[Closed] Forum House of Commons vote on air strikes in Syria - which way will you vote?

I reckon that Corbyn is going to whip his MPs. He's not going to demand loyalty to his leadership though; he's emailed out to the membership, asking for their views on the vote. I would imagine that the replies are going to read a lot like this thread... He's going to demand that the labour MPs are loyal to their party membership, not to him. That way he neatly sidesteps the 'how can you be loyal to a bloke who has rebelled so often himself?' argument. Not that that will stop it beng made, mind you.

He's going to demand that the labour MPs are loyal to their party membership, not to him.

Cycling is more dangerous that ISIS:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9359763/Bee-stings-killed-as-many-in-UK-as-terrorists-says-watchdog.html ]LINK[/url]

[i]"The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees"[/i]

And we should bob the living hell out of those dastardly bumble bees, Brimstone sounds ideal for their so-called 'Hives'

? Their party membership isn't whipping them, Corbyn is. Does he think they're sufficiently stupid to fall for that crap?

? Their party membership isn't whipping them, Corbyn is. Does he think they're sufficiently stupid to fall for that crap?

Hey... here's a really novel idea. Its pretty revolutionary stuff, so brace yourselves....

How about the MP's vote on the basis of representing the views of their constituents?

Like I said... pretty radical stuff. Bordering on the subversive.

Theres an awful lot of sabre rattling, and people itching to send the bombers in, from the comfort of their Westminster clubs. I don't see that even remotely reflected in the general population, who are understandably far more wary. Perhaps Corbyn has noticed that too? Just a thought

"vote the way the people that select you overwhelmingly want you to vote, or prepare to face the people who select you and explain your conduct, and possibly face deselection"

The Labour party membership and the MP's constituents are not the same. Awesome power play in Labour at present, big one to watch is Tom Watson and which way he moves, if he plays it right then he is the next leader.

@digga I think the emergence of IS should force us to accept that in this regard Assad is our ally. Had Assad been defeated sooner the FSA would have had the strength together with the Kurds to prevent the emergence of IS as such a strong force.

Whilst UK, French and Belgian terrorists hold thise passports they share the fundamentalist ideology which is primarily run out of Syria and Iraq in the same way Al-Q did out of Afghanistan. IS in the Middle East provides the weapons training, tactics and the resources to develop these attacks. It's a "safe haven" for them and one we must take away

My point about the debate being pointless is that discussions about whether bombing will help or hurt are irrelevant as the bombing camping exists already and in the wake of the Paris attacks is being ramped up substantially. Whilst not being openly discussed it's my understanding we have an obligation under EU law to assist. The Germans are putting an extra 1,200 troops into Syria.

All right, how about "vote the way the people that select you overwhelmingly want you to vote, or prepare to face the people who select you and explain your conduct, and possibly face deselection".

The Labour party membership and the MP's constituents are not the same. Awesome power play in Labour at present, big one to watch is Tom Watson and which way he moves, if he plays it right then he is the next leader.

Supposedly of the 70,000 who responded to Corbyns "don't bomb email" 70% where against and 30% for. So does that mean the Labour Party MPs should vote to reflect that, 70% against 30% for, or does first last the post apply ?

[i]The Germans are putting an extra 1,200 troops into Syria[/i]

Needs to be approved by German parliament first. (edit) And to be more specific, they're talking about recon. planes, and deploying ships to aid the French carrier force, and some ground forces on the Turkish/ Jordan borders (see recon planes), so saying "sending troops to Syria" is playing pretty fast and loose with the facts...

It's a "safe haven" for them and one we must take away

This is the same flawed logic the US used to bomb Laos during the Vietnam war, and it didn't work there either, 40 years later Vietnam is still a unified one party communist state (at peace). You can't bomb ideas out of existence. The only way to solve this is politically.

All this concentration on what labour MP's are going to do is masking over one other significant factor....

Namely that Dave has enough of his own MP's who's votes are by no means guaranteed on this one either. The shadow of Iraq doesn't just fall on one party. It hangs over the whole of Westminster who's cross party support took us there in the first place. So it isn't labour or Tory, its not a party issue. Its the more thoughtful, or those with their eyes on slim majorities who'll be asking the most questions. And you don't have to ask too many questions before this whole thing starts looking just as shaky as the case for going into Iraq

Why bombing won't work, some may say obviously...

so saying "sending troops to Syria" is playing pretty fast and loose with the facts...

So better than usual then and you are encouraging him 😉

MPs should do what the public want/ their constituents not what parties want

Their job is to represent after all.

Also as jamby sort of notes it doesn't really matter what we do as folk are already bombing them even if we do nothing
Given that I dont know why Dave cares so much

Given that I dont know why Dave cares so much

He's still pretty huffy about losing the vote to bomb the other lot in Syria ...

[img] [/img]

Given that it's the public's money and sorties cost in the region of £33,000 an hour per plane, not to mention the pilots, engineers and support crew are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wifes, mums and dads of british citizens, wouldn't a direct referendum be a better solution for such serious decisions?

What if half of the MPs voting on the issue were in the pockets of the arms industry?

[i]How about the MP's vote on the basis of representing the views of their constituents?[/i]

Because that isn't how it works.

You vote for an MP based on what they say they'll do plus whichever parties manifesto they're (currently) attached to and their 'views' also have a impact.

They then vote how they want to - or told to, if a member of a party and the whips' are out.

The only way to solve this is politically.

Whom does one engage with to identify a political solution? If the stated aims of IS are to bring about the fall of Western democracy, we're pretty far away from agreeing on a middle road...

Saudi Arabia for a start...

If they are encouraged to cease promoting wahhabism, in time, support for IS will dwindle.

Who funds ISIS and trades with them, keeping their weapons and ammo supply stocked up?

These are avenues that the intelligence services have had plenty of time to investigate...

Given that it's the public's money and sorties cost in the region of £33,000 an hour per plane, not to mention the pilots, engineers and support crew

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway. Plus we are already flying recon missions, so the only extra cost is the price of a missile if fired.

Whom does one engage with to identify a political solution?

This is the big one for me, in plenty of cases this is an option, but against ISIS then it isn't on the table, hence, unfortunately force really is the only option IMO.

unfortunately force really is the only option IMO.

Or attrition.

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway.

Where do the pilots and support crew live in peace time? How are food, water, entertainment, fuel, missiles and the planes themselves transported to the area in which [b]sorties[/b] are flown from?

These are examples of additional costs above and beyond the costs incurred by peacetime training exercises...

unfortunately force really is the only option IMO

How about cutting off the supply of weapons that allows ISIS to continue expanding their territory through sanctions on those who trade with them?

I'm preprepared to bet money that Western intelligence agencies are talking to ISIS secretly.

Encourage Turkey to stop funding ISIS by buying the oil they're selling, encourage S.A. to stop indirectly funding ISIS through Turkey, encourage Iran to withdraw Hezbollah, encourage the Russians to help Assad to stop the armed struggle. Encourage the Kurds to negotiate with the PKK to stop fighting the Assad regime. Stop aerial bombing that's killing civilians.

There are plenty of things we could be doing instead of lobbing munitions at the problem

Where do the pilots and support crew live in peace time? How are food, water, entertainment, fuel, missiles and the planes themselves transported to the area in which sorties are flown from?

These are examples of additional costs above and beyond the costs incurred by peacetime training exercises...

you might have a point if we hadn't had men and planes based at RAF Akrotiri for sixty years.

[quote=nickc said]I'm preprepared to bet money

You've got the money out of the bank and on the table ready ? 😀

> How are ... the planes themselves transported to the area in which sorties are flown from?

I know this one! They fly them!

there's some francs, and few euros, and maybe even the odd bit of proper currency... 😆

Copa - the do nothing case needs just as much, if not more justification than the do something case. Both options can be just as deadly and risky. History teaches us that on both counts. I've not seen a compelling argument for either point of view - that is why this is not a clear cut decision and is a very difficult decision that has divided opinion with politicians. The real world is just not that simple and not made easier by JC's openly critical opinions of military action in any circumstances - it just undermines his point of view and people assume he never went into this with an open mind and capable of being persuaded.

> How about cutting off the supply of weapons that allows ISIS to continue expanding their territory through sanctions on those who trade with them?

Bit late for that, didn't they grab, ironically, all the weapons the US supplied to the Iraqi army, which then abandoned them?

dragon

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway. Plus we are already flying recon missions, so the only extra cost is the price of a missile if fired.

Curious to know what the seemingly insignificant cost* of one of these missiles is. Anyone?

[i]*I mean, quite apart from the collateral damage they are likely to cause, the innocent people they'll kill, the infrastructure they'll destroy, the hearts and minds they'll lose, the propaganda they provide ISIS with.[/i]

Sky news did a piece a while ago that put the cost of Brimstone (2 on each plane) at £102,000 each, and then there's paveway (4 on each plane) at £22,000 each

so that insignificant cost is about £300K per sortie per plane in missiles alone,

If it costs more to knock a house down then it's worth, perhaps the RAF could just buy it?

@nickc I was quoting from the Guardian headline, "on the border" is a bit vague though. You are quite right it needs to be approved by the German Parliament but EU law states they must assist. It's why Hollande invoked the treaty and used the term "at war" immediately after the Paris attacks.

@jj, as above Akatori in Cypru and the defence budget has contingencies for actually using the weaponry which in effect we've already paid for. It will of course need to be replaced. We've offered Akatori for French use if they wish although they are currently focused on their aircraft carrier as they might as well use what they've got and already paid for, using it for real provides valuable information and experience

even weapons and ammo have a finite shelf life, so ultimately stocks have to be rotated and if not used would have to be disposed of in training or safe decommissioning or disposal, which costs a fortune.

nickc
Sky news did a piece a while ago that put the cost of Brimstone (2 on each plane) at £102,000 each, and then there's paveway (4 on each plane) at £22,000 each

so that insignificant cost is about £300K per sortie per plane in missiles alone,

Pffft. And here was me thinking it might be expensive. I lose more than that running for the bus.

jambalaya

using it for real provides valuable information and experience

Yep. That information will be in history books years from now, remarking on the fact that western powers STILL had no coherent strategy or policy in the middle east.

I suppose the £300K cost of the missiles needs to be balanced alongside the potential costs of achieving the same result through ground based forces.

As well as the direct cost, the avoided cost of injured servicemen and associated compensation and rehabilitation probably make air strikes quite cheap in comparison.

It's not expensive relatively speaking. £300k is about how much it costs to run the NHS for about 4 seconds. A proverbial drop in the ocean.

no

How much does one of these cost?

[img] [/img]

surely from an economic view it makes more sense? They cost us a packet, and we never get to use them

As well as the direct cost, the avoided cost of injured servicemen and associated compensation and rehabilitation probably make air strikes quite cheap in comparison.

Isn't that what charities funded by the general population such as Help for Heroes and Royal British Legion are for?

How well does the state support people injured in the course of duty?

Are there any contributions from the arms industry in support of those killed and injured?

Have you a link Jamby? can't find it anywhere apart from a mention in an article about Hollande?

Besides, the Germans have never sent troops abroad on offensive missions since the end of WW2, I can't imagine for a minute that the country taking more Syrian refugees than most European countries will join in in any attacking capability.

[img] [/img]

£300k is about how much it costs to run the NHS for about 4 seconds. A proverbial drop in the ocean.

Ever needed to get to an NHS dentist but couldn't find one? to run a 365day urgent care dentist cost £630,000 a year, (when I used to run them) so about the cost of a sorties worth of weapons (tornadoes fly in pairs)

nickc

Ever needed to get to an NHS dentist but couldn't find one? to run a 365day urgent care dentist cost £630,000 a year, (when I used to run them) so about the cost of a sorties worth of weapons (tornadoes fly in pairs)

That's just the cost of the ordinance though. I've seen figures bandied about in the news that it costs approx £1million per plane, per sortie.

Then again, if the fighter jets and the pilots and the weapons and the fuel just happen to be there they might as well go blow shit up. Otherwise they'll just gather dust and get rusty. Do bombs have a best before date?

even weapons and ammo have a finite shelf life, so ultimately stocks have to be rotated and if not used would have to be disposed of in training or safe decommissioning or disposal, which costs a fortune.

We should spend money dropping bombs on Syrians because otherwise we might have to spend some money NOT dropping bombs on Syrians.

Killing people because it avoids us having to do stock rotation FFS...

I suppose the £300K cost of the missiles needs to be balanced alongside the potential costs of achieving the same result through ground based forces.

I just wrote "Down with ISIS" on a Post-it note. That achieved roughly as much as a few more airstrikes will, and it cost much less than £300k.

[i]it costs approx £1million per plane, per sortie.[/i]

yes, heard that as well, seems to be the accepted going rate...There have been approx 5000 USAF missions so far...

Ain't austerity a bitch...

I didn't realise Dentists were so cheap - not even 3/4 of a million pounds for a 24/7 emnergancy dentists service? That barely covers the annual salary of a handful of dentists. OK i'm being pedantic and i'm sure the figure is accurate, but it is a bit of a pet annoyance of mine when the media throws figures around without any context. £300k sounds like alot to the average layman on the street, but in the grand scheme of things it's not alot at all. Our whole military budget is only a mere 2% of GDP and given security is the number 1 priority of any government, that seems great value to me. The company I work for contributes 2% of the UK's GDP alone, so one company is effectively funding our whole military budget.

Money well spent!!

[img] ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=87048bea50dc91596580d7e558290c7b[/img]

[img] ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a6d39d23fe1aeed6c4f6e917cb262a3f[/img]

[img] [/img]

Good for business?

[url= https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-prices-of-weapons-manufacturers-soaring-since-paris-attack/ ]Stock Prices of Weapons Manufacturers Soaring since Paris Attacks[/url]

EU law states they must assist

jivehoneyjive - Member

Money well spent!!

I see 20 jihadi/ISIS sympathizers in those pictures, so clearly the current weapons aren't effective enough. For £1million quid a pop I'd want all those [s]people[/s] terrorists vapourised.

Maybe we should give binners the red button for Crimbo...

Apparently thermonuclear explosions do wonderful things with desert sand.

[img] [/img]

Life imitates Art, after all, old chap.

I just hope there's some work left over for old [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames ]Fatty Soames[/url] to make a pretty penny:

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QVDxdC%2FgVmP39kNAcUfbxPwJ3iqO%2BJHlVakpz2z24rNqENUgkwISBJj5WHS%2BE4uZYA%3D%3D[/img]

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7Qcy9TJ086l6ep9Mk5W8SEv4hJN%2FUxa12w%2FiraO7M6c1S%2BfmBo7DzE6HZcn5%2FQjGy9A%3D%3D[/img]

[i]£300k sounds like alot to the average layman on the street, but in the grand scheme of things it's not alot at all.[/i]

Average earnings in the UK is circa £28k, with tax/NI at £6k.

So it takes 50,000 of us, a year, to pay enough tax/NI for that £300k...

Nice one Jive Honey - no idea what photo's i'm looking at there. Horrendous devastation for sure. Are they the result of RAF bombing? Al Qaeda or ISIL bombing? Assad's army bombing a local town, earthquake or what? I could post up images of terrorist attacks on the UK or in Paris, not sure what it would prove other than to unhelpfully whip up human emotions. Also with all the ordnance being dropped on Iraq and Syria at the moment (hundreds of bombs every single day) then presumably the overwhelming majority hit their target without any collateral damage. Again, context is everything.

All images from airstrikes on Raqqa, which is the main focus of the proposed vote.

-

-

-

> So it takes 50,000 of us, a year, to pay enough tax/NI for that £300k...

know what, cancel my posts above, one again I ignored the first rule of Singletrack which is "only use the bike forum". should know better.

sorry. as you were.

Can that dentists serve 50,000 people?

No, I ran 3, they operated 8am-8pm 365 days a year and had about 12,000 unique pts/ practice, that lot costs nearly £2 million a year to run. so you'd need 4 of them to hit that number of patients.

the price of 2 and a bit sorties, but with less destroyed building and orphaned kids, obvs...

jimjam - Member
...Do bombs have a best before date?

Depends on which end you're at...

then presumably the overwhelming majority hit their target without any collateral damage.

even weapons and ammo have a finite shelf life, so ultimately stocks have to be rotated and if not used would have to be disposed of in training or safe decommissioning or disposal, which costs a fortune.

This has probably been covered but I've not read the entire thread, though I see people are talking about how war makes people very rich

Cheney's Halliburton made nearly $40billion from the Iraq War

Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3t15tQSib

Yep... Hence my pic of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames ]Nicholas 'Fatty' Soames[/url]...

Being as we're on a fresh page, here's another:

[img] [/img]

He is chairman of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Defence_Services ]Aegis Defence[/url]

In Iraq, Aegis is under contract (worth $293 million over three years) to the United States Department of Defense

In 2011, Aegis was awarded a $497 million contract by the U.S. Department of State for assuming security forces operations at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-charless-biggest-buddy-nicholas-soames-royalist-minister-for-food-1466703.html ]Soames is a long time friend of Prince Charles[/url], and served as his equerry in the early 1970s, which meant he knew about Charles and Camilla's early trysts.

When Diana first accused the Prince of Wales of adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles, Soames told the BBC that the accusation, and Diana's fear of being slandered by her husband's courtiers, stemmed merely from Diana's mental illness, and "the advanced stages of paranoia

What he knew of Charles' relationship with Jimmy Savile and Lord Mountbatten at that time (and if he met Justice Goddard, the chair of the inquiry into child abuse when she was married to Camilla's close friend) has yet to be disclosed.
[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/28297/Accidents-can-happen-Warning-to-Diana-from-Prince-Charles-s-friend ]
He is also said to have threatened Diana shortly before her death, likely in relation to her work attempting to ban landmines.[/url]

Where Nicholas Soames is Aegis Chairman, Aegis chief executive is former Major General Graham Binns, who served in the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

You don't need to construct a tangled web to see that many of the people that make money out of war also have a say in whether we go to war. Bloody basturds the lot of them!

@br the top 1% pay 27% of the taxes so let's assume it's the rich that are paying for all this military stuff.

@nickc a number of references on BBC, FT, Telegraph plus German site dw.com

JY I saw the first comments on this the day after Hollande used the language "at war" by a commentator explaining why he'd used that term very deliberately. There is another blog with a more detailed piece, I'll recall it from my history later

Edit one piece here from the 17th [url= https://www.rt.com/news/322429-france-military-assistance-eu/ ]linky[/url]

Blog posting here [url= http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/is-eu-at-war-with-isis.html ]link - Is EU are war with IS[/url]

They have other pieces which reflect my views, partcocularly the EU incompetence over migration policies

@br the top 1% pay 27% of the taxes so let's assume it's the rich that are paying for all this military stuff.

Even if those figures were true it very clearly shows that the rich don't pay "for all this military stuff".

27% falls well short of 100%

By 73% in fact.

@br the top 1% pay 27% of the taxes so let's assume it's the rich that are paying for all this military stuff.

How much should they be paying though?

I just quoted that as I assume the 27% covers the £60bn we spend on defence. So assume for the sake of argument the rich pay for defence and everyone else pays for the other stuff.

So assume for the sake of argument the rich pay for defence and everyone else pays for the other stuff.

So the rich don't pay for education, health, the environment, policing etc ?

What a disgrace.

EDIT : Btw the claim that 1% pay 27% is meaningless drivel, all you can deduce from that (if it's true) is that the 1% are incredibly wealthy. Because even if they pay 99% tax on their income what the 1% contribute shouldn't represent anywhere near 27% of total taxation.

You don't need to construct a tangled web

I'd far prefer it was simple, but it is indeed a tangled web...

From the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Defence_Services ]Aegis Defence wikipedia page[/url]

On 27 October 2005 a number of "trophy" videos showing private military contractors in Baghdad firing upon civilian vehicles with no clear reason discernible from the footage itself sparked two investigations after they were posted on the internet. The videos were linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services. Both the US Army and Aegis conducted investigations into the video; while the Aegis report is closed for client confidentiality reasons, the US Army enquiry concluded that the contractors involved were operating within the rules for the use of force. More4 News broadcast extracts of the videos in March 2006. The video showed Matthew Elkin (former U.S. Army Ranger and lead security contractor) denouncing the contractors and ordering a cease fire.

On 6 April 2006 More4 News reporter Nima Elbagir identified disaffected former Aegis contractor Rod Stoner as responsible for posting the videos on the website. Aegis would not confirm that its contractors were involved in the incidents shown in the videos, but obtained a High Court injunction to have Stoner's website closed down.

In the same More4 program, [b]Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn insisted that the Pentagon's contract with Aegis Defence Services should be suspended until the matter had been properly investigated and fully reported upon[/b].

Also worth bearing in mind it was Nicholas Soames, long time friend of Prince Charles (as was Jimmy Savile) that recently called for Tom Watson to apologise regarding Leon Brittan.

The late Leon Brittan is still under investigation over several allegations of child abuse from multiple victims.

The same investigation is looking into allegations of abuse on military bases, involving high ranking members of the military and intelligence services...

Before I'm accused of straying off topic, here's a cartoon about similar action in Iraq:

[img] [/img]

Junkyard - lazarus

SOURCE you have said this a number of times and i have never heard this except from you - can you cite a source please?

Refers to article 42.7 of Lisbon.

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for hose States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

A brilliantly terribly worded article that doesn't really seem to mean anything at all, since there's no definition of what we're supposed to aid and assist with. Interpretations seem to vary wildly with hawkish people basically treating it as a blank slate for an attacked state to demand pretty much anything they want. But in the absence of a state of war it's messy- France isn't at war with Syria or Iraq.

The main argument of those using it to justify an armed response is that we're supposed to attack the source of the attacks. Which I'm pretty sure means we have to invade Belgium and France.

Article 222 was actually designed for this job but hasn't been invoked. Opinion on why seems split; it's an EU rather than member state response so needs the whole edifice to act rather than individuals, seems to be the main reason cited. But also, it actually sets out expectations of response and they fall short of attacking Syria.

jimjam - Member
...Do bombs have a best before date?

epicyclo - Depends on which end you're at...

LOL

I'd just like to say I haven't read any of the above.

But in reaction the the news I just heard that states we may be bombing syria by the end of the week, why bring any more trouble to our shores than there already is? Against.

Victims of terrorism W.Europe and percieved threat with 1970-2015 chart.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8670458?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

Appears to me terrorism works.

Costs. Yes of course there will be a substantial cost as there is economically when we suffer from terrorism. Also weapons do have a use by date, I would also imagine replacements could well cost less as the original batches need to cover R&D costs, newer versions may be available which are better.

My guesstimate (Jambabolix 😀 ) for the majority was 75 but BBC is quoting 120. If true a 1 day debate is ample as the vote is very clearly for airstrikes.

[off topic]
@jive Leon Brittain is not under investigation for any child abuse and in reality he NEVER was as the most cursory initial checks of the allegatations showed them to be baseless. Let's discuss this on the Rotherham thread and the fact the police and justice system are now finally bringing action against the perpetrators of those hideous crimes. None of whom have any link to senior politicians and thus the case is of no interest to you or your "journalist" source as he's only interested in institutional / establishment stories. There quite simply never was a "Westminster peopophile ring", it may well be individuals where involved illegal behaviour but there was not any kind of ring or indeed any cover up.