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.

Duelling. I think you can opine that a certain attitude exists.
I recognise that you genuinely believe what you are posting.
I personally just think it is dreadful to attribute such an attitude to someone when you have no smidge of proof.

It's like saying 'oh yes, I think that x is the sort of person who doesn't think rape is a big deal' without any real reason

We are talking about despicable behaviours. I think it is vital to show a high level of integrity when talking about such things

WOW.
Hopefully someone can come here and explain clearly why paedophilia is not a sexuality.

I see there have been over 100 complaints to Ofcom about Schofield/This Morning so far. No doubt some people will assume most of those will be from Tories interested in covering it up....

I've seen a lot of names bandied about on the internet and it is quite clear from the threads concerned that the main reason a lot of those names have been put there is because they are or are thought to be gay.

Like it or not, there are a load of ignorant, even stupid, people who think that being gay makes you a likely paedophile (or peadophile, as those people seem like to say).

I think DC was speaking to those people specifically, those people who are making the false connection between homosexuality and "peadophilia".

I just read this thread again as I was sure I must have missed the crucial piece of evidence stating that this is how DC feels

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 the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay.

because I could not imagine anyone would say it without being able to back up. Apparently they do. I am stunned that I appear to be defending David Cameron!

I hate to defend D.C., but it was a stupid stunt pulled by schofield and he is right, people do confuse gay with paedophile. One of my best friends came out to his mother to be asked if he liked young boys too. While internet gossip is fun, there is a danger of slander and possibly undermining future court cases. The prime minister has to be careful what he says.

The evidence for claims that DC (and many others - particularly but not exclusively within the Conservative Party) are complicit in excusing child abusers on the "things were different then" card is the simple fact that no effective enquiry has ever taken place.

If any of these stories are true, then people knew and continue to know about them.

DC might find it abhorrent. Doesn't mean he didn't know. And if he didn't know, why didn't he know? He's the Party leader ffs.

It was a stupid stunt.

I could go online today and find the names of 4 people who were abducted by aliens. Shit journalism.

And I agree with DC, and Peter Tatchell

Too many "ifs" there for that to be considered evidence, Jenai. You are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.

Well if we extend that argument.....the previous enquiry that apparently looked at McAlpine took place in 1996. 1997, the Labour Party were elected, and 12 years of non-investigation into these reports ensued. So can we extend "people like him (DC)" to the whole political spectrum now instead all this "hoho, worse happened to me at Eton!" shit?

Well, for a start he wasn't even in parliament when the enquiry was mounted, or when it reported. So I think any suggestion that on becoming leader in 2005 he was immediately informed "X and Y are part of a paedo ring but it's all been hushed up, jolly good eh?" is going to need to be carefully supported with evidence.

Genuine question, do you and others realise that we're talking about fairly random allegations coming round on Twitter from some deeply nasty conspiracy theory blogs, not victim testimony in broadsheets? It occurs to me that some of you (bless!) are under-estimating how nasty the internet is, and this is why you find Cameron's reference to gay witch-hunts so baffling. I didn't find it in the least bit baffling. Basically people know a name, or some names, were suppressed in the enquiry, and now they're churning out whatever shit they can, mixing it up with bits and bobs from Wikipedia and seeing who it sticks to.

By the way, I don't think it would be out of place to observe at this point that many of the allegations being investigated are against care home workers, health professionals, police officers, businessmen and local residents. Their victims matter too, even though they may not make for such great juicy political gossip. It's a bit disturbing to me that people are willing to go down the "secret paedo ring in the Tory party" line to the exclusion of all else on the basis of so little.

"do you and others realise that we're talking about fairly random allegations coming round on Twitter from some deeply nasty conspiracy theory blogs"

If you research this, if you have access, then you can clearly see these allegations have been around since the mid 90s. This naming of people is not a recent thing, it's just that internet use was not so avaiable. Names were mentioned in evidence given and the many reports which were unpublished for legal reasons.

That the names are out now and on the internet for all to see does not mean they weren't always there in statements taken at the time.

the independent is a good place to start as they have been campaigning on this for many years.

"I actually think what DC was saying is that people often equate being gay with being a paedophile and we have to be very careful not to accuse people of paedophilia because we know them to be gay. Or think they might be gay.

One of the few sensible things he has ever said in my opinion."

I agree with seeker

Just because the majority of MNers don't equate homosexuality with paedophilia, it doesn't necessarily translate to people in general. Sadly it is a far too predominant attitude, and some groups of people will deliberately push the association due to a hatred of homophobia.

If you've never read or heard someone making the connection then you are damn lucky!

I know I'd heard some names mentioned in relation to the JS case with the justification of "oh yes, it could be him, I've heard he's gay". Twitter's a good source for stuff like that, and let's face it, you do a quick 3 min google, you are likely to get the same results those on Twitter are getting.

"If you research this, if you have access, then you can clearly see these allegations have been around since the mid 90s. This naming of people is not a recent thing, it's just that internet use was not so avaiable. Names were mentioned in evidence given and the many reports which were unpublished for legal reasons."

But not all the names mentioned will have been mentioned in reports/evidence, some of them will have been mentioned because of another agenda. And the further back in time you go the more prevalent the attitude was of gay=paedo.

Exactly, Murder. Even the Mumsnet thread on JS was full of comments like, "We all knew he was funny " or other unsubstantiated "reasons" as to why they always knew he was dodgy as fuck. It's not too hard imagining similar comments being passed around regarding gay men in the 1970's or 80's, and from this internet rumours today. That's not to say gay men are on any sort of par with the likes of JS, but we're talking about a time when homosexuality was very much seen with distrust by much of the general population. People may not make the link between "gay" and "paedo" in this enlightened time we live in, but we've moved on a lot in the last thirty years. And unfortunately people remember gossip, even if it's unsubstantiated.

the movements of MPs are so well documented - in their diaries, and the diaries of their staff, that there would be a paper trail if one of them had been doing this.

my guess is that journalists are going to dig and either 1) find nothing - in which case it isn't news, so no names get cleared
or 2) find something - in which case a trial will be unlikely to happen due to the level of public accusation rendering a fair trial impossible.

Philip Schofield wouldn't want people to associate gay people with paedophilia when Phil himself is a screaming great nancy.

I read that on the internet so it must be very possibly true.

Philip Schofield is also a top Mexican assassin called Miguel "Top Assassin" O'Rafferty. He's had plastic surgery to escape his past, obviously, but he is still wanted for the murders of 15 people, 2 dogs, and a Vauxhall Viva.

That must be looked into as well because that's on the internet...now.

It's nice he still has a career then...

But not all the names mentioned will have been mentioned in reports/evidence

^ This. What both the Independent and Nick Davies at the Guardian have been saying for years is that (a) care homes have been systematically targeted and controlled by paedophiles on a terrifying scale, and that often these people knew each other and helped each other and (b) there have been persistant allegations about prominent public figures being offered children from the homes. But they cannot name these latter because of lack of evidence.

True and careful and diligent thought these reports are, they are also an open invitation for every barking shithead with an internet connection to rustle up a handful of names, create a load of insinuation and send rumour on its merry way. Then a load of other people repeat it, with imperfect recall of the details, and give the insufficiently critical the impression that "everybody knows".

Needless to say if anybody gets it wrong a whole new rumour is created. I actually saw this happen on Twitter last week with somebody confusing several public figures who shared, let's say, a somewhat 80s name beginning with K - they were retweeted several times before they corrected their mistake. Did all the people who read their original tweet read their correction? Doubt it.

It's true that, by law of averages, I guess somebody must be hitting on the right names. I just don't, with respect, think I or you or Philip Schofield or pretty much anyone who isn't an officer or official working with the enquiry, is in any position to know who the fuck it is.

weren't a lot of the famous names people identified by David Icke?

Who also thinks they are lizards.

weren't a lot of the famous names people identified by David Icke?

Who also thinks they are lizards

Yep. Sums it all up, doesn't it?

And as Steve Meesham has just confirmed it was not Lord MacAlpine that abused him, the validity of a lot of those pointing fingers on twitter is looking dodgy indeed.

And as Steve Meesham has just confirmed it was not Lord MacAlpine that abused him

Bloody hell.

Wonder who Newsnight was planning on naming then?

(No, not going to speculate).