UK Child Abuse Inquiry

[ExpectingToFly]

I know this isn't the most pleasant of subjects, but after doing some research on the internet, it seems that this could be one of the biggest scandals in modern British politics. It is bad enough that such things have happened, and no doubt continue to happen, but what potentially makes it staggering is that there may have been a major cover-up by government and the security services, effectively turning a blind eye to these vile individuals and allowing them protection from being exposed (and therefore continuing their abuses).

It always seemed strange to me how a nonentity such as Jimmy Savile could have got away with this for so long when everyone seemed to know about it. This is a man who hung about with royals and Thatcher, and we are expected to believe that people weren't aware of what he was up to? Personally I think he was protected, possibly because he knew too much about others. There's rumours (ah, yes, rumours) that very prominent politicians and possibly even a royal or two have been part of a ring. The establishment definitely appears to have something to hide. Will this investigation allow us any answers? You can bet anything that they won't find anything too damaging to the state. But if they've actively covered up about this, what else have they covered up? Are we just poor little fools?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Can anyone remember a government enquiry into anything remotely controversial that proved worthwhile afterwards? Whitewash seems to be a commonly used word following any of them. Whenever an enquiry does get to the route of something the government just buries it as they did with the recent phone hacking enquiry.

There's someone banging on about this on the other forum that I go on but a lot of the stuff he's saying seems quite far fetched. Mind he's pro Tory and pro Royal so something's sparked him off.

 

[ExpectingToFly]

Type Elm Guest House into google if you want to be truly shocked - this youtube video, while long, is worth a watch for anyone interested. Obviously contains disturbing information, so be warned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORU5x-ryedU

There's a list kicking about online that allegedly details who visited this place. Someone who was recently due to support Morrissey is on it, as was the Home Secretary at the time - the man in the news recently for being given a dossier on this, only to find that the files have since gone missing. Listen to Big Hard Excellent Fish's "Imperfect List" and you'll find a clue as to how widely this was known at the time.

Also interesting to note that the man headed up to lead the 10 week review used to work for the civil service in departments that had responsibility for children's welfare. He was also a PPS to three government Ministers, including Michael Portillo. Surely a conflict of interest?

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Can anyone remember a government enquiry into anything remotely controversial that proved worthwhile afterwards? Whitewash seems to be a commonly used word following any of them. Whenever an enquiry does get to the route of something the government just buries it as they did with the recent phone hacking enquiry.

There's someone banging on about this on the other forum that I go on but a lot of the stuff he's saying seems quite far fetched. Mind he's pro Tory and pro Royal so something's sparked him off.

People went to prison for phone hacking. Just because you didn't get the exact result you craved doesn't diminish that simple fact. Let's see how long the Mirror can hold out before their shenanigans are revealed, and believe me, there are shenanigans. Source: Me. I was there.

Secondly, noncing is not a party issue. There is a website dedicated solely to Labour paedos and it is updated with new and current instances very, very regularly.

I can give you a link if you would really like.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Type Elm Guest House into google if you want to be truly shocked - this youtube video, while long, is worth a watch for anyone interested. Obviously contains disturbing information, so be warned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORU5x-ryedU

There's a list kicking about online that allegedly details who visited this place. Someone who was recently due to support Morrissey is on it, as was the Home Secretary at the time - the man in the news recently for being given a dossier on this, only to find that the files have since gone missing. Listen to Big Hard Excellent Fish's "Imperfect List" and you'll find a clue as to how widely this was known at the time.

Also interesting to note that the man headed up to lead the 10 week review used to work for the civil service in departments that had responsibility for children's welfare. He was also a PPS to three government Ministers, including Michael Portillo. Surely a conflict of interest?

The Cliff thing has been rumoured for decades, since his curious connection to the odious Lord Boothby was revealed. If you speak of the site I think you are it does tend to sprinkle names about with gay abandon. To coin a phrase.

 

[ExpectingToFly]

The Cliff thing has been rumoured for decades, since his curious connection to the odious Lord Boothby was revealed. If you speak of the site I think you are it does tend to sprinkle names about with gay abandon. To coin a phrase.

I agree it's not a party political issue, I think all parties have issues with this. Hence the potential for cover ups from governments of all colours.

I do agree people do have to be careful when it comes to accusations. Some sites I've came across do seem to make a connection between being gay and being a paedophile which is obviously disgusting and completely untrue. There also appears to be an anti-semitic element too. As ever with internet stories, there's going to be vile people furthering their own prejudices. However I don't believe the video I linked to is guilty of that, and the list comes from the same source. If (and it's important to say if), what this man is claiming is true, then it is very damaging indeed. And it raises questions for people who appear on the list.

 

[Famous when dead]

Heavy stuff!
I think this is all the tip of the iceberg.
I do think though: the search should be far sweeping.
I don't see why actors, singers and the ilk who are even stupid enough to admit in their autobiographies that they were fed groupies and potentially 'abused' (wittingly or unwittingly) children should evade investigation. These children couldn't consent even if begging for coitus (defacto abuse via age of consent). How many of them checked birth certificates when the roadie was letting them on the bus or in the hotel?
Yewtree and subsequent searches should be going for everyone including peers et al, but they need to dig thoroughly. Ignorance isn't a defence even in historic cases. The 'but they looked older...' excuse doesn't apply either. Underage is underage despite the child's behaviour towards the 'star' and it would be reassuring to see everyone's behaviour scrutinised as much as some dusty people in Westminster are about to be.
Regards,
FWD
I think what I was trying to get at was it seems only the warty old men are being brought to task when there are hundreds more famous people to look in to.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

I agree it's not a party political issue, I think all parties have issues with this. Hence the potential for cover ups from governments of all colours.

I do agree people do have to be careful when it comes to accusations. Some sites I've came across do seem to make a connection between being gay and being a paedophile which is obviously disgusting and completely untrue. There also appears to be an anti-semitic element too. As ever with internet stories, there's going to be vile people furthering their own prejudices. However I don't believe the video I linked to is guilty of that, and the list comes from the same source. If (and it's important to say if), what this man is claiming is true, then it is very damaging indeed. And it raises questions for people who appear on the list.

Indeed. The site I mentioned dedicated to the Labour perverts is itself run by some pretty disgusting people. The facts are the facts, but the tone of the entire thing is appalling.

Of course the singer I mentioned above has been smeared through a combination of his decision - as is his right - to not answer questions about his sexuality, and a photograph he now no doubt deeply regrets with Boothby. There is no reason to imagine he knew Boothby's proclivities, which were only revealed years after his death.

I suppose you could draw a parallel between Boothby and Savile in as much as rumours are only that, while facts are sacrosanct. Narcissistic predators like them are by their nature manipulative and highly intelligent, and their high profiles inevitably meant they were pictured with the great and the good of the day.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Heavy stuff!
I think this is all the tip of the iceberg.
I do think though: the search should be far sweeping.
I don't see why actors, singers and the ilk who are even stupid enough to admit in their autobiographies that they were fed groupies and potentially 'abused' (wittingly or unwittingly) children should evade investigation. These children couldn't consent even if begging for coitus (defacto abuse via age of consent). How many of them checked birth certificates when the roadie was letting them on the bus or in the hotel?
Yewtree and subsequent searches should be going for everyone including peers et al, but they need to dig thoroughly. Ignorance isn't a defence even in historic cases. The 'but they looked older...' excuse doesn't apply either. Underage is underage despite the child's behaviour towards the 'star' and it would be reassuring to see everyone's behaviour scrutinised as much as some dusty people in Westminster are about to be.
Regards,
FWD
I think what I was trying to get at was it seems only the warty old men are being brought to task when there are hundreds more famous people to look in to.

I agree broadly. There are certain old rockers, from several of the very, very greatest bands of the last fifty years, who must fear the 5am knock on the door.

There is a danger though that while we should not be anything but condemnatory of those acts of rape we risk looking at those events through the prism of our own more enlightened times.

Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis might have had some vague cultural hangover to excuse their stranger relationships, but I vividly remember the Bill Wyman marriage to Mandy Smith, when it was widely reported that their relationship was consummated when she was fourteen and he was knocking on fifty. I recall seeing the reports and asking myself "You must be missing something here, mate." It was just accepted. That was the year the first Smiths album came out, so was hardly antediluvian.

I also remember walking out my school gates from the age of about fourteen onwards to see some of the more advanced girls in my year jumping into cars with their eighteen, nineteen or twenty year old boyfriends. It wouldn't surprise me if that happens every single school day even now. I would be surprised if they these days waited until fourteen though.

That is clearly no different in law from a roadie hoovering up the cutest young girls from the front row for the benefit of the band,

 

[Famous when dead]

Totally take your points.
It is creating an interesting debate about historical abuse/victim response to said etc.
It is quite sad that there appears to be a fame hierarchy that precludes more 'glamorous' stars from being chased for non consensual sex with kids.
The law is meant to protect all kids. So that a child who by definition can't consent being 'used' by a 70s rock band is no different to a child being ravaged by Savile. Sadly, as with the cases you mention, the lack of interest by the authorities has made this type of behaviour more acceptable. This also lends weight to the idea of a 'culture' of abuse which is used as mitigation by people like Rolf... So they can argue everyone was at 'it'. I appreciate your point about age of behaviour being different to age of consent. That said, as we can talk about this in an adult manner, other people use 'well they acted older' as a cognitive distortion to enable thoughts to make illegal behaviour ok for them (they looked 18, they were drinking, they were very bright, they turn sixteen in a few months etc etc..). The current line drawn in the sand seems quite reasonable. Given the hoohaa currently, i do find it sad that the UK doesn't seem to pursue statutory rape with as much vigor as other countries whilst having time to be outraged by the Halls, Harris and Saviles of this world.
Regards,
FWD

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

People went to prison for phone hacking. Just because you didn't get the exact result you craved doesn't diminish that simple fact. Let's see how long the Mirror can hold out before their shenanigans are revealed, and believe me, there are shenanigans. Source: Me. I was there.

Secondly, noncing is not a party issue. There is a website dedicated solely to Labour paedos and it is updated with new and current instances very, very regularly.

I can give you a link if you would really like.

The enquiry made various recommendations which were routinely ignored by your mate and fellow idiot Cameron.

 

[Adeptly_Inept]

I am physically sickened by all this. Why should supposed 'power' colour moral judgement?
Humans are really not rational at all.

It reminds me of the whole Pete Townshend fiasco (operation ore) which should have been investigated further.
We're of a time where everyone is beginning to question their 'heroes'.
Let's hope that justice is sought.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

The enquiry made various recommendations which were routinely ignored by your mate and fellow idiot Cameron.

You can't have the press run by an adjunct of the Privy Council, whether Steve Coogan thinks so or not.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

You can't have the press run by an adjunct of the Privy Council, whether Steve Coogan thinks so or not.

So you agree that the enquiry was utterly pointless then?

 

[ExpectingToFly]

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5...eo-of-child-sex-abuse-and-ex-cabinet-minister

This site in general is really good, they are doing a lot of investigative journalism which the mainstream media seems too frightened to do nowadays.

It's no wonder Cameron tried so hard to avoid any inquiry, though you can bet anything they'll try and make that a whitewash - just like Labour did with the Hutton inquiry into David Kelly's death. It looks like police and security services may have been involved in these cover-ups (surprise, surprise) - this could bring the whole establishment into disrepute. It's not just the abusers who could be exposed, but those in power who knew about them and did nothing. It has the potential to tarnish hundreds of people's reputations, including former prime ministers, who put the interests of their own parties/governments before the welfare of children - they knew how the public will react to that.

I think it's very important for the public to keep a close eye on this case.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

I am physically sickened by all this. Why should supposed 'power' colour moral judgement?
Humans are really not rational at all.

It reminds me of the whole Pete Townshend fiasco (operation ore) which should have been investigated further.
We're of a time where everyone is beginning to question their 'heroes'.
Let's hope that justice is sought.

A lot of these politicians live in a theoretical world. Perhaps it is because so many of them come from a legal background or are advised by the finest legal minds, rather than the finest moral minds.

Also I don't think there is a vast difference in the type of people who are attracted to politics and those attracted to the entertainment world. Both are essentially the sort of people who yell " listen to me, listen to me," and rarely suffer from self doubt.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

So you agree that the enquiry was utterly pointless then?

The inquiry wasn't pointless. Some of the conclusions were. You solve such problems very easily. You pass a law that a newspaper apology has to be exactly as prominent as the original allegations, in print and online.

I would go further and insist that regardless of where the story appeared a full page apology also be carried on an early inside right. I would also, and this is regrettably unworkable, put into legislation that a newspaper could have its print edition suspended for a day if it continued to offend.

I'm in no way soft on those few miscreants of the press.

Oh, and by the way, Cameron's initial refusal of an inquiry over the allegations of a Westminster paedophile ring, a rumour that has been doing the rounds for decades, was utterly disgraceful.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

The inquiry wasn't pointless. Some of the conclusions were. You solve such problems very easily. You pass a law that a newspaper apology has to be exactly as prominent as the original allegations, in print and online.

I would go further and insist that regardless of where the story appeared a full page apology also be carried on an early inside right. I would also, and this is regrettably unworkable, put into legislation that a newspaper could have its print edition suspended for a day if it continued to offend.

I'm in no way soft on those few miscreants of the press.

Oh, and by the way, Cameron's initial refusal of an inquiry over the allegations of a Westminster paedophile ring, a rumour that has been doing the rounds for decades, was utterly disgraceful.

Yes, I agree with all of that but Cameron did pretty much nothing. That was my point. He could have done a Labour job on it a la that fella Kelly that was bumped off (sorry, committed suicide) prior to the Iraq war so he's by far not the worst offender.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Yes, I agree with all of that but Cameron did pretty much nothing. That was my point. He could have done a Labour job on it a la that fella Kelly that was bumped off (sorry, committed suicide) prior to the Iraq war so he's by far not the worst offender.

Some of the reports yesterday said that the establishment drags its heels because those at the top, across party affiliations with the politicians, and at the upper echelons of the civil service and police and judiciary, do so in a misguided belief that the state must be protected for the greater good. Of course, eventually, to quote the Emperor Claudius, "all the poisons in the mud hatch out" and, as happened in Belgium, the fallout brings down the entire edifice.

Let's not forget one of the earliest scandals of the Blair administration: What to do about the now Lord, then Cabinet Minister, who knew the Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton, and wrote to the Chief Constable to vouch for Hamilton when he had had a gun license refused. The answer was to send the tiny mouthed Scot off to a cushy job in Europe well out of the way, and seal the records for a century. That means that at some point Blair, Brown, Straw, and perhaps Harman too, never one to let her morals obscure her beliefs, sat around a large mahogany table and decided the needs of the Labour party outweighed the needs of the families of sixteen murdered children.

With Kelly I doubt it would be in Cameron's interests to open up something that has already been subject to an inquiry already. Where would you stop? Suez? The South Sea Bubble? Presumably with all inquiries we could just carry on until the great unwashed decided the right result had been arrived at, but this isn't The X-Factor. Sooner or later you have to content yourself with the findings. The internet is and always will be awash with those who deride The Warren Commission. What hope Hutton or Leveson?

 

[Orson Swells]

Ted Heath was always the name doing the rounds regarding this sort of thing.