RugbyRebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37514864

Three chairs so far and other resignations. Money well spent.

That is some legacy of failure.

Absolutely horrific. I did a bit of research on this issue after the Savile story broke and learned about a major paedophile ring based in London, all kinds of people were implicated, from cops to politicians to members of the royal family...

Youtube is not research.

Actually it is, and it's a little baffling to me that you immediately came to the conclusion Youtube was the sum total of my research, or that I was not aware of the meaning of the term itself. Anyway, I watched a bunch of documentaries on the issue (can't seem to locate some of the better ones right now), and read some articles, as well. It is very clear that there has been a major paedophile ring operating in the London region for many decades now and that this has been an open secrete for quite some time, but because it has involved so many individuals in positions of influence and power the entire racket has remained above the law. As I mentioned, those implicated go right up to the very top, including a former PM, various celebrities and members of royalty. I'm not too interested in the mud-slinging side of it, however. That may only serve to trivialize and descredit the entire sordid and very tragic affair.

rowan wrote:Absolutely horrific. I did a bit of research on this issue after the Savile story broke and learned about a major paedophile ring based in London, all kinds of people were implicated, from cops to politicians to members of the royal family...

This would be the one that two separate enquiries could find no evidence of?

Ah but youtube "research" says it all happened. Must just be corrupt officers in the pay of the americans.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Ah but youtube "research" says it all happened. Must just be corrupt officers in the pay of the americans.

I need to speak to the union. I must be owed a fortune in kickbacks.

Disdain is a defensive reaction and your responses are indicative of this. There is a mountain of information on the internet about this particular scandal, including several in depth Wikipedia entries. My personal conclusion is that this paedophile/child porn ring has certainly been operating in London and elsewhere for a very long time, that people in positions of power and influence have been involved, and that there has therefore been a massive cover up. Just how many people's lives were destroyed in their childhood by this hideous affair I couldn't guess, but it's sure to be a multitude.

It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

WaspInWales wrote:It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

They already have. The allegation was that Ted Heath was involved. He's very much dead. The police enquiry found no evidence. Sure one could say "well that doesn't PROVE that it DIDN'T happen" but for me there's plenty enough evil in the world and more than enough child abuse that definitely did exist to worry about without looking at stuff that's almost certainly fictional. It is almost as though it's suggested that you don't matter unless you were abused by a celebrity.

Just to reiterate. The history of child sexual offences is that 40, even 30 years ago they were almost never prosecuted, regardless of who was involved. That was because the law was different in many ways and the culture was different in that quite simply people didn't believe children over adults. They certainly didn't believe naughty children over adults and quite a lot of those targeted were already naughty, and many who weren't became so due to being profoundly damaged. We live in a very very different world now which is one reason why this enquiry is a waste of time and particularly money. If they decided that they had £100m that they wanted to get rid of in what can be little more than a PR exercise, they could have done so by expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to sexual assaults.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Ah but youtube "research" says it all happened. Must just be corrupt officers in the pay of the americans.

Being more specific in the pay of the CIA

That said we've seen over and over in this sorry state of affairs that institutions will go out of their way to protect their image no matter the cost to society, children and justice, and that's whether they're state or religious establishments. It's very likely the instinct to protect and stop embarrassing truths coming out is playing an ongoing part, in addition to their being some who are acting more self-preservation.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

They already have. The allegation was that Ted Heath was involved. He's very much dead. The police enquiry found no evidence. Sure one could say "well that doesn't PROVE that it DIDN'T happen" but for me there's plenty enough evil in the world and more than enough child abuse that definitely did exist to worry about without looking at stuff that's almost certainly fictional. It is almost as though it's suggested that you don't matter unless you were abused by a celebrity.

Just to reiterate. The history of child sexual offences is that 40, even 30 years ago they were almost never prosecuted, regardless of who was involved. That was because the law was different in many ways and the culture was different in that quite simply people didn't believe children over adults. They certainly didn't believe naughty children over adults and quite a lot of those targeted were already naughty, and many who weren't became so due to being profoundly damaged. We live in a very very different world now which is one reason why this enquiry is a waste of time and particularly money. If they decided that they had £100m that they wanted to get rid of in what can be little more than a PR exercise, they could have done so by expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to sexual assaults.

Thanks. You could have just said that in the first place, of course, but this is a good response. I made the point myself that going after high profile individuals was not in the interests of the wider cause and might only serve to trivialize and discredit it. I know that in Australia and New Zealand the issue of childish abuse has never been dealt with competently either, and it retains a lower pofile in the media because kids themselves don't generally read the press or watch day-time talk shows.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

They already have. The allegation was that Ted Heath was involved. He's very much dead. The police enquiry found no evidence. Sure one could say "well that doesn't PROVE that it DIDN'T happen" but for me there's plenty enough evil in the world and more than enough child abuse that definitely did exist to worry about without looking at stuff that's almost certainly fictional. It is almost as though it's suggested that you don't matter unless you were abused by a celebrity.

Just to reiterate. The history of child sexual offences is that 40, even 30 years ago they were almost never prosecuted, regardless of who was involved. That was because the law was different in many ways and the culture was different in that quite simply people didn't believe children over adults. They certainly didn't believe naughty children over adults and quite a lot of those targeted were already naughty, and many who weren't became so due to being profoundly damaged. We live in a very very different world now which is one reason why this enquiry is a waste of time and particularly money. If they decided that they had £100m that they wanted to get rid of in what can be little more than a PR exercise, they could have done so by expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to sexual assaults.

Exactly. We have a little principle in this country of being innocent until proven guilty. Dragging long dead or elderly people through the court of public opinion base, often, on a single testimony from decades ago is frankly mental. Suggesting that there is a huge paedophile ring in the absence of any evidence on the basis of decades old evidence from often unreliable eye witnesses is just as bad.

No, don't agree with that at all. A number of victims have given police their testimonies. They have also testified that at the time they were blackmailed into silence. To then simply say there is no concrete evidence about this, so hush up, is a little bit old-school and reminiscent of the seventies and eighties approach, as Eugene described it. I would say without doubt that something pretty big was going on, and quite probably still is, and that does need addressing. What I'm against is the mud-slinging, as mentioned (twice) earlier. I think we're all agreed on the latter point, in fact.

The Elm Guest House child abuse scandal arose from claims of sexual abuse and grooming of children at parties held at the former Elm Guest House in Rocks Lane, near Barnes Common in south-west London during the late 1970s and 1980s. Prominent British men alleged to have attended the Guest House include former government ministers, senior MPs, top police officers, judges, pop music stars, and people with links to the Royal Households.[1] Since 2012, the allegations of an establishment paedophile ring have been part of a complex multi-agency investigation.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest ... se_scandal

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

They already have. The allegation was that Ted Heath was involved. He's very much dead. The police enquiry found no evidence. Sure one could say "well that doesn't PROVE that it DIDN'T happen" but for me there's plenty enough evil in the world and more than enough child abuse that definitely did exist to worry about without looking at stuff that's almost certainly fictional. It is almost as though it's suggested that you don't matter unless you were abused by a celebrity.

Just to reiterate. The history of child sexual offences is that 40, even 30 years ago they were almost never prosecuted, regardless of who was involved. That was because the law was different in many ways and the culture was different in that quite simply people didn't believe children over adults. They certainly didn't believe naughty children over adults and quite a lot of those targeted were already naughty, and many who weren't became so due to being profoundly damaged. We live in a very very different world now which is one reason why this enquiry is a waste of time and particularly money. If they decided that they had £100m that they wanted to get rid of in what can be little more than a PR exercise, they could have done so by expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to sexual assaults.

So, maybe just pay off compensate potential victims to avoid the need for inquiries and possible convictions?

I agree that the latest inquiry is little more than a PR exercise which will no doubt confirm that some of the abuse took place but there was no evidence to prove that influential people were involved or guilty parties were protected from prosecution. I've also no doubt that it will not be the last inquiry on the matter and just like the Hillsborough inquests and inquiries, the right decision will probably come at some point.

I don't believe for one minute that all the claims for certainly fictional. No doubt, some are far fetched, baseless and built entirely on internet driven speculation but an awful lot of victim testimonies seem to support each other with regards to times, dates, locations and people involved.

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:It's incredibly murky for sure and the fact that an inquiry failed to find evidence does not disprove the claims.

Perhaps when one or two high profile people pop their clogs, the evidence will be easier to find? It worked for Savile.

They already have. The allegation was that Ted Heath was involved. He's very much dead. The police enquiry found no evidence. Sure one could say "well that doesn't PROVE that it DIDN'T happen" but for me there's plenty enough evil in the world and more than enough child abuse that definitely did exist to worry about without looking at stuff that's almost certainly fictional. It is almost as though it's suggested that you don't matter unless you were abused by a celebrity.

Just to reiterate. The history of child sexual offences is that 40, even 30 years ago they were almost never prosecuted, regardless of who was involved. That was because the law was different in many ways and the culture was different in that quite simply people didn't believe children over adults. They certainly didn't believe naughty children over adults and quite a lot of those targeted were already naughty, and many who weren't became so due to being profoundly damaged. We live in a very very different world now which is one reason why this enquiry is a waste of time and particularly money. If they decided that they had £100m that they wanted to get rid of in what can be little more than a PR exercise, they could have done so by expanding the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to sexual assaults.

So, maybe just pay off compensate potential victims to avoid the need for inquiries and possible convictions?

I agree that the latest inquiry is little more than a PR exercise which will no doubt confirm that some of the abuse took place but there was no evidence to prove that influential people were involved or guilty parties were protected from prosecution. I've also no doubt that it will not be the last inquiry on the matter and just like the Hillsborough inquests and inquiries, the right decision will probably come at some point.

I don't believe for one minute that all the claims for certainly fictional. No doubt, some are far fetched, baseless and built entirely on internet driven speculation but an awful lot of victim testimonies seem to support each other with regards to times, dates, locations and people involved.

Really? You've assessed them have you? Because if there's that sort of evidence it will be prosecuted. If there isn't then having an enquiry helps no one and in fact it's likely to make it more difficult to get safe convictions down the line. The enquiry won't convict a single person.

Just to be clear, if there's evidence to secure convictions then prosecute people. In fact that work is already being done and has been for years. Over the 18 years I've been at the bar literally hundreds of "pillars of the community" have been brought to Court with historic allegations based sometimes on the word of a single witness and quite rightly so. Not all of them have been convictions, but such is the nature of the trial process. These prosecutions will continue regardless of anything this enquiry does or says. The enquiry is supposed to ask what we can learn from these historic allegations. I can tell you now that we can learn that things USED TO BE fucking awful. Child protection wasn't even a consideration back in the day, never mind something which every council, every school, every scout pack, every church is legally required to procedures in place to secure. So when I say that this enquiry is a waste of time and money, I say so not because anything should be swept under the carpet, but because we've learned the lessons of the past already and already prosecute the bastards who were once believed.

Actually fuck it. What am I saying. This is a money creation scheme for lawyers. Long may it continue. Let's have half a dozen more.

Pfft, why stop at half a dozen?

I'd still like to know how high up the food chain this goes.

The number of police getting prosecuted for kiddie fiddling is frightening. Not accused but sentenced.
A LOT.

rowan wrote:No, don't agree with that at all. A number of victims have given police their testimonies. They have also testified that at the time they were blackmailed into silence. To then simply say there is no concrete evidence about this, so hush up, is a little bit old-school and reminiscent of the seventies and eighties approach, as Eugene described it. I would say without doubt that something pretty big was going on, and quite probably still is, and that does need addressing. What I'm against is the mud-slinging, as mentioned (twice) earlier. I think we're all agreed on the latter point, in fact.

The Elm Guest House child abuse scandal arose from claims of sexual abuse and grooming of children at parties held at the former Elm Guest House in Rocks Lane, near Barnes Common in south-west London during the late 1970s and 1980s. Prominent British men alleged to have attended the Guest House include former government ministers, senior MPs, top police officers, judges, pop music stars, and people with links to the Royal Households.[1] Since 2012, the allegations of an establishment paedophile ring have been part of a complex multi-agency investigation.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest ... se_scandal

Disagree. We are currently in witch hunt mode where a single questionable witness results in public humiliation.

morepork wrote:I'd still like to know how high up the food chain this goes.

From memory the most senior "pillar of the community" charged was Lord Greville Janner who had the good sense to die before his trial could take place. He was a Labour cabinet minister the Lord. A friend of Prince Andrew's has been convicted.

There's little reason to suppose that there is any lower a rate of paedophilia in the higher echelons of society than at the lower.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:No, don't agree with that at all. A number of victims have given police their testimonies. They have also testified that at the time they were blackmailed into silence. To then simply say there is no concrete evidence about this, so hush up, is a little bit old-school and reminiscent of the seventies and eighties approach, as Eugene described it. I would say without doubt that something pretty big was going on, and quite probably still is, and that does need addressing. What I'm against is the mud-slinging, as mentioned (twice) earlier. I think we're all agreed on the latter point, in fact.

The Elm Guest House child abuse scandal arose from claims of sexual abuse and grooming of children at parties held at the former Elm Guest House in Rocks Lane, near Barnes Common in south-west London during the late 1970s and 1980s. Prominent British men alleged to have attended the Guest House include former government ministers, senior MPs, top police officers, judges, pop music stars, and people with links to the Royal Households.[1] Since 2012, the allegations of an establishment paedophile ring have been part of a complex multi-agency investigation.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest ... se_scandal

Disagree. We are currently in witch hunt mode where a single questionable witness results in public humiliation.

That's a different issue. Given the opprobrium and impossibility of ever actually clearing your name I'd advocate anonymity before trial, and probably conviction.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:I'd still like to know how high up the food chain this goes.

From memory the most senior "pillar of the community" charged was Lord Greville Janner who had the good sense to die before his trial could take place. He was a Labour cabinet minister the Lord. A friend of Prince Andrew's has been convicted.

There's little reason to suppose that there is any lower a rate of paedophilia in the higher echelons of society than at the lower.

Is that the same Janner who faced allegations from 1991 onwards relating to historical abuse claims that went back to the 1950s?

The same Janner who was implicated in the trial of a paedophile. The same Janner who was interviewed by the police on numerous occasions but escaped prosecution for decades?

Being a 'respected' MP and then a Lord obviously had no effect on the repeated failings of the CPS to prosecute, even though they later admitted he should have faced trail.

Thankfully, the powers that be came to their senses a short time before Janner died.

There is no cover up.

You know people say 'conspiracy theory' like it's a bad thing...?
Well just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get you.