Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tom Watson Apology
Topic Started: Oct 22 2015, 03:00 PM (281 Views)
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tom Watson has apologised to the widow of Lord Brittan for repeating the description he was given by one of his (Lord Brittan) accusers ("close to evil"). He "regrets" having done so, regrets the upset it has caused for his family.
David Cameron said he must go further and "examine his conscience about whether he's said enough so far" and said he had "a lot of questions to answer"

Will David Cameron apologise for describing J Corbyn as "a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security"?
When politics are the reason for such exchanges being made, criticisms levelled, and posturing at play, shouldn't the PM be setting a good example of behaviour?

As an aside; if it were not for Tom Watson we would not know of the organised paedophile activities of the past, nor of the coverup involving the MET.
I understand that former MET officers have contacted TW detailing their own suspicions of a top level cover up and that there are currently 19 investigations ongoing regarding MET failures/corruption.
Hounding the Corbyn tribe is now a favourite sport of the National press .... hypocrites that they are.



Edited by Affa, Oct 22 2015, 03:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Oct 29 2015, 10:50 PM
Affa
Oct 29 2015, 10:44 PM
skwirked
Oct 29 2015, 10:25 PM


But IMHO that doesn't apply here; a deep dark cover up has taken place and there's potentially child abusers working as MPs.

This MUST not be ignored. It lends a different gravity to proceedings. This event, within the wider context really is a trifle and the guy is not even alive....
Steve has sorely criticised Tom Watson for not ignoring these allegations.
In fact he would have no issue to pursue if they had not been ignored by several governments.
I have no problem with Steve for reminding that false accusations can be very damaging, but that does not justify his attack of Tom Watson ..... and to repeat - if these allegations had been properly addressed there would not be ANY allegations. We have this situation because there has not been a thorough investigation ....... so anyone innocent of these crimes need never fear a false accusation. The dirt sticks because it has not been washed away. The fault for that is not TW's, he is attempting to clean it up.
Hero!
I don't care whether anyone alive or dead is exposed as being guilty - what does bother me is that there has been a cover-up. We do need to expose THAT. And know that it cannot happen again.






The last part, we are in complete agreement.

I would be glad if everyone shared all their most convincing evidence that this is a cover-up, there's a few more bits but I have to spend more time looking for them again.
Did the British Establishment Cover Up a Political Pedophile Ring? A New Zealand Judge Will Decide

https://news.vice.com/article/did-the-british-establishment-cover-up-a-political-pedophile-ring-a-new-zealand-judge-will-decide

The Westminster child abuse ‘coverup’: how much did MPs know?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed "under caution" by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government.

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5688/police-probe-13-more-politicians-over-claims-of-child-sex-abuse

http://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/childhood-abuses/uk-childrens-homes-crisis/north-wales-childrens-home/the-truth-behind-the-child-abuse-cover-ups/fellowship-of-paedophiles-cover-up/

Westminster paedophile scandal casts shadows over British establishment

http://www.smh.com.au/world/westminster-paedophile-scandal-casts-shadows-over-british-establishment-20150725-gika7h.html#ixzz3q1CtwJTK

One in 1,000 Britons is a sex offender: More convictions drive 60 per cent jump in number on official register

Nearly one in every 1,000 Britons is a sex offender, new statistics show
Ministry of Justice figures show there are 50,000 sex offenders on register
Officials point to growing numbers of convictions as reason for increase
In recent years, police have secured a number of high profile convictions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3296129/One-1-000-Britons-sex-offender-convictions-drive-60-cent-jump-number-official-register.html#ixzz3q1FCaeik



https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=UK+esttablishment+cover+up+over+phadophilia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=zOIyVuCpGoz3UImRudAC#q=UK+establishment+cover+up+over+paedophilia&safe=off&start=10
Edited by Jonksy, Oct 30 2015, 03:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 29 2015, 07:43 PM
RJD
Oct 29 2015, 04:56 PM

You said: "I'd say that decrying watson for repeating the description given of Brittan by a victim of this abuse is edging close to evil! The motivation's for doing so are vile!"

The implication made by you that Brittan was in some way associated with this matter. There is no evidence that he was. Then you make a false logic claim that the matter, because it was heinous in the extreme, somehow excuse Watson for his politically motivated actions. These two matters are quite separate and as yet there appears to be no proof of a crime taking place.

I am sure you echo the claim "that Brittan was not proven innocent" made by that other incorrigible Tribalist Jonkey. In my view such a stance puts you beyond the pale.
The fact that you cannot see that Watson was motivated by politics says everything about your Tribalist stance. What he did was a disgrace to civilised behaviour.

I certainly hope that you are never called for Jury service as that could put justice at risk.


You'll waste a lot of time trying to find where I have accused Liam Brittan of being involved in the paedophile activities that we do know were taking place.
So you start from a false premise.
I have not sought to excuse Tom Watson for pursuing his efforts in attempting to expose these activities, I have congratulated him for them.
You continue to misread my comments.
We have no proof of these crimes because there has not be an investigation that has brought any of the culprits to court ......... guilt nor innocence has been established, and neither have any of the accusers been so judged. - they too remain innocent victims though some here have already outed them as fantasists or worse.
So we come to the last criticism ...... that Watson was politically motivated, that he is a career politician attempting to advance his reputation.
Utter BS! He has risked ALL on pursuing this, including a damaged reputation, press intrusiveness, and ....... if he had not done so after being presented with evidence he would be no better than Liam Brittan and those party to the State cover-up that has kept this paedophile ring free to remain as abusers.

Has Tom Watson earned the plaudits some here say was his motive?
His accusers most certainly deserve far worse than has been his treatment.






Simple litmus test. Why did Watson not make such accusations in public out in the street?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonky misses the point, he would. There needs to be proof of a crime, allegations of such are insufficient. Watson was told there was no proof, but he persisted. Why? Why did he not make these allegations out on the street as a citizen? Why did he hide behind the shield of the HofC? Best he answers these questions and stops his vile spin of "well he was not proven innocent was he". That exposes Jonky for what he is and that should wrench the guts of any committed democrat on this forum. Again we see the hate loaded intolerant spittle from the wannabe Rot Aktion Gruppe and the true ugly side of it's face. Disgraceful because they cannot see themselves for what they are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Another day and another account of an innocent still being persecuted because the police feel they must pursue each and every FALSE allegation

False accusations have become an industry and an easy weapon for the malicious.

Meantime as Jonsky pointed out above, we also hear this morning of the disturbing stat that 1 in 1000 have already been convicted of sex crimes, the true number of offenders, offences and victims will of course be far higher. There is something deeply wrong in way too many people and amongst the last things needed is those pursuing them to be diverted onto false allegations or worse have to laboriously show juries that this isn't another police fit up.

I don't retract my accusations about Tom Watson that, unlike other MPs that raised concerns, he was reckless, self serving and is yet to offer a proper apology. I reject the false extrapolations some have made of my posts.

Sexual abuse especially of vulnerable people is a serious subject, it should be treated as such.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 30 2015, 10:06 AM
Another day and another account of an innocent still being persecuted because the police feel they must pursue each and every FALSE allegation

False accusations have become an industry and an easy weapon for the malicious.

Meantime as Jonsky pointed out above, we also hear this morning of the disturbing stat that 1 in 1000 have already been convicted of sex crimes, the true number of offenders, offences and victims will of course be far higher. There is something deeply wrong in way too many people and amongst the last things needed is those pursuing them to be diverted onto false allegations or worse have to laboriously show juries that this isn't another police fit up.

I don't retract my accusations about Tom Watson that, unlike other MPs that raised concerns, he was reckless, self serving and is yet to offer a proper apology. I reject the false extrapolations some have made of my posts.

Sexual abuse especially of vulnerable people is a serious subject, it should be treated as such.


Hope you don't include me in that, my position as sad: you are right about the wrongful allegations but imo mistaken to call Watson evil etc.

I have some respect for your position, not so for the other devious person in this thread who is purely trying to score political points. In fact I am strongly considering using the ignore function..making political capital out of this is vile and as low as it gets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Oct 30 2015, 12:58 PM
Hope you don't include me in that, my position as sad: you are right about the wrongful allegations . .
I'm not aware that you did. It certainly wasn't you that posted that I was "close to evil" and had vile motivations. But that was posted here and I find that unacceptable.

Quote:
 
but imo mistaken to call Watson evil etc. . .


If you look you'll see I did not call Watson evil, that was someone else. I did call him an 'uncaring manipulative little shit'. And until we hear an apology from Watson (as opposed to that pathetic, limited and caveated statement last week) I am likely to remain of that view.

He did harm to innocents, he advanced his career by doing so. Much to properly apologise for and he really should resign from that deputy leader position he won using that false position just before his 'errors' were discovered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 30 2015, 02:06 PM
skwirked
Oct 30 2015, 12:58 PM
Hope you don't include me in that, my position as sad: you are right about the wrongful allegations . .
I'm not aware that you did. It certainly wasn't you that posted that I was "close to evil" and had vile motivations. But that was posted here and I find that unacceptable.

Quote:
 
but imo mistaken to call Watson evil etc. . .


If you look you'll see I did not call Watson evil, that was someone else. I did call him an 'uncaring manipulative little shit'. And until we hear an apology from Watson (as opposed to that pathetic, limited and caveated statement last week) I am likely to remain of that view.

He did harm to innocents, he advanced his career by doing so. Much to properly apologise for and he really should resign from that deputy leader position he won using that false position just before his 'errors' were discovered.
What you summarise as Watson's guilt I find as evil. He must have known what he was about, if he didn't then he should not be an MP. Simple test of a Politician why he makes such allegations, if in the HofC then probably BS, but if out on the street worthy of note. What is Watson do?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 30 2015, 02:06 PM
skwirked
Oct 30 2015, 12:58 PM
Hope you don't include me in that, my position as sad: you are right about the wrongful allegations . .
I'm not aware that you did. It certainly wasn't you that posted that I was "close to evil" and had vile motivations. But that was posted here and I find that unacceptable.

Quote:
 
but imo mistaken to call Watson evil etc. . .


If you look you'll see I did not call Watson evil, that was someone else. I did call him an 'uncaring manipulative little shit'. And until we hear an apology from Watson (as opposed to that pathetic, limited and caveated statement last week) I am likely to remain of that view.

He did harm to innocents, he advanced his career by doing so. Much to properly apologise for and he really should resign from that deputy leader position he won using that false position just before his 'errors' were discovered.
Okay, well I have some respect for your position although conpletely disagree about Watson.

I get that you aren't keen but what do you make of Af snd Jonksy's links?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 29 2015, 11:55 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2015, 10:16 AM
I'd say that decrying watson for repeating the description given of Brittan by a victim of this abuse is edging close to evil! The motivation's for doing so are vile!
I do recall Gordon (when he was mistaken that he was a Prime minister) saying no more boom and bust and British jobs for British workers, did you take his word as well? not that it matters much, I just like to see fair play where criticism is concerned.
If you care to read and think about the following you could end up being better informed.
The boom and bust Brown referred to was that which was caused by different UK governments (Labour and Conservatives) using inflation and interest rates in order to control the UK economy. You may recall the double figure levels of both of these during the 18 years of Tory governments.
Brown, in common with chancellors across the Western World, could not avoid an international boom and boost.

The insinuations thrown at Brown's "British jobs for British workers" suggest that Brown had promised to do something illegal and impossible to impose upon employers.
The gist of that comment is based upon Brown's intent on increasing the education levels of more UK citizens, thus making them able to apply for jobs at a higher level than just shelf stacking or making hamburgers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yeah another thread ruined by petty party point scoring..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Oct 30 2015, 06:49 PM
Yeah another thread ruined by petty party point scoring..
Did you post the same comment when Rich made the original (misinformed) claim ?
Rectifying a misleading statement by a poster is IMO a honourable thing to do. :)

As for ruining the thread :facepalm: , it's a very simple matter to put it back on track. Which IMO, would have been better than complaining.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well no, but then I didn't see his post - that happens a lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 30 2015, 08:50 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2015, 07:43 PM
RJD
Oct 29 2015, 04:56 PM

You said: "I'd say that decrying watson for repeating the description given of Brittan by a victim of this abuse is edging close to evil! The motivation's for doing so are vile!"

The implication made by you that Brittan was in some way associated with this matter. There is no evidence that he was. Then you make a false logic claim that the matter, because it was heinous in the extreme, somehow excuse Watson for his politically motivated actions. These two matters are quite separate and as yet there appears to be no proof of a crime taking place.

I am sure you echo the claim "that Brittan was not proven innocent" made by that other incorrigible Tribalist Jonkey. In my view such a stance puts you beyond the pale.
The fact that you cannot see that Watson was motivated by politics says everything about your Tribalist stance. What he did was a disgrace to civilised behaviour.

I certainly hope that you are never called for Jury service as that could put justice at risk.


You'll waste a lot of time trying to find where I have accused Liam Brittan of being involved in the paedophile activities that we do know were taking place.
So you start from a false premise.
I have not sought to excuse Tom Watson for pursuing his efforts in attempting to expose these activities, I have congratulated him for them.
You continue to misread my comments.
We have no proof of these crimes because there has not be an investigation that has brought any of the culprits to court ......... guilt nor innocence has been established, and neither have any of the accusers been so judged. - they too remain innocent victims though some here have already outed them as fantasists or worse.
So we come to the last criticism ...... that Watson was politically motivated, that he is a career politician attempting to advance his reputation.
Utter BS! He has risked ALL on pursuing this, including a damaged reputation, press intrusiveness, and ....... if he had not done so after being presented with evidence he would be no better than Liam Brittan and those party to the State cover-up that has kept this paedophile ring free to remain as abusers.

Has Tom Watson earned the plaudits some here say was his motive?
His accusers most certainly deserve far worse than has been his treatment.






Simple litmus test. Why did Watson not make such accusations in public out in the street?
Probably because wealthy and still alive establishment figures can rely on the system and employ the best lawyers?

As opposed to the nonce who hangs around the local park, dead high profile kiddy fiddlers or elderly lords with senility who stroll around in public wearing a baseball cap and accompanied by their nurse.

File under the bleedin obvious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 30 2015, 08:57 AM
Jonky misses the point, he would. There needs to be proof of a crime, allegations of such are insufficient. Watson was told there was no proof, but he persisted. Why? Why did he not make these allegations out on the street as a citizen? Why did he hide behind the shield of the HofC? Best he answers these questions and stops his vile spin of "well he was not proven innocent was he". That exposes Jonky for what he is and that should wrench the guts of any committed democrat on this forum. Again we see the hate loaded intolerant spittle from the wannabe Rot Aktion Gruppe and the true ugly side of it's face. Disgraceful because they cannot see themselves for what they are.
I wonder if you would care to discuss the missing dossiers on pedophilia which disappeared under brittans watch as HS when he was entrusted with them? No I thought you wouldn't? He has NOT been found innocent maybe you could explain when the police suddenly became the judge and jury rather than investigators?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Oct 30 2015, 11:21 PM
RJD
Oct 30 2015, 08:57 AM
Jonky misses the point, he would. There needs to be proof of a crime, allegations of such are insufficient. Watson was told there was no proof, but he persisted. Why? Why did he not make these allegations out on the street as a citizen? Why did he hide behind the shield of the HofC? Best he answers these questions and stops his vile spin of "well he was not proven innocent was he". That exposes Jonky for what he is and that should wrench the guts of any committed democrat on this forum. Again we see the hate loaded intolerant spittle from the wannabe Rot Aktion Gruppe and the true ugly side of it's face. Disgraceful because they cannot see themselves for what they are.
I wonder if you would care to discuss the missing dossiers on pedophilia which disappeared under brittans watch as HS when he was entrusted with them? No I thought you wouldn't? He has NOT been found innocent maybe you could explain when the police suddenly became the judge and jury rather than investigators?
Well put like that you haven't been found innocent either have you.

'Jane' accused Brittan of taking her to his ground floor flat in 1967 - which would have been remarkable as he lived in a third floor flat then. She then said her friends would back up her claim - they flatly contradicted it. And her detail allegation did not match the legal criteria for rape whoever may or probably not attacked her. 'Jane' was actually a victim of the false memory bastards.

I'm guessing that despite my prompts, you like others haven't looked into UTD and the Lantern project. Deeply disturbing brainwashing of vulnerable people into making up stories against famous people.

Have a read or two:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1621055.ece

critiqued here: http://barthsnotes.com/2015/10/18/vip-abuse-allegations-unstructured-therapeutic-disclosure-under-fire/





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 30 2015, 11:43 PM
Jonksy
Oct 30 2015, 11:21 PM
RJD
Oct 30 2015, 08:57 AM
Jonky misses the point, he would. There needs to be proof of a crime, allegations of such are insufficient. Watson was told there was no proof, but he persisted. Why? Why did he not make these allegations out on the street as a citizen? Why did he hide behind the shield of the HofC? Best he answers these questions and stops his vile spin of "well he was not proven innocent was he". That exposes Jonky for what he is and that should wrench the guts of any committed democrat on this forum. Again we see the hate loaded intolerant spittle from the wannabe Rot Aktion Gruppe and the true ugly side of it's face. Disgraceful because they cannot see themselves for what they are.
I wonder if you would care to discuss the missing dossiers on pedophilia which disappeared under brittans watch as HS when he was entrusted with them? No I thought you wouldn't? He has NOT been found innocent maybe you could explain when the police suddenly became the judge and jury rather than investigators?
Well put like that you haven't been found innocent either have you.

'Jane' accused Brittan of taking her to his ground floor flat in 1967 - which would have been remarkable as he lived in a third floor flat then. She then said her friends would back up her claim - they flatly contradicted it. And her detail allegation did not match the legal criteria for rape whoever may or probably not attacked her. 'Jane' was actually a victim of the false memory bastards.

I'm guessing that despite my prompts, you like others haven't looked into UTD and the Lantern project. Deeply disturbing brainwashing of vulnerable people into making up stories against famous people.

Have a read or two:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1621055.ece

critiqued here: http://barthsnotes.com/2015/10/18/vip-abuse-allegations-unstructured-therapeutic-disclosure-under-fire/





I have read it...Aqua puncture is controversial but many say that it works.....Leon Brittan was accused of multiple rape not only by young girls but also by young boys . I am sure that some of the allegations may be false but can you guarantee that all the allegations made by different individuals at different times and places are false? I agree that this is not a fit subject for political point scoring but this thread is about Tom Watsons apology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Presumably you'll remain anally fixated on one particular incident and totally ignore the bulk of the allegations as if this in some way excuses everything?

And yes that Dicken Dossier has turned up so we are told but these is no news of it being published or the fact that the photo's have gone awol.

Keep digging Steve...............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 12:00 AM
I have read it...Aqua puncture is controversial but many say that it works.....Leon Brittan was accused of multiple rape not only by young girls but also by young boys . I am sure that some of the allegations may be false but can you guarantee that all the allegations made by different individuals at different times and places are false? I agree that this is not a fit subject for political point scoring but this thread is about Tom Watsons apology.
That'll be largely ignored as it's rather hard to dismiss in half a sentence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 31 2015, 12:01 AM
Presumably you'll remain anally fixated on one particular incident and totally ignore the bulk of the allegations as if this in some way excuses everything?

And yes that Dicken Dossier has turned up so we are told but these is no news of it being published or the fact that the photo's have gone awol.

Edited by Jonksy, Oct 31 2015, 12:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 31 2015, 12:01 AM
Presumably you'll remain anally fixated on one particular incident and totally ignore the bulk of the allegations as if this in some way excuses everything?

And yes that Dicken Dossier has turned up so we are told but these is no news of it being published or the fact that the photo's have gone awol.

Keep digging Steve...............
The dossier which has been found has been stated as not being complete and it is widely thought that Dickens entrusted Brittan with 2 dossiers one in 1983 and another one in early 1984 its well documented on the web. There are far too many loose ends over this whole sorry affair and it should be investigated properly...Dickens dosier or dosiers were either 1 or 2 of a long list of missing dossiers on pedophilia which have gone awol and the true number of missing dossiers on this sordid subject is stated as being 114...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

"
But so did Cyril Smith, who got his knighthood in 1988 despite officials warning Margaret Thatcher of paedophile allegations against him, confirmed only after the former Liberal MP was dead. Freedom of Information (FoI) papers filled in fresh details this month. Smith is again central to today’s claims.
"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/westminster-paedophile-scandal-casts-shadows-over-british-establishment-20150725-gika7h.html#ixzz3q1CtwJTK

and: http://www.theweek.co.uk/59321/former-mi5-chief-involved-in-child-sex-abuse-cover-up

"
The allegations had a long history before Mr Watson's question to Parliament. He had been briefed by investigative journalism website Exaro, which was digging into old rumours and finding fresh evidence.
However, they returned to the headlines this week, after the discovery of old Whitehall files thought destroyed. Among them was a November 1986 note from the director-general of MI5 to the cabinet secretary, referring to an MP with "a penchant for small boys".
The MI5 chief accepted the denial from the MP (later identified by The Times as Peter Morrison, who later briefly worked as one of Margaret Thatcher's aides and died in 1995).
However, he added that "the risk of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger".
The phrase was seized on by campaigners as concrete evidence of what they had long claimed: an establishment whitewash.
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who worked to expose the double life as a child abuser of Liberal MP Cyril Smith, told The Times that the MI5 papers were "explosive".
"This confirms what I've long suspected: that the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up to protect politicians who sexually abused young boys," he said.
"
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/child-abuse-inquiry/59347/will-tory-whips-dirt-book-prove-paedophile-cover-up

"A 20-year-old BBC documentary has been dug up in which a former Conservative whip, Tim Fortescue, admits that whips would offer to help MPs hush up potentially scandalous situations – including those involving "small boys" - in order to effectively blackmail them in the future into toeing the party line when they were required to vote on controversial issues.

Fortescue, a government whip from 1970 to 1973, when Ted Heath was prime minister, says in the documentary (see below, from 23.34 – 25.25): "Anyone with any sense who is in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, 'I am in a jam – can you help?' It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal that a member seems likely to be mixed up in.

"We would do anything we could because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but if we could get a chap out of trouble, he would do what we ask for ever more."


The whips’ so-called 'Dirt Book' or 'Black Book' was the stuff of legend in Westminster until Michael Cockerell made the 1995 documentary and got the Tory peer Willie Whitelaw, a former chief whip in the 1960s, to confirm it on screen. "It was just a little book in which you wrote down various things you heard about people," said Lord Whitelaw, who died in 1999.

It is not known whether the 'Dirt Books' for the 1970s and 1980s still survive or whether, like so much other potential evidence in this saga, they have "disappeared"."





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Oct 31 2015, 01:29 AM
Steve:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

"
But so did Cyril Smith, who got his knighthood in 1988 despite officials warning Margaret Thatcher of paedophile allegations against him, confirmed only after the former Liberal MP was dead. Freedom of Information (FoI) papers filled in fresh details this month. Smith is again central to today’s claims.
"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/westminster-paedophile-scandal-casts-shadows-over-british-establishment-20150725-gika7h.html#ixzz3q1CtwJTK

and: http://www.theweek.co.uk/59321/former-mi5-chief-involved-in-child-sex-abuse-cover-up

"
The allegations had a long history before Mr Watson's question to Parliament. He had been briefed by investigative journalism website Exaro, which was digging into old rumours and finding fresh evidence.
However, they returned to the headlines this week, after the discovery of old Whitehall files thought destroyed. Among them was a November 1986 note from the director-general of MI5 to the cabinet secretary, referring to an MP with "a penchant for small boys".
The MI5 chief accepted the denial from the MP (later identified by The Times as Peter Morrison, who later briefly worked as one of Margaret Thatcher's aides and died in 1995).
However, he added that "the risk of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger".
The phrase was seized on by campaigners as concrete evidence of what they had long claimed: an establishment whitewash.
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who worked to expose the double life as a child abuser of Liberal MP Cyril Smith, told The Times that the MI5 papers were "explosive".
"This confirms what I've long suspected: that the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up to protect politicians who sexually abused young boys," he said.
"
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/child-abuse-inquiry/59347/will-tory-whips-dirt-book-prove-paedophile-cover-up

"A 20-year-old BBC documentary has been dug up in which a former Conservative whip, Tim Fortescue, admits that whips would offer to help MPs hush up potentially scandalous situations – including those involving "small boys" - in order to effectively blackmail them in the future into toeing the party line when they were required to vote on controversial issues.

Fortescue, a government whip from 1970 to 1973, when Ted Heath was prime minister, says in the documentary (see below, from 23.34 – 25.25): "Anyone with any sense who is in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, 'I am in a jam – can you help?' It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal that a member seems likely to be mixed up in.

"We would do anything we could because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but if we could get a chap out of trouble, he would do what we ask for ever more."


The whips’ so-called 'Dirt Book' or 'Black Book' was the stuff of legend in Westminster until Michael Cockerell made the 1995 documentary and got the Tory peer Willie Whitelaw, a former chief whip in the 1960s, to confirm it on screen. "It was just a little book in which you wrote down various things you heard about people," said Lord Whitelaw, who died in 1999.

It is not known whether the 'Dirt Books' for the 1970s and 1980s still survive or whether, like so much other potential evidence in this saga, they have "disappeared"."





I am most surprised that you lot have not applied to join the met, what with all the "evidence" that you have collated, surely, it must be an open and shut case?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2015, 01:38 AM
skwirked
Oct 31 2015, 01:29 AM
Steve:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

"
But so did Cyril Smith, who got his knighthood in 1988 despite officials warning Margaret Thatcher of paedophile allegations against him, confirmed only after the former Liberal MP was dead. Freedom of Information (FoI) papers filled in fresh details this month. Smith is again central to today’s claims.
"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/westminster-paedophile-scandal-casts-shadows-over-british-establishment-20150725-gika7h.html#ixzz3q1CtwJTK

and: http://www.theweek.co.uk/59321/former-mi5-chief-involved-in-child-sex-abuse-cover-up

"
The allegations had a long history before Mr Watson's question to Parliament. He had been briefed by investigative journalism website Exaro, which was digging into old rumours and finding fresh evidence.
However, they returned to the headlines this week, after the discovery of old Whitehall files thought destroyed. Among them was a November 1986 note from the director-general of MI5 to the cabinet secretary, referring to an MP with "a penchant for small boys".
The MI5 chief accepted the denial from the MP (later identified by The Times as Peter Morrison, who later briefly worked as one of Margaret Thatcher's aides and died in 1995).
However, he added that "the risk of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger".
The phrase was seized on by campaigners as concrete evidence of what they had long claimed: an establishment whitewash.
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who worked to expose the double life as a child abuser of Liberal MP Cyril Smith, told The Times that the MI5 papers were "explosive".
"This confirms what I've long suspected: that the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up to protect politicians who sexually abused young boys," he said.
"
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/child-abuse-inquiry/59347/will-tory-whips-dirt-book-prove-paedophile-cover-up

"A 20-year-old BBC documentary has been dug up in which a former Conservative whip, Tim Fortescue, admits that whips would offer to help MPs hush up potentially scandalous situations – including those involving "small boys" - in order to effectively blackmail them in the future into toeing the party line when they were required to vote on controversial issues.

Fortescue, a government whip from 1970 to 1973, when Ted Heath was prime minister, says in the documentary (see below, from 23.34 – 25.25): "Anyone with any sense who is in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, 'I am in a jam – can you help?' It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal that a member seems likely to be mixed up in.

"We would do anything we could because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but if we could get a chap out of trouble, he would do what we ask for ever more."


The whips’ so-called 'Dirt Book' or 'Black Book' was the stuff of legend in Westminster until Michael Cockerell made the 1995 documentary and got the Tory peer Willie Whitelaw, a former chief whip in the 1960s, to confirm it on screen. "It was just a little book in which you wrote down various things you heard about people," said Lord Whitelaw, who died in 1999.

It is not known whether the 'Dirt Books' for the 1970s and 1980s still survive or whether, like so much other potential evidence in this saga, they have "disappeared"."





I am most surprised that you lot have not applied to join the met, what with all the "evidence" that you have collated, surely, it must be an open and shut case?
Well according to those backing Brittan and the fact that the UK police force have now acted as judge and jury rather than investigators over this whole sordid affair it seems it is an open and shut case despite the myriad of evidence to the contrary. Like I have already stated if only 1% of this evidence is correct that is enough to warrant a full public inquiry by those with no axe to grind. We all know or should do that the government and establishment cover up or hide what they consider unpalatable information, how many times have we heard that certain information which was due to come into the public light has had yet another 20 or so years added to its obscurity? And then they try and get us all to believe that there is no hidden agenda.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 31 2015, 12:03 AM
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 12:00 AM
I have read it...Aqua puncture is controversial but many say that it works.....Leon Brittan was accused of multiple rape not only by young girls but also by young boys . I am sure that some of the allegations may be false but can you guarantee that all the allegations made by different individuals at different times and places are false? I agree that this is not a fit subject for political point scoring but this thread is about Tom Watsons apology.
That'll be largely ignored as it's rather hard to dismiss in half a sentence.
No yet again you are wrong Tigger. 3 points raised by Jonsky's reply:

1. The 'Jane' case made the most high profile by Watson was sufficient to show he had far more to apologise for than hurt to Brittan's family. Remember this was this case Watson chose to use to eff up DCI Settle's career.

2. The other abuse allegations were of 'Darren' a serial criminal hoaxer who had previously admitted Brittan "never abused me or anyone I know", of 'David' who admitted to making up the allegation after being pressured by pretend social worker/convicted fraudster Chris Fay and 'Nick' who was similarly under the influence of Fay who was described by responsible MP exposer Danczuk as “wholly unbelievable and some sort of fantasist”

3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

I hold no candle for Brittan. As a minister he was a shameless little Thatcher toady happy later to accept a peerage as a quid pro quo for keeping his mouth shut. But this false accusation industry has to be opposed and its cheerleader Watson needs to accept the harm he's done and then apologise for it.

The question I'd ask is why Tigger do you want to see false allegations being protected and even celebrated. Or will that "be largely ignored as it's rather hard to dismiss in half a sentence."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

By whom? It wouldn't be John Selwyn Gummer or Kenneth Clarke by any chance would it?

You have only mentioned two cases that have been leveled at Brittan and many more were in investigation until he died and then suddenly hey presto he becomes Mr squeaky clean. We all know that on this sordid subject you can safely bet there are probably many more cases which are not even reported by the victims for various reasons and some of the victims could well be dead and took their secret to the grave. Brittan has not been cleared and also he hasn't been proven that he acted correctly over the numerous document on this subject that he was entrusted with we only have his word and no other evidence. He has never been questioned under oath not that....that matters thees days as many regard the bible for the comic that it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 11:53 AM
3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

By whom? It wouldn't be John Selwyn Gummer or Kenneth Clarke by any chance would it?
IIRC it was the Perm Sec Mark Sedwill

Quote:
 
You have only mentioned two cases that have been leveled at Brittan and many more were in investigation until he died and then suddenly hey presto he becomes Mr squeaky clean. We all know that on this sordid subject you can safely bet there are probably many more cases which are not even reported by the victims for various reasons and some of the victims could well be dead and took their secret to the grave. Brittan has not been cleared and also he hasn't been proven that he acted correctly over the numerous document on this subject that he was entrusted with we only have his word and no other evidence. . .

Well why not post up reputable links to those other allegations?

This thread isn't about clearing Brittan, it's about Tom Watson not apologising for the false allegations he made, for screwing a detective's career, for making a disturbed woman's life worse and for securing the deputy leadership of the Labour Party under false pretence.

Quote:
 
He has never been questioned under oath not that....that matters thees days as many regard the bible for the comic that it is.
Oh yes he was and while terminally ill - well under caution as 'under oath' is what happens in court
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 12:11 PM
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 11:53 AM
3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

By whom? It wouldn't be John Selwyn Gummer or Kenneth Clarke by any chance would it?
IIRC it was the Perm Sec Mark Sedwill

Quote:
 
You have only mentioned two cases that have been leveled at Brittan and many more were in investigation until he died and then suddenly hey presto he becomes Mr squeaky clean. We all know that on this sordid subject you can safely bet there are probably many more cases which are not even reported by the victims for various reasons and some of the victims could well be dead and took their secret to the grave. Brittan has not been cleared and also he hasn't been proven that he acted correctly over the numerous document on this subject that he was entrusted with we only have his word and no other evidence. . .

Well why not post up reputable links to those other allegations?

This thread isn't about clearing Brittan, it's about Tom Watson not apologising for the false allegations he made, for screwing a detective's career, for making a disturbed woman's life worse and for securing the deputy leadership of the Labour Party under false pretence.

Quote:
 
He has never been questioned under oath not that....that matters thees days as many regard the bible for the comic that it is.
Oh yes he was and while terminally ill - well under caution as 'under oath' is what happens in court
What do you think of the quotes I extracted from J and A's articles?

They seem fairly damning to me. IIRC that FOI request wasn't disputed - it was accepted that Thatcher herself knew about Cyril.

The Whip book evidence seems damning as hell ... and the MI5 affair kind of ignited the idea that this has been a cover-up all along.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 12:11 PM
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 11:53 AM
3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

By whom? It wouldn't be John Selwyn Gummer or Kenneth Clarke by any chance would it?
IIRC it was the Perm Sec Mark Sedwill

Quote:
 
You have only mentioned two cases that have been leveled at Brittan and many more were in investigation until he died and then suddenly hey presto he becomes Mr squeaky clean. We all know that on this sordid subject you can safely bet there are probably many more cases which are not even reported by the victims for various reasons and some of the victims could well be dead and took their secret to the grave. Brittan has not been cleared and also he hasn't been proven that he acted correctly over the numerous document on this subject that he was entrusted with we only have his word and no other evidence. . .

Well why not post up reputable links to those other allegations?

This thread isn't about clearing Brittan, it's about Tom Watson not apologising for the false allegations he made, for screwing a detective's career, for making a disturbed woman's life worse and for securing the deputy leadership of the Labour Party under false pretence.

Quote:
 
He has never been questioned under oath not that....that matters thees days as many regard the bible for the comic that it is.
Oh yes he was and while terminally ill - well under caution as 'under oath' is what happens in court
Mark Sedwill but the the investigation was NOT carried out by him and many think the legal representative that he chose investigations fell well short of what was required...You have had links dozens of them not only from me but many others..As I have previously stated many of the victims now could be either dead or not coming forward for personal reasons how am I supposed to supply links to their cases? What exactly has Watson stated that he should be apologising for as brittan has NOT been found innocent on both charges of child rape etc or for the loss of the dossiers which were entrusted to his care when he was HS. I applaud watson for having the guts to stand up and be counted whether he went about the correct way or not is another subject altogether..lets not forget I bet not all the MP's and prominent members mentioned in those documents aand dossiers were all tory and I bet you can safely bet there were many others mentioned who were from watsons own party.
Edited by Jonksy, Oct 31 2015, 12:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 04:29 PM
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
There is a stench of McCarthyism on this thread. Nobody needs to prove their innocence. First a crime has to be established as being a fact. Then evidence has to be assembled sufficient to prove guilt in a Court of Law. It is very simple for honest people, but seemingly difficult for those who have decided on guilt no matter.

Brittan is as innocent as St. Francis, unless of course there is proof of the opposite.

McCarthy used the tactics of Jonky et al to Witch-hunt for Communists and their fellow travellers. Ironic is it not that here we are in the 21st C. repeating the process with the roles reversed.


"Have you ever been a wife beater"? No

Can you prove that?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2015, 01:38 AM
I am most surprised that you lot have not applied to join the met, what with all the "evidence" that you have collated, surely, it must be an open and shut case?
And I'm surprised you are still on your knees and happy to swallow any old shit the establishment spoon feeds you, open your eyes if not your mind, this whole affair reeks of corruption.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 10:39 AM
Tigger
Oct 31 2015, 12:03 AM
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 12:00 AM
I have read it...Aqua puncture is controversial but many say that it works.....Leon Brittan was accused of multiple rape not only by young girls but also by young boys . I am sure that some of the allegations may be false but can you guarantee that all the allegations made by different individuals at different times and places are false? I agree that this is not a fit subject for political point scoring but this thread is about Tom Watsons apology.
That'll be largely ignored as it's rather hard to dismiss in half a sentence.
No yet again you are wrong Tigger. 3 points raised by Jonsky's reply:

1. The 'Jane' case made the most high profile by Watson was sufficient to show he had far more to apologise for than hurt to Brittan's family. Remember this was this case Watson chose to use to eff up DCI Settle's career.

2. The other abuse allegations were of 'Darren' a serial criminal hoaxer who had previously admitted Brittan "never abused me or anyone I know", of 'David' who admitted to making up the allegation after being pressured by pretend social worker/convicted fraudster Chris Fay and 'Nick' who was similarly under the influence of Fay who was described by responsible MP exposer Danczuk as “wholly unbelievable and some sort of fantasist”

3. Brittan was found to have acted responsibly about that dossier

I hold no candle for Brittan. As a minister he was a shameless little Thatcher toady happy later to accept a peerage as a quid pro quo for keeping his mouth shut. But this false accusation industry has to be opposed and its cheerleader Watson needs to accept the harm he's done and then apologise for it.

The question I'd ask is why Tigger do you want to see false allegations being protected and even celebrated. Or will that "be largely ignored as it's rather hard to dismiss in half a sentence."
Yes, I'm also a big fan of the establishment investigating the establishment. False allegations? What all of them FFS?

It's just in this case they've managed to give the distinct impression they are hiding plenty, the bulk of the evidence several past events support this overwhelmingly, but you refuse to see it!

Perhaps excessive pedentry is a form of disability? It's starting to look like it from here.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 04:29 PM
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
No this all reeks of a cover up..End of..I applaud anyone who stands up to be counted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2015, 05:39 PM
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 04:29 PM
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
There is a stench of McCarthyism on this thread. Nobody needs to prove their innocence. First a crime has to be established as being a fact. Then evidence has to be assembled sufficient to prove guilt in a Court of Law. It is very simple for honest people, but seemingly difficult for those who have decided on guilt no matter.

Brittan is as innocent as St. Francis, unless of course there is proof of the opposite.

McCarthy used the tactics of Jonky et al to Witch-hunt for Communists and their fellow travellers. Ironic is it not that here we are in the 21st C. repeating the process with the roles reversed.


"Have you ever been a wife beater"? No

Can you prove that?



I thought you would soon be here backing this cover up..There is far more evidence put on this thread showing cover ups than those which supposedly show innocence. This is nothing to do with whether they are tory labbour lib dems or greens etc this is an organised establishment cover up of the highest order and no amount of your waffle will ever hide that fact. Brittan has not been proven innocent on either rape alegations or his loss of relevant dossiers..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 10:49 PM
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 04:29 PM
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
No this all reeks of a cover up..End of..I applaud anyone who stands up to be counted.
So in your view there is nothing to apologise for. That means you believe a detective that correctly works out that the allegation

a) did not qualify as rape,
b) was counter evidenced by the complainants own friends and
c) grossly misidentified the alleged attacker

has to have his career ruined just because you hate 'the establishment' and a politician wants to build a career

What other innnocents would you wish destroyed?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes, but there's been a cover-up here ALL the evidence seems to point to that ..

What is one to do in those circumstances? Yes I hate making assertions without knowing facts that may/may not be unobtainable. The answer cannot be to just stay quiet, people must make their feelings known + see where the evidence leads.

I do not accept that there hasn't been a cover-up. No one appears able to refute the Hayman-Thatcher allegation, the MI5 file, the Whip book video.

The amount of coincidences; things being lost, shredded and burnt, the supposedly random sus unsus deaths...the weird reactions by the politicians.

Yes it's a conspiracy theory, yes there is some proof to justify it.
Edited by skwirked, Oct 31 2015, 11:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 11:27 PM
Jonksy
Oct 31 2015, 10:49 PM
Steve K
Oct 31 2015, 04:29 PM
Jonsky this all reeks of you applaud Watson and will allow him anything because you start with a belief that all Tories are fundamentally evil and it's perfectly OK to act dishonestly to try and land any accusation on them. Every time I knock down a story you come back with more unreferenced allegations. This is not debate, it's Witchfinder General revisited

Lets try one at a time

Watson wrote asking for DCI Settle to be sidelined for not pursuing the obviously ridiculous rape claims by 'Jane'. Why has Watson not apologised for that?
No this all reeks of a cover up..End of..I applaud anyone who stands up to be counted.
So in your view there is nothing to apologise for. That means you believe a detective that correctly works out that the allegation

a) did not qualify as rape,
b) was counter evidenced by the complainants own friends and
c) grossly misidentified the alleged attacker

has to have his career ruined just because you hate 'the establishment' and a politician wants to build a career

What other innnocents would you wish destroyed?

So far all you have offered are a few convenient links that you have found and ignored the myriad of links I and others have posted on this thread...Not once have you commented on any of those. So once again I will repeat brittan was not found innocent on either charges of kiddy fiddling or the loss off pertinent documents and dossiers which were entrusted to him and as for his career it was over so there was no loss.. I don't want ANY innocents destroyed yet again you put yourself up as judge and jury and think you are the only one is correct on this subject. I bet if you gave the same information to yet another detective it would come out a different result. This whole affair needs to be investigated by those who have no axe to grind and who are not impeded by outside influences who only have their own or parties agenda at heart.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Oct 31 2015, 11:55 PM
I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes, but there's been a cover-up here ALL the evidence seems to point to that ..

What is one to do in those circumstances? Yes I hate making assertions without knowing facts that may/may not be unobtainable. The answer cannot be to just stay quiet, people must make their feelings known + see where the evidence leads.

I do not accept that there hasn't been a cover-up. No one appears able to refute the Hayman-Thatcher allegation, the MI5 file, the Whip book video.

The amount of coincidences; things being lost, shredded and burnt, the supposedly random sus unsus deaths...the weird reactions by the politicians.

Yes it's a conspiracy theory, yes there is some proof to justify it.
There are far too many loose ends this whole sorry saga stinks..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Nov 1 2015, 12:39 AM
skwirked
Oct 31 2015, 11:55 PM
I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes, but there's been a cover-up here ALL the evidence seems to point to that ..

What is one to do in those circumstances? Yes I hate making assertions without knowing facts that may/may not be unobtainable. The answer cannot be to just stay quiet, people must make their feelings known + see where the evidence leads.

I do not accept that there hasn't been a cover-up. No one appears able to refute the Hayman-Thatcher allegation, the MI5 file, the Whip book video.

The amount of coincidences; things being lost, shredded and burnt, the supposedly random sus unsus deaths...the weird reactions by the politicians.

Yes it's a conspiracy theory, yes there is some proof to justify it.
There are far too many loose ends this whole sorry saga stinks..
And I am sure that the majority of the population agrees with your "thoughts" but, one cannot insinuate without hard evidence and there is nothing that you or I can do, leave it to the proper agencies to do their job and stop going over the same ground, it gets us nowhere other than wasting screen time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
It seems to me not to be a point of whether any crimes were actually committed by a person/persons a great number of years ago. The stinky bit is the cover up. Why would a party/parties attempt to cover something up had there been nothing to cover up? If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it usually turns out to be shit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply