Support NeoGAF

[Chinner]

Again, you can only care about one thing? It's either accept your summary entirely, or you don't care about paedophilia?

Fuck this.

you will be missed like a fart in the wind

 

[Yen]

Deckard, your posts on this have been excellent, very informative.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Deckard, your posts on this have been excellent, very informative.

Thanks, I'm doing the best I can.

And not taking things at face value but trying to find the links and facts that support all the bits and tie it together to get the complete picture. Until I have those bits and they support each other I won't summarise anything.

No one wants a complete picture more than me, that's why I've been doing all this. That's the best way the victims have of finally getting justice decades later, and the public being sufficiently outraged enough to demand it. And if people think I'm trying to mislead or play politics with CHILD ABUSE I find it very insulting.

That's what people should be asking those in power and those who were doing it. And what we should all be talking about is post #1073 and its implications.

 

[East Lake]

Again, you can only care about one thing? It's either accept your summary entirely, or you don't care about paedophilia?

Fuck this.

Stop the presses folks, we've got to get to the bottom of this straw man!

I'm eagerly awaiting your take on the coverups or psychological analysis of sexually abused witnesses under heavy media scrutiny.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I like how leaving out a summary of Messham because I can't yet do it confidently is suddenly the worst crime in the world, whereas everything that's been left out of the media's coverage is obviously no big deal and not worth complaining about.

I thought it was worth complaining about and like I was taught if you want something done, do it yourself. I can't please all of the people all of the time, but I'm personally happy with what I have done do far.

His retraction and apology can't just be looked at in the context of the last week, it has to be looked at from the very beginning.

 

[JonnyBrad]

His retraction and apology can't just be looked at in the context of the last week, it has to be looked at from the very beginning.

I think you should at least mention it. Even if you just say that there are differing opinions as to why it happened. The fact is he has exonerated him and McAlpine was not the one who abused him, closeness to what happened or not.

 

[muntersaur]

I like how leaving out a summary of Messham because I can't yet do it confidently is suddenly the worst crime in the world, whereas everything that's been left out of the media's coverage is obviously no big deal and not worth complaining about.

Nobody has said or implied that. They simply just think it is an important part of the story which deserves mentioning.

As had been said previously, you are making a false dichotomy by saying that those who think it is an important part of the story do not care about paedophilia...

 

[DECK'ARD]

I think you should at least mention it. Even if you just say that there are differing opinions as to why it happened. The fact is he has exonerated him and McAlpine was not the one who abused him, closeness to what happened or not.

I will think of something to add if only to stop things being derailed just after we confirm a paedophile ring was operating for 20 years in Bristol as well, and perpetrators from that and now South Wales as well went on to do the same in Amsterdam! It's not just the UK now, it's just got a LOT bigger.

But it won't be what you want because of the questions of who he identified the first time and how he was led to that identification. It's very complicated, and impacts the accusation this time round and therefore the retraction. Until it's clear from beginning to end I won't summarise it. I won't undermine the credibility of victims of child abuse when there are major questions about it all.

I can't believe we are still talking about this after post #1073. Doesn't anyone at all have an opinion on it? Murder is involved, as with the arson attack in Brighton. Not to mention all those suicides and unexplained deaths.

 

[CyclopsRock]

What are you expecting people to say? "God, I bloody hate paedos, me." ?

Is there a victim to go along with the young man that Terry (who has "a long history of sexually abusing boys") saw shot?

 

[JonnyBrad]

I really don't see what's hard about adding "Messham subsequently retracted the claims, due to a case of mistaken identity" that's a cold hard fact.

You have already added in everything about his cousin Jimmy who is the suspected abuser.

I think this whole situation is disgusting, but if you're trying to do a thorough summary you can't really leave that out.

 

[East Lake]

There's nothing hard about it but maybe one of you guys should explain how critical the retraction is. I heard about it and the BBC scandal on evening radio in the US. You'd probably have to be living in a bomb shelter to have read the summary and not known of it. Systemic child abuse has been swept under the rug in past years, and now the BBC and mistaken identity narrative have effectively replaced the child abuse stories. What's more concerning, that Messham was mistaken and is underrepresented in an online forum summary or that potential criminals aren't investigated properly? We've killed a page or so on details that were in in the headlines for days. Mission accomplished.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I was watching 8 out of 10 cats and Jon Richardson said: "At least we know why Pudsey the bear wears that eye patch. So he can't see half of what's going on in the BBC."

 

[DECK'ARD]

Come back and still no proper discussion of post #1073?

I'm not sure what psychological effect we are into now. People were speculating about connections to other countries, now you have proof of it and no one wants to talk about it?

Right, I'll be the one to go and dig up more on Bristol, South Wales and Amsterdam which will be included in the next summary then. And Copenhagen which was mentioned in 1994. And all the names concerned. And then look for links between the new information and what we already know. You have the world's best invention for discovery of information at your disposal, start using it.

It's what got us to this point when the conventional media had failed. And that's what the summaries are for. This is rather a big problem, a rather extensive summary to keep producing, and more hands make light work.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Alternatively watch XF later or something and wait until someone else has done all the work for you.

Personally I want to know now, I wanted to know all these things years ago.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not sure what psychological effect we are into now. People were speculating about connections to other countries, now you have proof of it and no one wants to talk about it?

You have evidence, you do not have proof. Evidence is information that can help lead to proof, which is the establishment of a truth. The fact you consider the anonymous recounting by a man with "a long history of sexually abusing boys" as "proof", yet the fact that the key witness implicating Lord McAlpine has retracted his accusation is not worthy of mention in a "complete summary of how you get from Jimmy Savile to Lord McAlpine" is hugely telling.

And now you're lambasting people for not being sufficiently outraged, and suggesting it must be a "psychological effect".

Absolutely baffling.

(PS before anyone goes mental, I'm not saying that Terry's recollection is wrong or false, merely that it isn't proof, and therefore that DECK'ARD's judgement for what constitutes "proof" is wildly out of whack).

 

[DECK'ARD]

You have evidence, you do not have proof. Evidence is information that can help lead to proof, which is the establishment of a truth. The fact you consider the anonymous recounting by a man with "a long history of sexually abusing boys" as "proof", yet the fact that the key witness implicating Lord McAlpine has retracted his accusation is not worthy of mention in a "complete summary of how you get from Jimmy Savile to Lord McAlpine" is hugely telling.

And now you're lambasting people for not being sufficiently outraged, and suggesting it must be a "psychological effect".

Absolutely baffling.

(PS before anyone goes mental, I'm not saying that Terry's recollection is wrong or false, merely that it isn't proof, and therefore that DECK'ARD's judgement for what constitutes "proof" is wildly out of whack).

AMAZING what bit you chose to reply to.

Go and start looking for yourself and posting it here before you start complaining about someone else giving a summary on an Internet forum.

 

[Psychotext]

Come back and still no proper discussion of post #1073?

To be honest I'm a little put off posting until this whole CyclopsRock moment has blown over. That aside from this being all a lot to take in.

 

[DECK'ARD]

To be honest I'm a little put off posting until this whole CyclopsRock moment has blown over. That aside from this being all a lot to take in.

I can understand that because it's driving me up the wall and now I'm under attack constantly.

What happens to the victims when they come forward?

 

[CyclopsRock]

AMAZING what bit you chose to reply to.

Go and start looking for yourself and posting it here before you start complaining about someone else giving a summary on an Internet forum.

You do know that I asked a question about the exact article you're talking about in #1087 and you roundly ignored it, right?

So many straw men.

 

[DECK'ARD]

You do know that I asked a question about the exact article you're talking about in #1087 and you roundly ignored it, right?

So many straw men.

Wat.

You do realise that requires sourcing more information which you could quite easily do yourself? And which I have to do first before answering it.

 

[Chinner]

To be honest I'm a little put off posting until this whole CyclopsRock moment has blown over. That aside from this being all a lot to take in.

same. im just waiting until he stops attention seeking. hes basically a full on internet nerd trying to prove everyone hes right over such a tiny technicality.

sorry your thread is being pooped on deck'ard . i would honestly just ignore his posts.

 

[DECK'ARD]

same. im just waiting until he stops attention seeking. hes basically a full on internet nerd trying to prove everyone hes right over such a tiny technicality.

sorry your thread is being pooped on deck'ard . i would honestly just ignore his posts.

Of all the threads to shit on as well.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Wat.

You do realise that requires sourcing more information which you could quite easily do yourself? And which I have to do first before answering it.

Which is absolutely fine, but why do you keep asking why no one's discussing it? I did.

And I have no idea why people are saying that I'm "shitting" on the thread, like I'm making 9/11 jokes in a remembrance thread. Have I not been sufficiently deferential to the bias Summary that misses out at least one key bit of information? Have I not written enough words about how horrible paedophiles are, about how worrying it is that the media aren't pouring over more and more of the horrible details from a 12 year old Guardian article on the News at 6, about how a few paedophiles fleeing to the continent changes everything?

If you write a summary and encourage people to post it elsewhere, you're inviting comments on that summary. Either argue against what I'm saying, or don't, but don't accuse me of "shitting on" this "of all threads" like I'm holding a "PRAY FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS" sign at a funeral just because i'm not repeatedly posting about how horrible paedophiles are.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Which is absolutely fine, but why do you keep asking why no one's discussing it? I did.

And I have no idea why people are saying that I'm "shitting" on the thread, like I'm making 9/11 jokes in a remembrance thread. Have I not been sufficiently deferential to the bias Summary that misses out at least one key bit of information? Have I not written enough words about how horrible paedophiles are, about how worrying it is that the media aren't pouring over more and more of the horrible details from a 12 year old Guardian article on the News at 6, about how a few paedophiles fleeing to the continent changes everything?

If you write a summary and encourage people to post it elsewhere, you're inviting comments on that summary. Either argue against what I'm saying, or don't, but don't accuse me of "shitting on" this "of all threads" like I'm holding a "PRAY FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS" sign at a funeral just because i'm not repeatedly posting about how horrible paedophiles are.

Can I remind you of an earlier post via selective quoting which you are so fond of:

Fuck this.

Now if you aren't going to contribute any new information to the discussion I suggest you stop proving yourself a hypocrite. Other forum members have already said you are preventing them engaging in the discussion of a very important subject and the topic of this thread. Which isn't me.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I know I wrote this highly questionable thing I'm encouraging people to spread around, but don't talk about that, talk about the paedophiles! What, you care more about what I wrote than about paedophiles?! What's wrong with you?! You don't care about child abuse?! Why are you dereailing the thread, this isn't about that stuff I keep writing and adding to and updating everyone on, this is about the paedophiles!

I shall heed your advice.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Reposting #1073 for the new page:

Ok, this is all beginning to tie up now with Scallywag's original allegations of it being about a drug and porn ring at the care homes as well as the abuse of children and using them for prostitution. That was also the reason why former victims of the abuse in North Wales were alleged to have been killed in the arson attack in Brighton. It ties up again from linking current news stories to existing ones that were already out there. We have also now definitely gone international.

In the case of North Wales, Scallywag alleged the child pornography went through Copenhagen.

Now this from yesterday:

http://www.mix96.co.uk/news/national/817413/paedophile-warwick-spinks-traced-by-ceops/

Paedophile Warwick Spinks Traced By Ceops

A paedophile who had been on the run for 15 years has been found in the Czech Republic.

Warwick Spinks was arrested at Heathrow Airport on Thursday after he was tracked down by officers from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).

The 48-year-old was convicted in 1995 of a series of sexual offences against boys, including serious sexual assault at knifepoint, taking a child without lawful authority and taking indecent images of children.

He was jailed for seven years but this was reduced to a five-year term on appeal.

Spinks went missing in 1997 while released on licence and fled the UK.

He used various aliases while on the run, including Willem Van Wijk and William Spinks.

Ceop chief executive Peter Davies said: "Ceop officers, in conjunction with officers at the Metropolitan Police Service and Soca (Serious Organised Crime Agency), have worked tirelessly over a number of years to locate and trace a high-risk child sexual offender, who believed he could avoid being managed in the UK by travelling overseas.

"I hope this arrest sends a clear message to other missing child sexual offenders that however far you travel to avoid facing the consequences of your actions, we will track you down and bring you to justice."

Spinks now faces serving the remaining 18 months of his sentence.

To this from 2000.

Bristol:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/27/childprotection.uk

When sex abuse can lead to murder

A year after Bristol detectives finally started to unravel the ring of paedophiles who had been abusing children there for up to 20 years, they found an informant with an alarming story. The man, whom we will call Terry, had a long history of sexually abusing boys. He did not come from Bristol but, by chance, he had come across some of the paedophiles the detectives were investigating - in Amsterdam, where he said they had become involved with a group of exiled British child abusers who had succeeded in commercialising their sexual obsession.

The exiled paedophiles were trafficking boys from other countries; running legitimate gay brothels and selling under-aged boys "under the counter"; they had branched out into the production of child pornography. And they had killed some of them. One boy had simply been shot through the head, Terry said: he had been causing trouble and had been executed in front of several pae dophiles. Another, he believed, had been thrown into one of the canals. But the one about whom he spoke the most was a boy who had been tortured and killed in the most painful fashion in the course of producing a pornographic video.

Terry said he had seen most of the video himself and had vomited before he could reach the end. The few detectives who specialise in the investigation of child abuse invariably say the same thing about "snuff" movies: they have often heard of them, sometimes pursued them but never found one. The videos remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of the burgeoning underworld of international sexual exploitation.

One of the first to do so was Alan Williams, the "Welsh Witch", who already had a vicious history of abusing boys in south Wales. Williams arrived in Amsterdam in 1988, aged 21, and soon set himself up as the manager of a gay brothel called Boys Club 21 at 21 Spuistraat, near the central station. Across the road at number 44, another British paedophile, a chubby Londoner named Warwick Spinks, then aged 25, was running a similar club called the Gay Palace. Both clubs had a legal business, running a bar and offering the services of adult male prostitutes.

Much more at the link.

This is all pretty damning to say the least.

 

[Takuan]

Spinks now faces serving the remaining 18 months of his sentence.

... that's it? No penalty for escaping custody?

 

[DECK'ARD]

... that's it? No penalty for escaping custody?

I'm struggling with that one.

I'm also struggling to see how he was released back into the public after only 2 years to allow him to flee the country in the first place.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Regarding Messham, this gets even more complicated and may indeed warrant a change to the summary.

As far as I can confirm he didn't actually name Lord McAlpine. He said police suggested the name McAlpine to him, which they would have done because they had extensive reasons to connect Jimmie McAlpine to the abuse in the care homes to the point they sort prosecution but were told no.

Messham's earlier statements to police and the inquiries I will have to dig out again, but I'm sure he referred to a man who was now dead. Which would be Jimmie McAlpine not Lord McAlpine.

The person who actually named Lord McAlpine was Sally Bercow on Twitter, wife of the Speaker of the House Of Commons.

I am trying to find a transcript or video of the Newsnight programme in question to confirm it all but everything has been removed because of Lord McAlpine suing over it. If anyone can find it that would be very helpful.

 

[CyclopsRock]

DUN DUN DUN!

FYI I suspect the reason he was "only" given the "remaining 18 months" is that he was released on bail on the understanding he not flee the country. He did, and therefore lost his parole priveleges, but did not warrant additional imprisonment since he was already effectively getting prison time for skipping bail.

 

[DECK'ARD]

DUN DUN DUN!

FYI I suspect the reason he was "only" given the "remaining 18 months" is that he was released on bail on the understanding he not flee the country. He did, and therefore lost his parole priveleges, but did not warrant additional imprisonment since he was already effectively getting prison time for skipping bail.

I thought you were going to heed my advice?

 

[DECK'ARD]

You always seem to pop up after quite important posts as well, I'm more concerned with tracking down the relevant Newsnight at the moment.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

It's pretty remarkable when you come to the realisation that the same political class that's on the telly every day banging on about the nations moral compass and british "values", are at night donning gimp masks and passing children around each others molestation parties.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Hello!

Proof is actually buried away on the BBC site that he DIDN'T name Lord McAlpine:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114

Steve Messham said police had shown him a picture of his abuser but incorrectly told him the man was Lord McAlpine.

The BBC's Newsnight reported his claims against a leading 1980s Tory politician but did not name Lord McAlpine.

If anyone can find the Newsnight programme in question I'd like to link to it and also transcribe it for the summary.

So far the only proof of someone naming Lord McAlpine is Sally Bercow.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Regarding Messham, this gets even more complicated and may indeed warrant a change to the summary.

As far as I can confirm he didn't actually name Lord McAlpine. He said police suggested the name McAlpine to him, which they would have done because they had extensive reasons to connect Jimmie McAlpine to the abuse in the care homes to the point they sort prosecution but were told no.

Messham's earlier statements to police and the inquiries I will have to dig out again, but I'm sure he referred to a man who was now dead. Which would be Jimmie McAlpine not Lord McAlpine.

The person who actually named Lord McAlpine was Sally Bercow on Twitter, wife of the Speaker of the House Of Commons.

I am trying to find a transcript or video of the Newsnight programme in question to confirm it all but everything has been removed because of Lord McAlpine suing over it. If anyone can find it that would be very helpful.

He is saying that he was shown a photo of his abuser who was named as Lord McAlpine to him by police which was actually Jimmy Mcalpine. Messham also specifically named him as a former top Tory poltician.

After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this is not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me [the name] of the man in the photograph… I want to offer my sincere and humble apologies to him and his family.’

They didn't name him specifically on Newsnight but were going to as of 6 hours before (their journos tweeted as such) but were either injuncted or more likely the Lawyers got involved.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Hello!

Proof is actually buried away on the BBC site that he DIDN'T name Lord McAlpine:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114



If anyone can find the Newsnight programme in question I'd like to link to it and also transcribe it for the summary.

So far the only proof of someone naming Lord McAlpine is Sally Bercow.

Sally Bercow also didn't name him. Just asked why he was trending with a wink. Which will see her in court or settling. Same goes for the Grauniad journo whose name slips my mind.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Sally Bercow also didn't name him. Just asked why he was trending with a wink. Which will see her in court or settling. Same goes for the Grauniad journo whose name slips my mind.

So who has actually directly accused Lord McAlpine that we can find proof of?

And wouldn't the wife of the Speaker of the House Of Commons normally be more careful about such things? Being very aware of how these things work these days.

 

[JonnyBrad]

So who has actually directly accused Lord McAlpine that we can find proof of?

There doesn't need to be any proof. Look at the beeb. They didn't name him and already have paid him 185k with an apology. In some cases the insinuation is enough.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Ok, quite a big update to the summary coming as it makes a lot more sense now and can all be linked together.

Thank you to everyone who has prompted it, and if anyone can still find the Newsnight programme that would be great to completely substantiate it.

Edit: Actually I'll leave this one till tomorrow, as there is going to be at least 4 new sections. One I need to do some more digging about.

 

[Jackpot]

AMAZING what bit you chose to reply to.

Go and start looking for yourself and posting it here before you start complaining about someone else giving a summary on an Internet forum.

Except he has a point. These are allegations, not incontrovertible evidence. You flaming him isn't helping, it just discredits you.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Except he has a point. These are allegations, not incontrovertible evidence. You flaming him isn't helping, it just discredits you.

Not again, aren't there more important things on this page to be concerned about than the previous one?

And I think many more people, organisations, and institutions are being discredited than me at the moment thank you very much.

 

[DECK'ARD]

This is quite interesting actually.

I could pop over to the Gaming side and get a quick ego boost if I wanted by talking about Worms. Or I could stay here and try and compile an extensive summary of child abuse over decades, how it was linked together, and how it wasn't stopped when it could have been, to get that information into the public domain where it is needed, and get attacked on every page now for it.

What a strange world we live in.

 

[War Peaceman]

Don't get disheartened! Keep up the phenomenal work.

 

[User 100115]

Since you aren't like, getting paid for this, I wouldn't expect it to be more than a compiling of information from various sources. Some of those sources are going to be wrong, of course. Just keep up the good work.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Don't get disheartened! Keep up the phenomenal work.

Thanks.

Because combined with trying to find and tie it all together, then summarise it all, being constantly attacked for it at the same time is really stressing me out and I could nearly just cry about the whole thing at the moment.

On a Saturday night I'm doing this, while everyone else is out getting pissed or working themselves up over XF. I feel I need to do this instead, but some people here really aren't making it much fun and it was never fun at all in the first place.

I haven't come this far to stop now though, and me feeling like I want to cry about it all doesn't really figure into it in the grand scheme of things.

Since you aren't like, getting paid for this, I wouldn't expect it to be more than a compiling of information from various sources. Some of those sources are going to be wrong, of course. Just keep up the good work.

Yep, and that's why I'm posting all the sources as well as I go along and trying to use good ones and not blogs. And trying to get multiple sources to confirm the same thing. This thread and the summaries are for people to use as reference and to encourage them to look into it all themselves rather than rely on the media which is leaving too much out and not looking at the wider picture. The same problem with ALL the existing inquiries to date.

There isn't really much more I can do except go and conduct extensive interviews with victims and question those concerned, but that's not really my job.

 

[Jackpot]

Not again, aren't there more important things on this page to be concerned about than the previous one?

How much of your summary of the subject this thread is dedicated to covering can be sorted into fact, allegation and speculation isn't important?

This is quite interesting actually.

I could pop over to the Gaming side and get a quick ego boost if I wanted by talking about Worms. Or I could stay here and try and compile an extensive summary of child abuse over decades, how it was linked together, and how it wasn't stopped when it could have been, to get that information into the public domain where it is needed, and get attacked on every page now for it.

What a strange world we live in.

Careful you don't fall off your high horse up there.

 

[JonnyBrad]

So who has actually directly accused Lord McAlpine that we can find proof of?

And wouldn't the wife of the Speaker of the House Of Commons normally be more careful about such things? Being very aware of how these things work these days.

Sally Bercow is a popularity chasing moron. Its twitter, people run their mouth without thinking. Shes being sued because she has 50 thousand followers unlike the 1000's of others who named him.

Also I agree with Jackpot, don't flame people who are mentioning (IMO fairly) things you are leaving out. Paint the whole picture.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Sally Bercow is a popularity chasing moron. Its twitter, people run their mouth without thinking. Shes being sued because she has 50 thousand followers unlike the 1000's of others who named him.

Also I agree with Jackpot, don't flame people who are mentioning (IMO fairly) things you are leaving out. Paint the whole picture.

I explained why I left it out, because it didn't make sense and didn't all fit together with everything going back to his statements to inquiries. Now I can link it all together properly which I am doing at the moment.

Meaning I was right to leave it out because you should never undermine the credibility of victims of child abuse if there are big questions about the whole story saying they were wrong. There were, now they've been answered and thank you for your help with it.

 

[Sage00]

DECK'ARD's status in this thread is quite Saville-esque, ironically.

No view either way, just an observation on the hostility against contrasting opinions.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Careful you don't fall off your high horse up there.

As long as I'm not in the gutter I don't mind where I sit.

DECK'ARD's status in this thread is quite Saville-esque, ironically.

No view either way, just an observation on the hostility against contrasting opinions.

Careful, if I was Lord McAlpine I could sue you for that.