[Closed] Governmental sexual abuse cover up. Latest evidence/allegations.......

[i]I suspect this will be buried for 'security reasons'[/i]

So why are we reading about it?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

[i]If they didn't, someone else would. [/i]

It's a catchy slogan;

"MI5 - Compromising Government Ministers So That Someone Else Doesn't Have to Since 1946"

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.

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.

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.

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.

[i]It's their job to ensure that government employees cannot be compromised.[/i]

which they achieve by compromising them?

MoreCashThanDash makes a very good point.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

[i]probably won't help the cause of tbe victims or justice[/i]

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.

[url] http://singletrackmag.com/members/peterfile/profile/ [/url]

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.

GlitterGary - he was another one responsible for all this

Internet in irony failure.

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

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?

'Fairwell, sweet, sensible discussion.
I knew thee but briefly.....'

😀

The appointment of Baroness Butler Sloss as the chair of the inquiry appears to be an attempt by the establishment to cover their tracks:

[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/baroness-butler-sloss-inquiry-child-abuse-video ]She has publicly stated she will do what she is asked by the Home Secretary, Theresa May[/url]

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html ]Now, Theresa May was the Home Secretary at the time Leah McGrath Goodman, a journalist investigating child abuse on Jersey was detained without reason[/url]

Remember the Jersey House of Horrors, Haut de la Garenne? [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trenches-filled-with-lime-found-at-jersey-house-of-horrors-care-home-6693782.html ]Lime pits which may have been used to dissolve bodies[/url] and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/14/haut-de-la-garenne ]highly agitated cadaver dogs[/url]

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2218517/Jimmy-Savile-pictured-surrounded-children-Jersey-care-home-192-suffered-abuse.html ]Why was it Jimmy Savile tried to sue the Sun for associating him with Haut de la Garenne?[/url]

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?

Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of any offences?

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.

Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of any offences?

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

[i]Ironic failure by mcad in incorrect usage of the word 'irony'.[/i]

Acronymous failure by vinneyh in misspelling the initials mctd 🙂

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

MCTD, not mctd, surely Dez?
😛

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

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.

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.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/jul/14/mps-question-theresa-may-over-child-abuse-inquiry-and-surveillance-bill-politics-live-blog ]Butler-Sloss stands down....[/url]

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.

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.

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' [u]can[/u] 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)

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.

'scandals involving small boys'

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

So why are we reading about it?

Strangely this all broke the weekend Andy Coulson went down for hacking. Maybe the third estate wanted a distraction from the main event and what better than a "Won't Someone Think of The Children" story?

Just sayin', like.

@MoreDash - anyone who works in Child Protection deserves a huge amount of praise, what a tough tough job that it is.

I hope this Westminster business get's very thoroughly investigated. Westminster has failed to clean itself up in terms of expenses/cash etc this is the moment to do the right thing and be seen to be doing it.

Butler-Sloss stands down....

Which actually, as far as justice goes, isn't a great thing. She's an exceptional judge and, given her record, entirely suited to running a victim-lead enquiry.

However, the old phrase "justice needs to be seen to be done" is as true as ever when considering the arena of the allegations, and so I applaud her decision to step aside.

Of course, there is another argument that we don't need judges to lead enquiries (the outcome isn't a judicial decision after all), but in this case I think the severity of the accusation warrants that level of probity.

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.

Also a good point imo is just how homophobic Thatcher and her cabinet were.

Section 28 which was enthusiastically introduced by Thatcher and her Tory cabinet was a particularly nasty piece of homophobic legislation.

So it turns out that while top Tories were denouncing homosexuality at their party conferences afterwards they relaxed by shagging young male prostitutes.

If we are to believe the allegations of course.

Yet homosexuality was only legalised Scotland in 1981 and in Northern Ireland in 1982, under pretty much the same Tory cabinet - strange thing democracy, isn't it?

I was thinking more along the lines of "strange thing hypocrisy, isn't it?"

Or can't you see the hypocrisy of top Tories denouncing homosexuality at their party conferences and then later on in the evening shagging young male prostitutes ?

Got any proof that individual MP's said one thing and did another? Perhaps those with a touch of the lavender about them weren't making speeches denouncing it? perhaps they disagreed with the policies - again, thats what happens in a democracy, party policy isn't always supported by everyone in the party (see your hero Ken as an example).

I mean I haven't ever read any openly anti-gay speeches from Harvey Proctor or Ted Heath, have you?

I note that the names of the two Labour ministers supposedly on the operation Ore list along with Townsend never got released: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jan/13/childprotection.children

and then later on in the evening shagging young male prostitutes ?

Job creation,or sleeping on the job,

(see your hero Ken as an example)

I'm being serious now, I cannot believe just how intellectually bankrupt you are that the "trump card" you always play, when faced with an embarrassing revelation concerning the Tory Party, is to refer to Ken Livingstone.

Seriously, find a new record to play - it's so pathetic that I actually feel sorry for you. Although I know I shouldn't.

So, Ken always supported party policy?

Its a perfectly valid point, because you're indicating that all members of the party should accept collective responsibility and be expected to toe the line in their private life, regardless of what they actually said or did.

Or are you just throwing your dolly out the pram because you know that, you can't defend your earlier statement, and your tired old 'Fatcha routine got shot down again?

Its a perfectly valid point..

There's nothing valid about changing the subject because it embarrasses you.

This thread and the allegations made by a former Tory activist have nothing to do with the Labour Party or Ken Livingstone.

ourmaninthenorth - Member

Butler-Sloss stands down....

Which actually, as far as justice goes, isn't a great thing. She's an exceptional judge and, given her record, entirely suited to running a victim-lead enquiry.

ernie_lynch - Member

Also a good point imo is just how homophobic Thatcher and her cabinet were.

Section 28 which was enthusiastically introduced by Thatcher and her Tory cabinet was a particularly nasty piece of homophobic legislation.

So it turns out that while top Tories were denouncing homosexuality at their party conferences afterwards they relaxed by shagging young male prostitutes.

ninfan - Member

Got any proof that individual MP's said one thing and did another? Perhaps those with a touch of the lavender about them weren't making speeches denouncing it?

Rhodes Boyson, also named in the allegations is the first one who sprang to mind after reading that.
He seemed to blame everything on homosexuality.

damn IT Crowd posted.

😆

Deleted - idle speculation.
RS.

What I want to know if this Baroness has stood down - does that mean I can apply to be a Baron?

How many cock-ups (pardon the expression) does the Home Secretary have to be associated with before the obvious question is asked? Competency to deliver must trump gender at some point surely. Today, we will witness a very different message from Westminster though.

I think Theresa May gets a lot of leeway on account of not being Michael Howard or David Blunkett. I think I'd rather have her freight train of ****-up than their more skilled scumbaggery tbh. But that's not the strongest endorsement ever.

Amazing te lengths ninfan will go to to defend his right-wing heroes. Even defending a conspiracy to commit and cover up child abuse.

Have we done this one yet?

Too much bloody leeway. It's embarrassing

She even looks apologetic when speaking in the HoC .

Was going to comment on the clip above but to be honest I don't have the words. Vile creatures.

What I want to know if this Baroness has stood down - does that mean I can apply to be a Baron?