to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?

[isupposeimabitofafraud]

Hey Mr Cameron?

Care to explain your comments on This Morning?

The only thing I'm getting out of that, is his own prejudices and the whiff of a lack of leadership and yet another cover up.

If Mr Cameron wants to save his own neck and not drown in this sick sea of corruption then taking it seriously and not being dismissive of the claims and accusing people of homophobia, might be a good place to start...

Together with an overall inquiry into why there have been so many institutional failures with regard to child protection and to gather all the conclusions of the 6 million other investigations that have been started post Jimmy Savile, for their findings are scattered to the four corners of the country by the wind.

I'm fuming. I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively.

For weeks it was obvious that the Jimmy Savile revelations were going to spread and given what the government do know, and the fact they have both the intelligence and foresight to be able to see the direction it was going to head and act accordingly. Instead they have sat on their hands and hoped it would all die down, go away and we'd all forget about it. Well I'm not forgetting about it. I want PROPER answers and an institutional change of attitude and action. Not more crap.

Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, by officials dismissing those who did report or trying to discredit them?

Haven't they learnt ANYTHING yet?

/rant.

[gordyslovesheep]

Dueling this list was from 3 mins online searching NOT FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS

you do grasp the difference between facts and stuff made up online don't you?

You CAN'T go finding people guilty just because some blogger says they are

[CrikeyOHare]

I am under the impression that the main reason many of them have been singled out is because they abused children

Oh, really? And how do you know that - given that you don't even know what names are on list and what they're supposed to have done.

Schofield handed over a list of people who have been subject to internet rumours - that's it. You seem to be missing that very important fact.

[DuelingFanjo]

"I am generally a fan of rational argument, Fanjo, but since you're not using any I decided I'd push the boat out this time. "

why not try explaining where I am being irrational?

My point is, and always has been that a person being gay and being on a list of other people who may also be gay is irrelevant.

[VoiceofUnreason]

Fanjo - someone stating X abused me does not make it so. You have presumably read in the past of cases where people have made fake claims of being raped to get back at someone, or because they aren't in full possession of their faculties.

I could go online now, make a posting that DuelingFanjo is a paedophile. Does that mean it's true? I could say that X abused me in 1974. X died in 1976. Try and prove it conclusively. Very difficult.

As I said earlier, there are people who jump on bandwagons and make things up and it is naive in the extreme for you to state that these people are being singled out because they abused children. We've already seen today that it is probably complete nonsense that Lord McAlpine abused children. Someone who was actually ABUSED at North Wales has come out and said so.

I remind you of the Leonard Rossiter 'naming' last week and the likelihood of that being true because of the total lack of supportive evidence. But that mud will stick, which is awful for his daughter and any other family.

I'm afraid it's people like you being so provocative and worse that results in the witch-hunts DC was warning about.

Not for one moment do I suggest that there isn't abuse going on and that all serious allegations must be followed up. But simply going on the word of one or two people chucking names around the internet who weren't abused themselves is dangerous in the extreme.

[gordyslovesheep]

But Fanjo do you understand this list is not an official evidence based factual thing - it's gossip pulled off the internet

[MulledWineOnTheBusLady]

No, Fanjo, you may not conclude that.

I think victims should put their allegations to the police (and then after that, if they like and if appropriate, to the media - particularly so if they feel their case has not been heard).

I think the police should take them seriously.

I think the police should investigate them, with exactly the same presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that they use when investigating anyone, for anything.

I do not think the police should investigate internet rumours (though they may well monitor them in intelligence gathering for all I know).

I do not think people should assume that because somebody has been named on the internet they must be guilty.

[LineRunner]

Sian Griffiths's Channel 4 interview last night was that 'somebody who had been high up in the government' was named at the Waterhouse inquiry; and that documents including photographs that showed this person were ordered to be destroyed. (She ran Clwyd Council's secretariat to the Waterhouse Inquiry.)

So that's a pretty strong allegation against that person. I can of course only assume his name was on Pip's list, but there's a fair chance that it was, given the 'three minute google' line.

[LineRunner]

Excuse crap grammar ^^

[Wishfulmakeupping]

It's not irrelevant if the people on the list are gay though which has been widely acknowledge hasn't it?

[MulledWineOnTheBusLady]

My point is, and always has been that a person being gay and being on a list of other people who may also be gay is irrelevant.

Fanjo, that wasn't actually your original point. Your original point was:

I think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different

So a little bit different from your revised point of "Nobody should talk about the surprising number of gay men being accused, DC shouldn't have said it because it's irrelevant." Which I don't agree with anyway, I think it is very much worthy of remark, but it's certainly less heinous than your original position.

[LineRunner]

I don't know who is on the list and I don't know if they are gay. I now know that DC believes that one of more (probably more) are gay.

What I care about is that the investigations are done properly, unhindered by politicians. Let the evidence be the narrative.

[MrsjREwing]

Fanjo, no you can't conclude what you did HTH

[DuelingFanjo]

"I think victims should put their allegations to the police"

the WHOLE point of this WHOLE issue is that they did and there have been (For many years) accusations of a cover-up.

I think it is important that these accusations be followed up.
I think it's important that our Prime Minister has the ability to respond to stupid questions in a reasonable and sensible way.
Bringing homosexuality into the issue of child abuse allegations is not a reasonable or sensible thing to do.

I have not revised my point. I still think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different. That is just a small part of what I originally said. Maybe what I said was clumsily exporessed. Their sexuality should not be in any way relevant, DC wants it to be relevant - why?

I think there is a general feeling from some people that the sex-trade cannot be abusive if the people within it are offering services 'willingly' or for money/favours. I think some people belileve that the age of those people is is irrelevant, that the way these people got into that industry is irrelevant and that the sexuality of the people involved is a reason for them behaving as they do.

I think the whole thing sucks and I hope the victims are believed and that they do get justice even though it is years too late. I do also hope that no innocent people are caught up in this. I don't have any feeling either way about if politicians are gay are not and I certainly don't let internet gossip make me believe that they are gar or abusive. I do think personal experiences I have heard in interviews should be taken seriously and should have been taken seriously back when they were first voiced.

[MulledWineOnTheBusLady]

Yes, and now the cover-up is being investigated. This is the investigation I am referring to. There are (as far as I know) three separate enquiries for people to approach that have been put in train in the last week. I would sincerely hope they have some sort of phone number set up by now?

If we're being impressionistic, I think that there is a prima facie "general feeling from some people" on various internet conspiracy theory sites that if men are gay they're more likely to be paedophiles. Some of the people they are naming may be guilty, others may not be. How would I know? But I have noticed the disproportionate number who are gay, or are suspected of being in the closet.

I find that odd. I have noticed it. I think it's worthy of comment, and a reason for caution (as if we shouldn't be cautious about names on the internet anyway!)

And I think that's why Cameron commented on it, though I completely agree he was answering a different question to the one he was asked.

I also don't buy the idea that Cameron was trying to detract attention from the enquiry for unknown mysterious evil reasons, because it's such a shit way to do it. As great PR plans go "Cunningly detracting attention from an enquiry into a fifteen-year old cover up of a thirty-year old scandal, which if it does involve any Tories is going to be old, dead, retired Tories, by making myself look like a tit on live television" is not up there in the all time greats.

In fact this is one thing I can't fathom about Cameron, how he's got so many people to believe he's some sort of evil genius when he's so obviously an incompetent tit.

[CrikeyOHare]

Sorry - but what the fuck has "rent boys" got to do with any of this?

And where is your evidence that that is David Cameron's attitude? Because that's a pretty serious accusation to be making.

[seeker]

Hang on, do people think "rent boys" are children? is that where the misunderstandings are starting?

[DuelingFanjo]

I think this attitude is often a class thing, often a public school thing (Maybe not so much these days?) and I think as we are talking about historic events we need to also look at historic attitudes which would have fascilitated this kind of cover-up and which will be deeply embarrassing for the government now.

I am sorry if it sounds offensive to people.

[MrsjREwing]

Boy is the clue in rent boy.

[DuelingFanjo]

Some rent boys are children. I don't think the sex-trade operates with just adults. Do you?

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

Some rent boys are children, yes. Clearly not all.

Dueling's original post on the matter is absolutely spot on. I think some posters have misunderstood her (unless I've misunderstood her that is!).

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

No MrsJ not all rent boys are underage. It's just a turn of phrase.

[TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern]

Has this post from another thread been quoted here yet?

'A friend who works in Portcullis House said he'd overheard two Tory MPs saying 'nasty little rent boys after Savile's millions' and 'worse things happen at boarding school, for God's sake, the country is in the grip of hysteria'

Not referring to Cameron of course but it reflects the sort of attitude Fanjo is suggesting exists.

[seeker]

No, rent boys are not children. They are young men, but generally not children. They are male prostitutes. The "rent" bit is significant. They are usually abused or exploited- workers in the sex industry are. But they are not children.

[MulledWineOnTheBusLady]

Oh I'm sure Tory MPs have all kinds of ghastly ideas, but they are (boohoo for them) totally irrelevant now that the enquiries have been put in train. So long as people actually approach the investigation with their information. That is all anyone can do.

Come to that, even Cameron's own views are irrelevant - though I very much doubt they are what Fanjo thinks they are, for the simple reason that I had made the same observation about the potential for gay witch-hunting in the stuff flying around on the internet, and I am fairly sure I am not a paedophile apologist.

[autumnlights12]

I'm surprised David Cameron was so restrained and calm. Philip Schofield was shockingly unprofessional.