Cliff...

[steakbake]

Maybe shouldn't call him Cliff, but more Iceberg (as in tip of the...) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793

Even if half the allegations that are pretty freely available about the attendees at the Elm Guest House are true, the "significant" expansion of enquiries could reach into some very high profile people indeed.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Maybe shouldn't call him Cliff, but more Iceberg (as in tip of the...) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793

Even if half the allegations that are pretty freely available about the attendees at the Elm Guest House are true, the "significant" expansion of enquiries could reach into some very high profile people indeed.

Yet another allegation based on keeping other stories out of the news. It's always been suggested that Cliff is gay. It's also rumoured in Portugal, that he has a preference for younger men.

I wonder if they can go the whole hog on this one and charge him for "offences" committed when Homosexuality was still illegal.

[McIntosh]

Maybe shouldn't call him Cliff, but more Iceberg (as in tip of the...) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793

Even if half the allegations that are pretty freely available about the attendees at the Elm Guest House are true, the "significant" expansion of enquiries could reach into some very high profile people indeed.

This is hysteria worthy of Salem. If Cliff Richard is guilty of anything, beyond bad records where is the evidence. Another two complainants is not by any reasonable standard a 'significant' increase in complaints. It is interesting to note the use of police language, particularly after a daming report in to the handling of this inquiry. I personally knew one of the people accused of attending the Elm Guest House. He was getting a prostrate operation at the time he was supposed to be there. This was total bollocks in his case and I suspect in many others. Some of the complaints have zero creditability for a moment look at some of the individuals making these allegations. Do you ever wonder why burned people at the stake for witchcraft because people with grudges, mental health issues were believed.

[CropleyWasGod]

This is hysteria worthy of Salem. If Cliff Richard is guilty of anything, beyond bad records where is the evidence. Another two complainants is not by any reasonable standard a 'significant' increase in complaints. It is interesting to note the use of police language, particularly after a dating report in to the handling of this inquiry. I personally knew one of the people accused of attending the Elm Guest House. He was getting a prostrate operation at the time he was supposed to be there. This is total bollocks in his case and I suspect in many others. Some of the complaints have zero creditability for a moment look at some of the individuals making these allegations. Do you ever wonder why burned people at the stake for witchcraft because people with grudges, mental health issues were believed.

Who are they?

[McIntosh]

Who are they? principally Chris Fay but they also include an assorted bunch of anti-Semites and anti-gay bigots.

[CropleyWasGod]

principally Chris Fay but they also include an assorted bunch of anti-Semites and ant-gay bigots.

Why would they make the allegations, and why have they so little credibility?

[McIntosh]

Why would they make the allegations, and why have they so little credibility?
This is not my own words but may in part answer your question:

I shall refer to ‘North Wales’, ‘Elm House’ and ‘Duncroft’.Now, long before ‘North Wales’ became an investigation into abuse at a children’s home, it was an investigation into a local politician alleged to be involved in pornography and child abuse whose case had been ‘mysteriously dropped’ when the police ‘lost evidence’. The informant was not a ‘victim’ but Dennis Parry, Clywd Council leader. Dennis said that his informant was a ‘Tara Davidson’, (Richard Webster’s spelling page 189 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Bryn-Estyn-Making/dp/0951592246)) also not a victim, but a former MI5 agent (allegedly!) who told him a long tale involving freemasons, and organisations of the Catholic Church, da dum, da dum, and the all essential politicians……this informant, who also claims to be behind subsequent stories published in the now defunct Scalleywag magazine – was none other than Andrea Davison, who prefers to be known as ‘Tara’.Good God! Not THAT Andrea Davison (http://annaraccoon.com/2012/11/20/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-eight/). Yep, one and the same one – still claiming in her present Macur review statement (http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/macur-review-statement-from-andrea.html)(at 2.6) to have been at Duncroft. Well I’ll be darned! You see I have always been somewhat suspicious that there might have been some tenuous connection between Andrea ‘I was at Duncroft’ Davison, and dear Fiona.Fiona who, you say? Fiona of the forged letter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217352/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Fake-letter-cast-doubt-victims-claims-played-key-role-BBC-decision.html), Fiona of the Levitt report, Fiona who kicked off the rehashed Duncroft story by going to the police claiming to be a witness to abuse ‘which had never been investigated’. That Fiona. It was the forged letter that got to me – for Andrea Davison had just been sentenced (https://www.neighbourhoodalert.co.uk/da/53550/A_conman_has_been_jailed_for_defrauding_hundreds_o f_unsuspecting_investors_in_the_UK_Europe_and_the_ Middle_East_out_of_millions_of_pounds_.html) to jail – for forgery. Forging passports I thought initially – but then discovered that it was also extensively University degrees – and hadn’t I been told that Fiona’s house displayed several framed University degrees? Not many people have ‘several degrees’ – but perhaps they were genuine. Perhaps the forged letter had ‘been sent to her’ as she claimed, along with other people. Who could have forged it and why? Andrea and Fiona are about the same age, maybe they knew each other in a past life? Not Duncroft, but elsewhere? Maybe Fiona has been sadly misjudged, perhaps she really did innocently receive that forged letter through the post and decide that the least she could do was to work towards reopening the stale investigation into Jimmy Savile’s visits to Duncroft?I googled Davison and the details of her criminal past. It wasn’t just forgery, but forgery as part of a fortunately rare and specific crime – ‘Boiler room scams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_room_(business))‘.That’s when things got really spooky. For it seems that Andrea is not the only Davison to have been convicted of ‘Boiler Room Scams’. There was an Adrian Davison (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353249/Robin-Hood-conman-Adrian-Davison-fleeced-elderly-boiler-room-fraud-jailed.html) too. Fair enough, there are approximately 27,000 Davisons in the UK – and whilst Boiler Room scams may be reassuringly few and far between – the name wasn’t that unusual. Boiler Room scams probably didn’t ‘run in the family’. Not close family anyway.But hold up! Now that is a weird coincidence! There was a Christopher Fay sentenced at the same time as Adrian Davison for ‘ancillary offences’. Except that it wasn’t a ‘co-incidence’ – it was one and the same Chris Fay (http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/chris-fay/) who kicked off the investigation into the ‘Elm House’ child abuse saga….What is it with these ‘child protection activists’ – it’s never a victim directly – who claim to be aware of abuse in children’s homes and their predilection for forged documents and boiler room scams?Why do I feel uncomfortable that certainly two, if not three, of these people show indications of having common interests outside of their interest in reporting child abuse?Because we currently have three (more actually) major police investigations and Inquiries running, costing millions of pounds, and creating disruption and misery in hundreds of lives, that possibly have more in common than merely a story line including ‘abuse by ‘top Tories’.All the talk of ‘cells’ and ‘rings’, ‘disinformation agents’ and ‘political activists’ exerting their power to hide child abuse has had us all fully occupied looking outwards to see if there is any truth in the stories – perhaps we should be looking inwards at where these stories emanated from.

For the avoidance of doubt; a declaration. I entirely accept that there are children subjected to illegal and inappropriate sexual activity that is incredibly damaging to them. They have my total sympathy, and I am 100% behind criminal sanctions against the perpetrators.The law of averages dictates that some of those children will at some time have been resident in children’s homes. It equally dictates (and may well be weighted in the direction of) some of the perpetrators being attracted to vulnerable young individuals without much sense of self worth living in children’s homes. That makes a lot more sense to me, if that is your sexual intention, than taking a job in the BBC or putting yourself forward as a Conservative Party candidate in order to prey on such children. Ditto the old meme of ‘Scout Master’.

As far as Elm House is concerned, I have enough trouble keeping up with the Duncroft saga – but it seems to me that if you run a hotel in an era when homosexuality is illegal and direct your advertising towards the ‘gay market’ then you are not going to attract so much the established and stable male couples (who have a perfectly good home) as those in search of an occasional venue – and inevitably some of those will be accompanied by young and vulnerable ‘rent boys’. That behaviour is still illegal and deserves to be prosecuted – but it is a long way from the lurid tales, employing ‘spook language’ of ‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’. It is plain and simple individualised child abuse, without the celebrity ‘keywords’.What I am particularly talking about here is how, and from where, this particular ‘script’ of Tory Party involvement in ‘rings’ of paedophiles in disparate venues across the country, that dates right back to the beginnings of the Satanic Ritual Abuse fable, has emerged.

[--------]

Maybe shouldn't call him Cliff, but more Iceberg (as in tip of the...) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31630793

Even if half the allegations that are pretty freely available about the attendees at the Elm Guest House are true, the "significant" expansion of enquiries could reach into some very high profile people indeed.


What if the half that are untrue are the ones relating to Cliff Richard?

Witnesses lie, and allegations like these relating to alleged offences that took place years ago (allegedly) are very difficult for the accused to disprove. Mud sticks, and Richard is a high-profile individual who's had a lot of nasty innuendo directed against him over the years.

Ask Dave Jones, the former Southampton and Sheffield Wednesday manager.

[McIntosh]

What if the half that are untrue are the ones relating to Cliff Richard?

Witnesses lie, and allegations like these relating to alleged offences that took place years ago (allegedly) are very difficult for the accused to disprove. Mud sticks, and Richard is a high-profile individual who's had a lot of nasty innuendo directed against him over the years.

Ask Dave Jones, the former Southampton and Sheffield Wednesday manager.
:top marksWe are seeing lives ruined on the strength of innuendo. This whole debacle is a gross breach of article 8.1 of the ECHR, "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life". If he is not charged or charged and is cleared he is going to end up owning South Yorkshire Police. This police force is the most corrupt, inefficient and contemptible force in Britain. I can never forgive or forget their disgraceful behaviour at Hillsborough.

[Mikey09]

This is hysteria worthy of Salem. If Cliff Richard is guilty of anything, beyond bad records where is the evidence. Another two complainants is not by any reasonable standard a 'significant' increase in complaints. It is interesting to note the use of police language, particularly after a daming report in to the handling of this inquiry. I personally knew one of the people accused of attending the Elm Guest House. He was getting a prostrate operation at the time he was supposed to be there. This was total bollocks in his case and I suspect in many others. Some of the complaints have zero creditability for a moment look at some of the individuals making these allegations. Do you ever wonder why burned people at the stake for witchcraft because people with grudges, mental health issues were believed.


Am I reading this correctly?? Are you saying, and please forgive me if I've picked this up wrong, that people with mental health issues shouldn't be believed?!

[McIntosh]

[/B]


Am I reading this correctly?? Are you saying, and please forgive me if I've picked this up wrong, that people with mental health issues shouldn't be believed?!

I am not saying this, however they should be subject to the exact same critical examination, no less nor any more that any person would be subject too. Their statement cannot and should not be taken as gospel.

[Kato]

I am not saying this, however they should be subject to the exact same critical examination, no less nor any more that any person would be subject too. Their statement cannot and should not be taken as gospel.

So should the extract you posted in post 7 be taken as gospel?

[McIntosh]

So should the extract you posted in post 7 be taken as gospel?
It presents evidence throughout not innuendo. Fay et al., have all been convicted of fraud. The point made was that they lacked credibility because of this - is that gospel, well it has to be yes.

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is hysteria worthy of Salem. If Cliff Richard is guilty of anything, beyond bad records where is the evidence. Another two complainants is not by any reasonable standard a 'significant' increase in complaints. It is interesting to note the use of police language, particularly after a daming report in to the handling of this inquiry. I personally knew one of the people accused of attending the Elm Guest House. He was getting a prostrate operation at the time he was supposed to be there. This was total bollocks in his case and I suspect in many others. Some of the complaints have zero creditability for a moment look at some of the individuals making these allegations. Do you ever wonder why burned people at the stake for witchcraft because people with grudges, mental health issues were believed.

The ancient Greeks had a word for it - "pharmykos". The pharmykos was the equivalent of a scape goat, they were used to atone to the gods for evils that befell society. Blaming the pharmykos, of course, let the real perpetrators go unpunished.

It also served as an entertainment, a distraction from the awful realities of what was happening in society. So, who is to blame for our screwed economy?

The pharmykos of course. At the moment it's predatory paedophiles, in the past it was Jews, gays, drug users (always hovering about the top three), and teenage delinquents (see Teddy Boys, Mods & Rockers, Punk, Hippies).

As far as I am aware, at no point in history have bankers, generals and politicians stepped up to the plate to take their share of the burden.

Oh, and whilst we pay attention to all of this moral depravity (although nobody seemed too bothered at the time), the forces of war are mobilising to attack another pharmykos - Vladamir (Mad Dog) Putin.

I totally agree with what you say about people with mental health issues. It would be foolish to take what they say at face value, and it would be wise to make sure their stories are credible and capable of corroboration. Of course, it is no coincedence that sexual abuse is a know precipator of mental illness.

It is also a very convenient way for people in power to remove credible witnesses from the equation.

[McIntosh]

The ancient Greeks had a word for it - "pharmykos". The pharmykos was the equivalent of a scape goat, they were used to atone to the gods for evils that befell society. Blaming the pharmykos, of course, let the real perpetrators go unpunished.

It also served as an entertainment, a distraction from the awful realities of what was happening in society. So, who is to blame for our screwed economy?

The pharmykos of course. At the moment it's predatory paedophiles, in the past it was Jews, gays, drug users (always hovering about the top three), and teenage delinquents (see Teddy Boys, Mods & Rockers, Punk, Hippies).

As far as I am aware, at no point in history have bankers, generals and politicians stepped up to the plate to take their share of the burden.

Oh, and whilst we pay attention to all of this moral depravity (although nobody seemed too bothered at the time), the forces of war are mobilising to attack another pharmykos - Vladamir (Mad Dog) Putin.

I totally agree with what you say about people with mental health issues. It would be foolish to take what they say at face value, and it would be wise to make sure their stories are credible and capable of corroboration. Of course, it is no coincedence that sexual abuse is a know precipator of mental illness.

It is also a very convenient way for people in power to remove credible witnesses from the equation.

A great post

[Phil D. Rolls]

A great post

Thanks, I wish it was my own idea though. I'm referring to the thoughts of Thomas Szasz, the great anti-psychiatrist. He also said that as the myth progresses, society moves from the question of whether the pharmykos did anything wrong, and the only question that can be asked is "what is to be done".

Hence it became impossible to speak in defence of anyone at Salem etc. He used the word pharmykos, because it is the root of pharmacy - we all know how drugs are regarded as an unquestionable panacea - depending on who is dispensing them.

[lord bunberry]

I am not saying this, however they should be subject to the exact same critical examination, no less nor any more that any person would be subject too. Their statement cannot and should not be taken as gospel.
I'm not really sure that explains your comment to be honest. If their statement should be treated the same as any other persons why do you feel the need to single theirs out. Apologies if I'm missing something.

[McIntosh]

I'm not really sure that explains your comment to be honest. If their statement should be treated the same as any other persons why do you feel the need to single theirs out. Apologies if I'm missing something.

That's cool. There is a case in point. Steve Messham, sadly has long standing mental health issues, he accused Lord McAlpine and his statement was taken as fact without any form of reasonable examination. This failure to protect him resulted in damaging Lord McAlpine's reputation and him. If Mr Messham vulnerable mental state had been factored in then all parties would have been less damaged. Mr Messham apologised but the damage was done - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-mcalpine-did-not-abuse-me-1427866

[--------]

That's cool. There is a case in point. Steve Messham, sadly has long standing mental health issues, he accused Lord McAlpine and his statement was taken as fact without any form of reasonable examination. This failure to protect him resulted in damaging Lord McAlpine's reputation and him. If Mr Messham vulnerable mental state had been factored in then all parties would have been less damaged. Mr Messham apologised but the damage was done - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-mcalpine-did-not-abuse-me-1427866

It appears from the second sentence of the report that the police may have shown him ONE photograph (of Lord McAlpine) and asked him "Is this the man?" rather than giving him a selection of photos and asking him if he recognised any of them as the man who abused him.

If so, then it's not just about Steve Messham's metal state, it's about a police investigation that was already fixed on Lord McAlpine.

They weren't asking, "Whodunnit?" - they were convinced that Lord McAlpine was their man and were just stitching up the loose ends in an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. To convict him regardless?

You don't have to have mental issues to be pressured to make a false ID by the police.

[degenerated]

That's cool. There is a case in point. Steve Messham, sadly has long standing mental health issues, he accused Lord McAlpine and his statement was taken as fact without any form of reasonable examination. This failure to protect him resulted in damaging Lord McAlpine's reputation and him. If Mr Messham vulnerable mental state had been factored in then all parties would have been less damaged. Mr Messham apologised but the damage was done - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-mcalpine-did-not-abuse-me-1427866

McAlpine's reputation was tarnished long before that, go back to the early 90's and Scallywag ran some pretty damning press about him. Curiosly he chose not to sue in that instance.

http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html#!/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html

[McIntosh]

McAlpine's reputation was tarnished long before that, go back to the early 90's and Scallywag ran some pretty damning press about him. Curiosly he chose not to sue in that instance.

http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html#!/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html

Yes they did and he did not sue an organisation which was technically bankrupt. He did when these false and malicious accusations were repeated and more importantly for him - he won an apology, a full retraction and compensation.

[McIntosh]

It appears from the second sentence of the report that the police may have shown him ONE photograph (of Lord McAlpine) and asked him "Is this the man?" rather than giving him a selection of photos and asking him if he recognised any of them as the man who abused him.

If so, then it's not just about Steve Messham's metal state, it's about a police investigation that was already fixed on Lord McAlpine.

They weren't asking, "Whodunnit?" - they were convinced that Lord McAlpine was their man and were just stitching up the loose ends in an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. To convict him regardless?

You don't have to have mental issues to be pressured to make a false ID by the police.

You make a lot of very good points, however the unfortunate Mr Messham had a long standing history of mental illness and scurrilous accusations and it may well be the case he was led To this by a now discredited police force. Sadly, Mr Messham does have issues:

Messham physically attacked a lawyer at the Waterhouse public inquiry into sexual abuse in North Wales. He screamed obscenities at the barrister who was questioning him, leapt out of the witness box, and threw punches at him.


Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service.


Messham’s lawyer concedes that he was 'disturbed’ and that he may have made up some of his claims.


In 2004, Angus Stickler, the reporter behind this month’s Newsnight story, was publicly criticised for interviewing Messham on Radio 4 without mentioning he was facing charges of defrauding a charity he ran for alleged abuse victims.


Newsnight’s key claim that Messham was prevented from naming Lord McAlpine and other supposed paedophiles at the Waterhouse inquiry was clearly untrue. Transcripts show Messham could say whatever he liked about anyone he chose – and that he did so with abandon over his two weeks of testimony, during which time he did allege that a man referred to only as ‘McAlpine’ had abused him.

[Kato]

It presents evidence throughout not innuendo. .

No it doesn't.


Fay et al., have all been convicted of fraud. The point made was that they lacked credibility because of this - is that gospel, well it has to be yes.

They may well lack credibility. That doesn't mean they should be treated as the benchmark if others give similar evidence. In the 1990's Belgian case similar accusations of being "loonies" were thrown at witnesses when accusations were made about authority figures and attempts were made to make it look like individual child abuse when there was evidence to the contrary.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/16/news/16iht-brussels.2.t.html?pagewanted=1

Picking out and holding up as an example the "loonies" these stories attract isn't an unusual defence tactic, and even if they are people with "mental health issues" they can still be telling the truth.

That copy and paste you put up says.



1 For the avoidance of doubt; a declaration. I entirely accept that there are children subjected to illegal and inappropriate sexual activity that is incredibly damaging to them. They have my total sympathy, and I am 100% behind criminal sanctions against the perpetrators.The law of averages dictates that some of those children will at some time have been resident in children’s homes. It equally dictates (and may well be weighted in the direction of) some of the perpetrators being attracted to vulnerable young individuals without much sense of self worth living in children’s homes. That makes a lot more sense to me, if that is your sexual intention, than taking a job in the BBC or putting yourself forward as a Conservative Party candidate in order to prey on such children. Ditto the old meme of ‘Scout Master’.

2 As far as Elm House is concerned, I have enough trouble keeping up with the Duncroft saga – but it seems to me that if you run a hotel in an era when homosexuality is illegal and direct your advertising towards the ‘gay market’ then you are not going to attract so much the established and stable male couples (who have a perfectly good home) as those in search of an occasional venue – and inevitably some of those will be accompanied by young and vulnerable ‘rent boys’. That behaviour is still illegal and deserves to be prosecuted – but it is a long way from the lurid tales, employing ‘spook language’ of ‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’. It is plain and simple individualised child abuse, without the celebrity ‘keywords’.What I am particularly talking about here is how, and from where, this particular ‘script’ of Tory Party involvement in ‘rings’ of paedophiles in disparate venues across the country, that dates right back to the beginnings of the Satanic Ritual Abuse fable, has emerged.

None of that is evidence, it's direction. The first part, in a long winded manner, infers that it doesn't "make sense" that BBC employees or a "Conservative Party candidate" would take those employment routes if they had a predilection towards abusing children. Why not? ...and also why does the author go out of his way to direct people toward that idea?

From the NY Times link above....


The conventional wisdom is that the witnesses were either deranged or were recounting fantasies. It was, in the jargon of psychiatrists, a bad case of false-memory syndrome.

But a new book by three crime reporters, "The X-Files: What Belgium Was Not Supposed to Know About the Dutroux Affair," published in French and Dutch in November, asserts that the X-witnesses were more credible than the conventional wisdom suggests.

The second section infers that "plain and simple individualised child abuse" is the norm and that maybe "‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’" is a long way from that norm so perhaps should be treated as fantasy. It's known that peadophiles do sometimes operate in rings and cells and do traffick victims amongst their peers - those things are not too hard to believe at all but the author of the extract wants to direct people's attention away from that fact.

....again from that link above.

Mr. De Coninck said that in researching the book, he and his fellow authors had become convinced that officials wanted to prove that Mr. Dutroux acted alone rather than as part of a conspiracy.

[McIntosh]

No it doesn't.



They may well lack credibility. That doesn't mean they should be treated as the benchmark if others give similar evidence. In the 1990's Belgian case similar accusations of being "loonies" were thrown at witnesses when accusations were made about authority figures and attempts were made to make it look like individual child abuse when there was evidence to the contrary.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/16/news/16iht-brussels.2.t.html?pagewanted=1

Picking out and holding up as an example the "loonies" these stories attract isn't an unusual defence tactic, and even if they are people with "mental health issues" they can still be telling the truth.

That copy and paste you put up says.



1 For the avoidance of doubt; a declaration. I entirely accept that there are children subjected to illegal and inappropriate sexual activity that is incredibly damaging to them. They have my total sympathy, and I am 100% behind criminal sanctions against the perpetrators.The law of averages dictates that some of those children will at some time have been resident in children’s homes. It equally dictates (and may well be weighted in the direction of) some of the perpetrators being attracted to vulnerable young individuals without much sense of self worth living in children’s homes. That makes a lot more sense to me, if that is your sexual intention, than taking a job in the BBC or putting yourself forward as a Conservative Party candidate in order to prey on such children. Ditto the old meme of ‘Scout Master’.

2 As far as Elm House is concerned, I have enough trouble keeping up with the Duncroft saga – but it seems to me that if you run a hotel in an era when homosexuality is illegal and direct your advertising towards the ‘gay market’ then you are not going to attract so much the established and stable male couples (who have a perfectly good home) as those in search of an occasional venue – and inevitably some of those will be accompanied by young and vulnerable ‘rent boys’. That behaviour is still illegal and deserves to be prosecuted – but it is a long way from the lurid tales, employing ‘spook language’ of ‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’. It is plain and simple individualised child abuse, without the celebrity ‘keywords’.What I am particularly talking about here is how, and from where, this particular ‘script’ of Tory Party involvement in ‘rings’ of paedophiles in disparate venues across the country, that dates right back to the beginnings of the Satanic Ritual Abuse fable, has emerged.

None of that is evidence, it's direction. The first part, in a long winded manner, infers that it doesn't "make sense" that BBC employees or a "Conservative Party candidate" would take those employment routes if they had a predilection towards abusing children. Why not? ...and also why does the author go out of his way to direct people toward that idea?

From the NY Times link above....


The conventional wisdom is that the witnesses were either deranged or were recounting fantasies. It was, in the jargon of psychiatrists, a bad case of false-memory syndrome.

But a new book by three crime reporters, "The X-Files: What Belgium Was Not Supposed to Know About the Dutroux Affair," published in French and Dutch in November, asserts that the X-witnesses were more credible than the conventional wisdom suggests.

The second section infers that "plain and simple individualised child abuse" is the norm and that maybe "‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’" is a long way from that norm so perhaps should be treated as fantasy. It's known that peadophiles do sometimes operate in rings and cells and do traffick victims amongst their peers - those things are not too hard to believe at all but the author of the extract wants to direct people's attention away from that fact.

....again from that link above.

Mr. De Coninck said that in researching the book, he and his fellow authors had become convinced that officials wanted to prove that Mr. Dutroux acted alone rather than as part of a conspiracy.

We are going to have to disagree, the main complainants in relation to the Elm Guest house have very little credibility. What is more pertinent is that Sir Peter Bottomley successfully sued The Mail on Sunday for liable about the accusations made against him in relation the Elm Guest House. This is a fact.

These complainants are lying on the issue of Ron Brown. On some of the dates that they stated Ron Brown was visiting the Guest House he was not even in the country, on a whole set of other dates he was at home at 302 Ferry Road. These malicious people are a shower of liars. It is worth repeating this. They are also stupid do they not realise that people who worked for MP keep their own independent diaries or I am part of conspiracy. There is something more simple than false memory syndrome it is called lying and this is what Chris Fay et al., are. It is worth remembering what they were convicted for in a court of law.

[Kato]

We are going to have to disagree, the main complainants in relation to the Elm Guest house have very little credibility. What is more pertinent is that Sir Peter Bottomley successfully sued The Mail on Sunday for liable about the accusations made against him in relation the Elm Guest House. This is a fact.

These complainants are lying on the issue of Ron Brown. On some of the dates that they stated Ron Brown was visiting the Guest House he was not even in the country, on a whole set of other dates he was at home at 302 Ferry Road. These malicious people are a shower of liars. It is worth repeating this. They are also stupid do they not realise that people who worked for MP keep their own independent diaries or I am part of conspiracy. There is something more simple than false memory syndrome it is called lying and this is what Chris Fay et al., are. It is worth remembering what they were convicted for in a court of law.

No I do agree, if those complainants are the same people making accusations against Cliff Richard then their complaints should be investigated with a huge degree of caution but you fail to grasp the general points I made.

Why is the evidence of a few "loonies" brought up as a bench-mark for all evidence and why are those complainants brought up in a general manner when other complaints are being investigated? Why does your cut-and-paste post direct people away from the idea that MP's or media people are unlikely candidates for paedophile inclinations? Why are the ideas of "rings" "cells: and "trafficking" portrayed as a sort of fantasy compared to "individual child abuse" when paedophiles are known to operate in both ways?

The Belgian experience has a direct symmetry and now there is evidence of mis-direction and the covering up of information with that case.

I'm lucky not have been abused as a child although in later years I discovered I had a very close shave (a neighbour was convicted as a paedophile rapist and had preyed on several children in the street). If I had been your darn tooting I would have a grudge. If I had any underlying mental problems, again lucky there, I'm sure there would be a good chance they could have become full blown n the wake of such a crime.

Yet you are suggesting witnesses with a grudge or "mental health issues" shouldn't be taken seriously.

Are the people making the new complaints against Cliff Richard the same people you are mentioning?

[McIntosh]

No I do agree, if those complainants are the same people making accusations against Cliff Richard then their complaints should be investigated with a huge degree of caution but you fail to grasp the general points I made.

Why is the evidence of a few "loonies" brought up as a bench-mark for all evidence and why are those complainants brought up in a general manner when other complaints are being investigated? Why does your cut-and-paste post direct people away from the idea that MP's or media people are unlikely candidates for paedophile inclinations? Why are the ideas of "rings" "cells: and "trafficking" portrayed as a sort of fantasy compared to "individual child abuse" when paedophiles are known to operate in both ways?

The Belgian experience has a direct symmetry and now there is evidence of mis-direction and the covering up of information with that case.

I'm lucky not have been abused as a child although in later years I discovered I had a very close shave (a neighbour was convicted as a paedophile rapist and had preyed on several children in the street). If I had been your darn tooting I would have a grudge. If I had any underlying mental problems, again lucky there, I'm sure there would be a good chance they could have become full blown n the wake of such a crime.

Yet you are suggesting witnesses with a grudge or "mental health issues" shouldn't be taken seriously.

Are the people making the new complaints against Cliff Richard the same people you are mentioning?

No one is denying that sexual abuse takes place, no one is denying that abusers should be prosecuted. In fact the state over many years has prosecuted abusers with vigour. However, there is no denying that the equation of wealth and priveledge has always been present.

This may not come as a shock but Parliament in the 1980s was a very different place, it reflected Britain in one critical aspect - it had a massive drinking culture. There were a lot of MPs who I came across that were alcoholics, there were a lot of them who were homosexual. I cannot call them gay as they would not consider themselves as such. I can remember one prominent MP who became a minister and a chairman of a premier league football club kissing his two boyfriends who were called 'dolly' and 'brian'. There was a lot of promiscuous behaviour and it was on tap. I asked Peter Tatchell if MPs have been involved in paedophile activity apart from two notable cases he never heard of it but he did differentiate between pedarsty and paedophilia - one was common the other very rare. So do I believe if there was a ring, it must be no. If there was a ring it was not a paedophile ring.

As for Cliff, I can only say the following, I have never met him but I was once at a dinner party were I saw his picture on the mantelpiece. My host who was gay became very protective, he said nothing negative but did say when Cliff was dead a truth would come out. I have always believed That Cliff was in the closet and it was this that left him vulnerable to this type of allegation and blackmail

[Kato]

No one is denying that sexual abuse takes place, no one is denying that abusers should be prosecuted. In fact the state over many years has prosecuted abusers with vigour. However, there is no denying that the equation of wealth and priveledge has always been present.

This may not come as a shock but Parliament in the 1980s was a very different place, it reflected Britain in one critical aspect - it had a massive drinking culture. There were a lot of MPs who I came across that were alcoholics, there were a lot of them who were homosexual. I cannot call them gay as they would not consider themselves as such. I can remember one prominent MP who became a minister and a chairman of a premier league football club kissing his two boyfriends who were called 'dolly' and 'brian'. There was a lot of promiscuous behaviour and it was on tap. I asked Peter Tatchell if MPs have been involved in paedophile activity apart from two notable cases he never heard of it but he did differentiate between pedarsty and paedophilia - one was common the other very rare. So do I believe if there was a ring, it must be no. If there was a ring it was not a paedophile ring.

From what I hear the Westminster bars still do very good business. I would also reckon that tastes reflect the times as they did in 80's and coca would be quite popular of an evening. Human appetites stay pretty much stable.

Peter Tatchell has his opinions, based on his knowledge and hearsay, and others have theirs.

While we're quoting contacts I have two friends who both worked in the GLC in the 80's and pretty well placed. One worked daily with K Livingstone and the other had regular contact with him. Both have their opinion based on their knowledge and hearsay. After "rent boy revelations" connected to K Livingstone were printed in The Sun, accusations against KL being dropped as his passport showed he was out of the country on the given dates, he sought to protect himself with "information" that could be powerful i.e. dirt on people. What I've heard, years ago and some of which now is gaining context over the last few years, goes against Tatchell.


So personally I don't know what to believe as all I've heard is other people's opinion and hearsay. A true sceptic wouldn't form an opinion based in that until some evidence back it up.

Anyway you failed, again, to address the point. It's not whether there was a ring or not in this case. Your, uncredited, cut-and-paste thing above says "employing ‘spook language’ of ‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’. It is plain and simple individualised child abuse, without the celebrity ‘keywords" - that seems to say that the idea of rings is fanciful "spook language" whereas it's a known fact that this is exactly how some sickos operate and they are among the most practiced liars in the world and very clever at covering up and keeping schtum. I don't see why the writer should back up evidence with that particular hype . The further point being why should we believe BBC guys or MP's aren't likely to have those tastes, that's hype upon hype.


As for Cliff, I can only say the following, I have never met him but I was once at a dinner party were I saw his picture on the mantelpiece. My host who was gay became very protective, he said nothing negative but did say when Cliff was dead a truth would come out. I have always believed That Cliff was in the closet and it was this that left him vulnerable to this type of allegation and blackmail

OK I'll share my goss. I've worked, in and out, of parts of the music business for quite a few years. I have a close relative who does record label work and is in charge of events throughout the year, most of the work I've done n recent times has been helping them out. I've been in many social situations with various people who work in that business, which like Westminster has hugely horrible "dark-side", and have heard lot's scurrilous stories and some pretty sad ones.

The "classic" story for CR's non-girlfriend status has been "he's asexual because of a medical condition". The other being, a story which does the rounds less, "in the closet". I've never once heard anything to do with the current stuff. Saying that, party rumours aren't evidence.

That wasn't the point though, it was - are the new allegations connected with the "fraud/liar/" people from that post?

[McIntosh]

From what I hear the Westminster bars still do very good business. I would also reckon that tastes reflect the times as they did in 80's and coca would be quite popular of an evening. Human appetites stay pretty much stable.

Peter Tatchell has his opinions, based on his knowledge and hearsay, and others have theirs.

While we're quoting contacts I have two friends who both worked in the GLC in the 80's and pretty well placed. One worked daily with K Livingstone and the other had regular contact with him. Both have their opinion based on their knowledge and hearsay. After "rent boy revelations" connected to K Livingstone were printed in The Sun, accusations against KL being dropped as his passport showed he was out of the country on the given dates, he sought to protect himself with "information" that could be powerful i.e. dirt on people. What I've heard, years ago and some of which now is gaining context over the last few years, goes against Tatchell.


So personally I don't know what to believe as all I've heard is other people's opinion and hearsay. A true sceptic wouldn't form an opinion based in that until some evidence back it up.

Anyway you failed, again, to address the point. It's not whether there was a ring or not in this case. Your, uncredited, cut-and-paste thing above says "employing ‘spook language’ of ‘trafficking’, ‘cells’, and organised ‘rings’. It is plain and simple individualised child abuse, without the celebrity ‘keywords" - that seems to say that the idea of rings is fanciful "spook language" whereas it's a known fact that this is exactly how some sickos operate and they are among the most practiced liars in the world and very clever at covering up and keeping schtum. I don't see why the writer should back up evidence with that particular hype . The further point being why should we believe BBC guys or MP's aren't likely to have those tastes, that's hype upon hype.



OK I'll share my goss. I've worked, in and out, of parts of the music business for quite a few years. I have a close relative who does record label work and is in charge of events throughout the year, most of the work I've done n recent times has been helping them out. I've been in many social situations with various people who work in that business, which like Westminster has hugely horrible "dark-side", and have heard lot's scurrilous stories and some pretty sad ones.

The "classic" story for CR's non-girlfriend status has been "he's asexual because of a medical condition". The other being, a story which does the rounds less, "in the closet". I've never once heard anything to do with the current stuff. Saying that, party rumours aren't evidence.

That wasn't the point though, it was - are the new allegations connected with the "fraud/liar/" people from that post?

I am sure your contacts are very good but my eyes have seen and maybe there is a difference. As for Peter's insight there no one better informed in the LGBT scene than him. I was his Research Director at one time. I have addressed the point about rings several times - see post number 24. However, I may not have made that clear but for clarity the accusation is that Cliff Richards visited the Elm Guest House, the people that are accusing him are the same people that accused Peter Bottomley and Ron Brown of being involved in pedophilia. These people are liars - zero credibility. They have already been exposed as this but still they still peddle their lies.

I feel for Cliff Richards for a lot of reasons. I was in York of the raid at the time and I decided to complain to Thames Valley police, the force that executed the raid. They did not have my number but I got a return call from the only male detective who examined Richard's house when he returned from the raid!!!! I actually felt for the officer, it was he that said to me that this was leaked by the MET to the BBC. It was I that gave this information to The Guardian and the Home Affairs select committee. You may ask why, well I believe the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and a fundamental right to privacy. Richard's has not been charged with anything but yet has seen his reputation trashed. I hope this clears up this matter.

It is very interesting reading your own insight. Tomorrow evening my wife and I are guests at a private function at Soho House. I am sure we will probably know a lot of people there - it a small world.

[Kato]

I have addressed the point about rings several times - see post number 24.

No you didn't, you never addressed any point I put re the last part of the cut-and-paste post.

[McIntosh]

No you didn't, you never addressed any point I put re the last part of the cut-and-paste post. Kato I am going to be extremely pedantic but when you look at post seven this I what I say before the cut and paste, "This is not my own words but may in part answer your question". The key words here are "in part" and I have more to the point addressed the substantive issue in my previous post.

[Kato]

Kato I am going to be extremely pedantic but when you look at post seven this I what I say before the cut and paste, "This is not my own words but may in part answer your question". The key words here are "in part" and I have more to the point addressed the substantive issue in my previous post.

You have and I realise it's not your piece.

It very much gilds the lily at the end, directign people away from the idea that a BBC/Westminster person would choose those careers if they were nonces and inferring that the idea of "rings" is fanciful.

It over eggs it so much that I have to doubt the part that is evidence.

[McIntosh]

You have and I realise it's not your piece.

It very much gilds the lily at the end, directign people away from the idea that a BBC/Westminster person would choose those careers if they were nonces and inferring that the idea of "rings" is fanciful.

It over eggs it so much that I have to doubt the part that is evidence.

There is an easy thing to do and that is check the criminal convictions for fraud of the complainants. They come up very easily on the Internet. This is why those alleged to have been involved in these type of activities in the discussed complaints have never been arrested, charged or brought to Court. A competent Qc would not need to guild a lily in exposing these complainants for the criminal miscreants which they patent are.

[Kato]

There is an easy thing to do and that is check the criminal convictions for fraud of the complainants. They come up very easily on the Internet. This is why those alleged to have been involved in these type of activities in the discussed complaints have never been arrested, charged or brought to Court. A competent Qc would not need to guild a lily in exposing these complainants for the criminal miscreants which they patent are.

Was the piece written by a competent QC, because the lily has been well and truly gilded.

I've no doubt teh criminal convictions exist.

[steakbake]

Personally, I think that certain people are protected and it's naive to think it doesn't happen.

I was involved in a situation a few years ago (nothing to do with this kind of criminal activity, thankfully I hasten to add) where I was a defence witness to what I can only describe as a complete abuse of someone's power and the cops were largely complicit in it.

Thankfully, the judge in the case threw it out and questioned why it had even got to that stage, but only after it had stretched out for over 18 months, been rescheduled 3 times because of the politician in question's 'busy schedule' and that the evidence as at best, overcooked.

One small example: a letter, written by the defendant to the politician in question, was described by L&B Police as a "suspect package" that had been "left" at the Parliament which caused this politician "fear and alarm". The defence solicitor was perfectly happy to read the letter out in court without fear or alarm that it would incriminate his client and explained that as his client worked close to the Parliament, he dropped it in by hand.

If that's the kind of circling of the wagons you see for a relatively minor situation concerning a relatively well known but very local career politician, I have absolutely no doubt that there's all sorts of efforts being made, strings being pulled and blackening of people's characters going on to protect figures in the heart of the establishment.

[Kato]

If that's the kind of circling of the wagons you see for a relatively minor situation concerning a relatively well known but very local career politician, I have absolutely no doubt that there's all sorts of efforts being made, strings being pulled and blackening of people's characters going on to protect figures in the heart of the establishment.

Exactly.

[McIntosh]

Personally, I think that certain people are protected and it's naive to think it doesn't happen.

I was involved in a situation a few years ago (nothing to do with this kind of criminal activity, thankfully I hasten to add) where I was a defence witness to what I can only describe as a complete abuse of someone's power and the cops were largely complicit in it.

Thankfully, the judge in the case threw it out and questioned why it had even got to that stage, but only after it had stretched out for over 18 months, been rescheduled 3 times because of the politician in question's 'busy schedule' and that the evidence as at best, overcooked.

One small example: a letter, written by the defendant to the politician in question, was described by L&B Police as a "suspect package" that had been "left" at the Parliament which caused this politician "fear and alarm". The defence solicitor was perfectly happy to read the letter out in court without fear or alarm that it would incriminate his client and explained that as his client worked close to the Parliament, he dropped it in by hand.

If that's the kind of circling of the wagons you see for a relatively minor situation concerning a relatively well known but very local career politician, I have absolutely no doubt that there's all sorts of efforts being made, strings being pulled and blackening of people's characters going on to protect figures in the heart of the establishment.

I sympathise greatly I was involved in something very similar. I am not staggered anymore by the appalling behaviour of the police in these situations. I have absolutely no doubt that some people manipulate the system to their advantage. However, I am always concerned when the innocent are swept up in a campaign of national hand wringing. Innocent till proven guilty is still the best starting position for any society.

[Kato]

Innocent till proven guilty is still the best starting position for any society.


Agreed.