There were old rumours about Debbie McGee...
If Max Clifford does go down, there may well be a lot of interesting information party to him that will surface.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Child Abuse Scandal in UK grows to implicate MPs, celebs - Update Posts #900/#1100
- Thread starter Clay Davis
- Start date
- Status
There were old rumours about Debbie McGee...
If Max Clifford does go down, there may well be a lot of interesting information party to him that will surface.
Its not Noel Edmonds. Twitter decided it was him but then he was spotted in Morrisons lol.
Gotta love social networking.
More reasons to shop at Morrisons!
That's only one of the two names I'd heard, and not the one that struck me as more intersting. Of some significance at this time of year. No, not Santa. But then, it's Trial by Twitter, so take with a hefty pinch of salt.
Ravensmash
Member
That does not surprise me at all tbh.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Oh, that slimy douche. Hiding in plain sight again.
CyclopsRock
Member
radioheadrule83
Banned
Twitter is a den of cunts. Why would people say its him when they don't really know? I can kind of understand the people who just repeat what they've heard, but the people who first start rumours... Why? Its such a vile, stupid, dangerous thing to do.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
APZonerunner
Member
Jim Davidson is a first rate shit, so not surprised there.
I wouldn't go around calling them pedophiles since in mostly outside of a few cases like Jimmy Saville it's been people being involved with 14/15/16 year old girls and pedophilia by definition is abusing children who are pre-pubescent, not every single person below the age of concent. What those cases are are ephebophilia which defines an interest in people from mid-late adolesence.
I'm not saying it makes what they did any less wrong because abuse is abuse, but it's certainly not even in the same league of disgustingness as pedophilia since biologically puberty is when the body is letting itself and other members of the same species that they are ready to bear/create a child and it's biologically ingrained in our thoughts to go with that as much like most other life on this planet we're still mammals who need to breed to continue our species survival.
In some cases yes, in some cases no. There is a very large difference between the two and reading back I apologise for some awful spelling on the word consent.
Dunno, there's a world of difference between the two. From "you fucking idiot" to "lock 'em up and throw away the key".
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
No one cares about the dictionary definition. They are pedos. End of
No (well some like Jimmy Saville are), they're clearly not. If you want to define them as anything they're ephebophiles. There's an entire world of difference between the two.
CyclopsRock
Member
FYI that's a bit outdated, as he wasn't charged and is currently in the Big Brother house - something he was meant to do last year but couldn't because of all this business. Which is faintly amusing.
Re: the paedophile thing, yeah, exactly. Teenagers ARE sexy, that's why you have School Disco themed nights out and everyone has a wank over girls celebrating their a level results. Abusing a position of authority is bad and all that, but it comes from a totally different psychological position to Ian Watkins et al.
Wasn't it his brother who was the real paedo?
IdreamofHIME
Member
Scoot McNairy
Member
This thread was linked to on Reddit as there was a post with a very good summary of what's been happening. I haven't been able to find a more recent thread, so in light of recent developments this week thought this would be a good place to discuss it? The thing is that the story is spread throughout lots of different papers, in current stories, and these often lead us back to stories from the 80s to find out who the new names are, who they're linked to and what they've been accused of (and what's happened to the accusers since).
I guess one to start with would be Sir Michael Havers.
- He was the Attorney General at the time all this was going on
- He repeatedly tried to persuade MPs not to mention prominent suspects in Parliament (suspects who since have been proven to be pedophiles)
- There is evidence showing that he himself attended notorious care home institutions (where numerous children have complained of the sexual abuse by visitors) along with other prominent persons now known to be pedos (eg Cyril Smith)
- He was identified by abused children as attending parties where underage rent boys were sexually abused.
- Interestingly, Zac Goldsmith MP notes the following in an interview with Conservative Home: "Its a horrible thing. Its one of those areas that attracts so many conspiracy theories. Whereas a few years ago the inclination would have been to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, as time goes by, they start to look less like theories. Ill give you an example. I was called last week by someone whos impeccably placed, impeccable sources, he said to me youve got to look at Kincora, youve got to look at the terms of reference, youve got to look at the report that was produced by the judge, and you will see that the terms of reference were changed to exclude any possibility of investigating abuse by visitors. Theres no elegant interpretation of that. Clearly this was designed to prevent embarrassment and to protect powerful people who were visitors. The judge when he provided his report, you can see its laced with bitterness, hes very angry, lots of innuendo as well, hes angry that hes not able to go further that the remit. As it happens, it was Michael Havers who wrote the terms of reference." (Full article is up and worth reading at http://www.conservativehome.com/hig...be-changed-to-make-a-bid-by-boris-easier.html )
- Michael Havers' sister was announced to be the chair of the public inquiry into all this. She stepped down after complaints from the press, victims and lawyers. I'd say there was a 75% it was an honest mistake that she of all people was chosen in light of the colossal conflict of interest (as she has previously chaired other child abuse inquiries), but it may be that whoever suggested/recommended she be the one to lead the inquiry knew that she would only be able to do a half-hearted job as much of the cover-up evidence would lead directly to her brother.
The absolute worst part of all this is that the only websites/blogs that have been discussing this stuff for the past 30 years were the same ones which also discuss lizard people, zionist conspiracies, ufos, illuminati, all that shit. Annoyingly, they also sometimes bring that stuff up in the middle of these articles, and thus tainting the whole thing with shit. So any attempts to look up names/accusations/victims online leads directly to websites showing that folding up a dollar note shows a picture of the two towers being blown up by bush.
I guess one to start with would be Sir Michael Havers.
- He was the Attorney General at the time all this was going on
- He repeatedly tried to persuade MPs not to mention prominent suspects in Parliament (suspects who since have been proven to be pedophiles)
- There is evidence showing that he himself attended notorious care home institutions (where numerous children have complained of the sexual abuse by visitors) along with other prominent persons now known to be pedos (eg Cyril Smith)
- He was identified by abused children as attending parties where underage rent boys were sexually abused.
- Interestingly, Zac Goldsmith MP notes the following in an interview with Conservative Home: "Its a horrible thing. Its one of those areas that attracts so many conspiracy theories. Whereas a few years ago the inclination would have been to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, as time goes by, they start to look less like theories. Ill give you an example. I was called last week by someone whos impeccably placed, impeccable sources, he said to me youve got to look at Kincora, youve got to look at the terms of reference, youve got to look at the report that was produced by the judge, and you will see that the terms of reference were changed to exclude any possibility of investigating abuse by visitors. Theres no elegant interpretation of that. Clearly this was designed to prevent embarrassment and to protect powerful people who were visitors. The judge when he provided his report, you can see its laced with bitterness, hes very angry, lots of innuendo as well, hes angry that hes not able to go further that the remit. As it happens, it was Michael Havers who wrote the terms of reference." (Full article is up and worth reading at http://www.conservativehome.com/hig...be-changed-to-make-a-bid-by-boris-easier.html )
- Michael Havers' sister was announced to be the chair of the public inquiry into all this. She stepped down after complaints from the press, victims and lawyers. I'd say there was a 75% it was an honest mistake that she of all people was chosen in light of the colossal conflict of interest (as she has previously chaired other child abuse inquiries), but it may be that whoever suggested/recommended she be the one to lead the inquiry knew that she would only be able to do a half-hearted job as much of the cover-up evidence would lead directly to her brother.
The absolute worst part of all this is that the only websites/blogs that have been discussing this stuff for the past 30 years were the same ones which also discuss lizard people, zionist conspiracies, ufos, illuminati, all that shit. Annoyingly, they also sometimes bring that stuff up in the middle of these articles, and thus tainting the whole thing with shit. So any attempts to look up names/accusations/victims online leads directly to websites showing that folding up a dollar note shows a picture of the two towers being blown up by bush.
Man, I cannot even begin to wrap my head around how crazy this whole scandal has been for you guys. I gotta read that other summary again.
Fucking conspiracy nutters, is there anything they don't ruin?
Scoot McNairy
Member
This is from an article in which a former Conservative Part activist reveals that senior cabinet ministers in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government were supplied with underage boys for sex parties where children were plied with cocaine and alcohol. He was told to find the "youngest and prettiest" boys for several cabinet ministers as the "entertainment". The other names noted in the article are Sir Keith Joseph (Secretary of State for Education and Science), and Rhodes Boyson (Minister of State for Northern Ireland):
I've found a site which discusses this without any side-helpings of David Icke, mostly drawing from newspaper clippings from the time showing how, as Attorney General, he would cover-up the abuse by not prosecuting VIPs, ending enquiries, and intervening when newspapers would publish allegations, etc etc:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/tag/sir-peter-hayman/
It's weird looking back on these articles now, as the press back then weren't even speculating that the reason Michael Havers kept on repeatedly covering this stuff up, kept refusing to prosecute, limited the scope of inquiries, and ordering people not to name names, was that it was because he was part of the pedophile ring himself. It had presumably just appeared that he knew more than us about the law (and the facts), since he was the Attorney General and all, so we should just trust his judgment.
I've found a site which discusses this without any side-helpings of David Icke, mostly drawing from newspaper clippings from the time showing how, as Attorney General, he would cover-up the abuse by not prosecuting VIPs, ending enquiries, and intervening when newspapers would publish allegations, etc etc:
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/tag/sir-peter-hayman/
It's weird looking back on these articles now, as the press back then weren't even speculating that the reason Michael Havers kept on repeatedly covering this stuff up, kept refusing to prosecute, limited the scope of inquiries, and ordering people not to name names, was that it was because he was part of the pedophile ring himself. It had presumably just appeared that he knew more than us about the law (and the facts), since he was the Attorney General and all, so we should just trust his judgment.
To be honest, I don't think the general public much care about this scandal. I haven't met a person with an interest with the subject, along with the 'phone hacking' scandal.
Like, HOW? This is a scandal that if it happened in America I think we'd be legitimately wrapped to the TV for weeks. This is some horrifying shit to read about, I just see so little coverage of it over here that I don't know what information is real or not. A cursory glance though makes the scandal seem absolutely massive in scale. And yet nobody seems to care anymore, and neither about that horrible phone hacking scandal? Sad days I guess
Deaf Spacker
Memb
Like, HOW? This is a scandal that if it happened in America I think we'd be legitimately wrapped to the TV for weeks. This is some horrifying shit to read about, I just see so little coverage of it over here that I don't know what information is real or not. A cursory glance though makes the scandal seem absolutely massive in scale. And yet nobody seems to care anymore, and neither about that horrible phone hacking scandal? Sad days I guess
Probably because most of us don't think that anything will be done and that if anybody is punished, it'll be a slap on the wrist.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
It's anecdotal but I know a couple of people that have come forward and gone to the police about sexual assaults that happened to them over 30 years ago as a result of all this. Your average person might not care but I think it's helping victims realise that it's not too late to speak up and seek justice.
man this is fucked up and depressing
probably would be true too if it happened in America
And a lot of the people involved are simply unknown to the vast vast majority of the population. Asides from the occasional 'old boy' C-list celebrity the names have been mainly MP's or civil servants who are mostly unheard of outside of that small parliamentary niche.
Combine that with the investigations not being focussed enough and the whole story being a slow burner and the public simply move on. There was a local story a while ago about a famous musician whole slept with a 15 year old back in the 70's, the media tried to make it a large Saville-esque story but the response was, 'it was the 70's! good for them!' End result- public caring even less about the important events.
The problem is this story is deep and complex. The perfect kind of situation where people lose interest fast and move on to something else.
No doubt people are disgusted. But they also know that it was our supposed 'betters' were mostly making use of these children's homes, so they know a few people who are either dead or close to will be thrown to the dogs. The rest will skulk away cleanly as their is no way that something so deep and embedded in the upper ranks of society has not stopped.
Scoot McNairy
Member
Don't really need the public to care about this whole thing. An ideal solution would be for the living ones to go to jail, and for the dead ones, a complete destruction of their legacy. Let's make sure enough is proven to ensure any future articles written about that person or which refer to that person reference the abuse; and that their victims get compensated by their estate.
A good example of this would be Jimmy Savile, where it is now impossible for any journalist or author to ever write about him again without reference to his crimes, and where his estate is used to payout compensation to his victims. But for lots of others, their reputation is spotless, because when these accusations were originally made, victims were publicly laughed off and their reputations destroyed, secretly threatened, and a few years later the ones who wouldn't shut up ended up dead. Newspapers who investigated were sued for libel, and police told not to investigate, and public enquiries whitewashed. This is a pretty good chance for justice, and probably the last one whilst the people responsible are still living.
Oh - and yes, this whole issue is a great way for old dirt to come out in the wash, eg Justin Fashanu thing mentioned above. Maybe we'll get lucky and some more information will come out about Stephen Milligan mp's death, now that Fashanu has been shown to be a credible party and Milligan was the one asked to persuade him to be quiet.
A good example of this would be Jimmy Savile, where it is now impossible for any journalist or author to ever write about him again without reference to his crimes, and where his estate is used to payout compensation to his victims. But for lots of others, their reputation is spotless, because when these accusations were originally made, victims were publicly laughed off and their reputations destroyed, secretly threatened, and a few years later the ones who wouldn't shut up ended up dead. Newspapers who investigated were sued for libel, and police told not to investigate, and public enquiries whitewashed. This is a pretty good chance for justice, and probably the last one whilst the people responsible are still living.
Oh - and yes, this whole issue is a great way for old dirt to come out in the wash, eg Justin Fashanu thing mentioned above. Maybe we'll get lucky and some more information will come out about Stephen Milligan mp's death, now that Fashanu has been shown to be a credible party and Milligan was the one asked to persuade him to be quiet.
TheDrowningMan
Member
man this is fucked up and depressing
probably would be true too if it happened in America
The establishment and its media whores have successfully turned the guns on "real villains" like those who claim five pounds too much in housing benefit and distracted simple minds with simple celebrities and so on. It's a simple fact nowadays that millions is actually considered more money than hundreds to the majority, because if you swindle the former it's a slap on the wrist and then back to affluence, the latter and you're demonised and hounded until you're whittled to a husk.
There is, of course, temporary uproar when someone is actually convicted, but in general people are too stupid to stop it from happening again and again and again. Whether the crimes are financial or of the flesh, there's a safety net waiting if you're privileged enough.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think another reason is probably just that everything is anecdotal. The lost dossier was, it seems, simply a list of rumours that someone had compiled, and there's the odd person writing an article about something they saw decades ago. Effectively, we are missing not only a smoking gun but also any significant victims, unless the police are keeping them all confidential (but even then you would think they'd mention people had come forward without giving any details?)
I think you need to read up on the situation more.... start with Cyril Smith of the Lib Dems.
CyclopsRock
Member
I was referring more to the mass sex parties but to be honest, you're completely right.
Scoot McNairy
Member
Mass sex parties? Look up Elm Guest House on Wikipedia.
Then look up, I dunno, jersey care homes?
CyclopsRock
Member
As I said, he's right. In which case, I can only assume that the reason it hasn't blown up is just because it was a generation or two ago and its interest is rather more historic, as well as the fact that most people don't know who the hell any of these people are (especially when so many are "a senior cabinet member" or "a labour MP").
man this is fucked up and depressing
probably would be true too if it happened in America
Sit down, have a cup of tea, here's an unaired documentary to ruin the rest of your weekend.
From the supporting blurb:
BlazingDarkness
Member
Cliff Richard.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked