'Number 10 link to paedophile ring'-Press association

[kweggie]

'There is "clear intelligence" suggesting a historic paedophile ring may be linked to Downing Street and a former prime minister, MPs have been told.

Labour MP Tom Watson alleged a member of a notorious group was connected to a former No 10 aide'

Am I the only one who thinks I may have been living my who;e life in a parallel (decent)universe.....
how much more sleaze is going to emerge......I'm shocked

I'm not sure, Jux......I would think that there have been cases, plenty of cases where charges were made irrespective of whatever victim/perp wanted but cannot be sure regarding such a high profile case.

A good thread on the subject on another forum.

www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-much-evidence-is-there-of-long-term-high-level-uk-paedophile-ring.301059/

Site editor is libel conscious so should be safe...

With links enabled

www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-much-evidence-is-there-of-long-term-high-level-uk-paedophile-ring.301059/

Thanks for that link, napofthedamned.

Greeting Cards for Justice

Please join in with this ........

co-ordinated campaign to send a card to highlight abuse of children and demand action

Further to the link to the Jailhouse Lawyer blog which named four Conservative politicians: my intuition was right. According to a former barrister,

"He [Jailhouse Lawyer] says he?s got sources for the allegations and will go to prison to protect them."

And the barrister himself claims also to have sources for allegations against three of the men:

"I will say that my source was a senior public official who was involved with the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in North Wales, known as the Waterhouse Inquiry."

Explosive stuff indeed!

I hope you don't mind, I reported as the link names people, if the link said "look here" for example I wouldn't have reported.

link of barrister's site here:

barrister's blog

Wow. Excludes the name of the minister of whom I was told. So more to emerge, I think.

One very bad thing about Newsnight and so on bottling out, not naming names, is that a lot of speculation goes on, with the risk of irrevocably damaging innocent people too.

I am getting fed up with hints and winks, and speculation gone wild - not here - and just want someone to say "no, not him/her, that's not who I'm talking about; I'm talking about X". Can even the victims not do that?

Why was that footballer, who recently went down for rape, named before trial, and none of these people?

Is he even in the Uk?

I don't understand why else he hasn't been arrested?

Jux Papers can report if someone is arrested or charged. They can make other factual statements about what goes on in court and what claims are made in court because court proceedings have a protected status. But if they take that further and suggest an accused is guilty before being convicted, there is a possibility they will be sued for libel.

Victims can make statements to the police, but they can't publish those accusations anywhere without risking being sued. Newspapers etc. reporting that x says such and such about y, if that claim isn't made in court (or under parliamentary privilege), can be sued for publishing the claim made by x. So if they cannot substantiate the claim to the high standards required by our libel laws, they are in danger of having to pay substantial damages.

Thank you, Emmeline. I kind of knew that really, but it's helpful to have it spelt out clearly. It is morally right too, the intention is to protect the innocent. At the moment though I think there are probably at least some innocents caught up in it.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to patronize.

I think our libel laws are frequently used to protect the guilty as well as the innocent. I don't think we've got the balance right at all, but I'm not sure what the best way to change them would be. There are always unintended consequences.

Not patronising, Emmeline; I meant the thanks genuinely. I did and do find your post helpful!

am i being paranoid to now think it isn't so surprising that trying to get anonymity for those accused of rape was one of the tory parties first orders of business upon getting into power? it seemed such an odd starting point at the time.

New thread as the newsnight one is full

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1608265-The-child-sex-attack-scandal-inquiries-media-coverage-and-discussion

What did people expect?

If you were accused of child abuse and had actually committed that most heinous and immoral of crimes, would you ignore the accusations for years and years and then suddenly confess?

Or would you deny it, hoping that it would be suppressed and covered-up as it had been for the last 30 years?

I don't think the statement today makes one jot of difference to anything - innocence or guilt.

When I read Lord McA's name linked to Bryn Estyn I must admit I immediately thought of the McAlpine I know of in north wales during that time - the one who owned Penrhyn Quarry - less than an hour's drive from Wrexham.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrhyn_Quarry

www.channel4.com/news/child-abuse-north-wales-waterhouse-inquiry-sian-griffiths

Just wanted to copy this interview over to the new thread because, for those who think it's just a load of internet-inflated exaggeration, or the allegations are motivated by compo claims, the C4 interview with Sian Griffiths corroborates the allegations and the subsequent establishment cover-up, as well as the truth of the accusations against 3 people in high positions.