not do so will only fuel the speculation. But allegations like this need to be dealt with by legal process, not social media.

    DezB
    Free Member

    GlitterGary – he was another one responsible for all this

    vinnyeh
    Full Member

    Internet in irony failure.

    Ironic failure by mcad in incorrect usage of the word ‘irony’.

    Jamie
    Free Member

    So what ? You do realize you are participating on a forum which includes a member who’s taken the name “Peterfile”. Apparently, on this forum, child abuse is just something to be made fun of, a joke.

    Not a fan of the IT Crowd?

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSJ8XPnJK1o[/video]

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    ‘Fairwell, sweet, sensible discussion.
    I knew thee but briefly…..’

    😀

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    GlitterGary

    What I don’t get is, there seems to have been an active effort to remove Saville, Garry Glitter, Lostprophets etc from the media, no re-runs, no airplay, nadda.

    Yet Michael Jackson is still played pretty much on loop on comercial radio. And his estate seem determined to keep his profile high. Surely with the current climate they would be advised to keep quiet and hope no one makes any more alegations against him?

    Jamie
    Free Member

    Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of any offences?

    vinnyeh
    Full Member

    What I don’t get is, there seems to have been an active effort to remove Saville, Garry Glitter, Lostprophets etc from the media, no re-runs, no airplay, nadda.

    Yet Michael Jackson is still played pretty much on loop on comercial radio. And his estate seem determined to keep his profile high. Surely with the current climate they would be advised to keep quiet and hope no one makes any more alegations against him?

    Same with the Stones.
    How come Bill Wyman is still walking round free?

    And Townshend only got a caution.

    vinnyeh
    Full Member

    Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of any offences?

    No, but there were a lot of allegations at the time.

    DezB
    Free Member

    Ironic failure by mcad in incorrect usage of the word ‘irony’.

    Acronymous failure by vinneyh in misspelling the initials mctd 🙂

    vinnyeh
    Full Member

    Great word Dezb, never heard it before, took me a moment to figure out what it meant. 😆

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    MCTD, not mctd, surely Dez?
    😛

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    What do you make of this? Nick Clegg’s reaction (at the start) is a bit strange…

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeAc6UwfOuM[/video]

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of any offences?

    No, was there ever a trial where the accuser wasn’t awarded an undisclosed out of court setelment though?

    I hate the expression “no smoke without fire”, but at times he seemed to need an entire fire department of lawyers to dampen things down.

    note for the lawyers: I’ve not said he was ever guilty of anything, just that he was regulalry accused.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    You are not “awarded” an out of court settlement, by definition.

    One word of caution that someone flagged up recently over a ‘young boys’ comment – up till 1994, the gay age of consent was 21, so something that was ‘underage’ then, wouldn’t be illegal now. Which of course opens up a huge can of worms when people are discussing past comments or knowledge about underage sex.

    Good point.

    Not really. The allegations in the OP relate to boys who were apparently under the age of consent for heterosexual acts. I think it’s unlikely that allegations of sex between men and boys above the heterosexual age of consent are being given much time (and, in any case, given the policy of the Tory party in relation to the age of consent specifically and laws affecting gay people generally, I think there may be an argument that that story would be in the public interest…although maybe not very interesting).

    RustySpanner
    Full Member
    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Made sense for her to stand down, even given her experience in previous enquiries I was surprised she was appointed to what could be a long running enquiry at her age, even before other stuff came out.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    I think that’s the right decision.

    By the way, Ireland has just finished a series of child sexual abuse inquiries and Australia has one ongoing. There’s no reason why an experienced Irish person couldn’t do the job.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    Konabunny – you’d have to accept though that comments from context of the past such as ‘so and so was known to have a liking for young boys’ or ‘scandals involving small boys’ can take on a very different significance in the light of differing ages of consent (we can of course argue about the significance or not of the use of the word small rather than young, but the principle remains)

    konabunny
    Free Member

    rubbish. People in 1988, 1978 or 1968 would have understood the sentence “he likes to have sex with young boys” in exactly the same way people do today.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    ‘scandals involving small boys’

    You are saying this sentence is “unclear” because of when it was written 😯
    Go and have a word with yourself will you.

    gogg
    Free Member

    Butler-Sloss stands down, how much will she be paid for her week in the role??

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 61 total)

The topic ‘Governmental sexual abuse cover up. Latest evidence/allegations…….’ is closed to new replies.