The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Page 22 of 23 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by aquila on 12.04.14 12:01

snipped from today's Telegraph...

here is the Libs response.

" Lord Steel was unavailable for comment. Last year, he said he had asked Cyril Smith about the allegations of child abuse and accepted his denial of wrongdoing, the Daily Mail reported.

A spokesman for Mr Clegg said: “Clearly he would never have paid tribute to Cyril Smith if he had had any idea about these horrible allegations.”

A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: "Cyril Smith's acts were vile and repugnant and we have nothing but sympathy for those whose lives he ruined. His actions were not known to or condoned by anyone in the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10762182/MI5-and-Liberal-party-allegedly-covered-up-MP-Cyril-Smiths-four-decades-of-abusing-children.html


What planet do these people occupy?

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by sallypelt on 12.04.14 12:03

@PeterMac wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
We'll wait and see if all names connected to Smith are in the book, if not why not?
They will not be
The reason ?
C-R ?

Libel lawyers are paid good money to protect whoever pays them.
They are not concerned if they thereby protect paedophiles, perverts, mass murderers, or people who have possibly, allegedly, committed other serious offences, and thereby enable those persons to continue their activities.
Their bank balance and their professional reputation is what matters.   And Professional reputation means they 'won' the case.

exactly, PeterMac. It's not about morals and/or truth. It's about winning, and as long as the money keeps flowing into these high-profile lawyers etc coffers, they will keep acting for their clients. But when the money dries up, and the case still hasn't been solved, it's bye bye.

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by sallypelt on 12.04.14 12:05

@aquila wrote:snipped from today's Telegraph...

here is the Libs response.

" Lord Steel was unavailable for comment. Last year, he said he had asked Cyril Smith about the allegations of child abuse and accepted his denial of wrongdoing, the Daily Mail reported.

A spokesman for Mr Clegg said: “Clearly he would never have paid tribute to Cyril Smith if he had had any idea about these horrible allegations.”

A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: "Cyril Smith's acts were vile and repugnant and we have nothing but sympathy for those whose lives he ruined. His actions were not known to or condoned by anyone in the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10762182/MI5-and-Liberal-party-allegedly-covered-up-MP-Cyril-Smiths-four-decades-of-abusing-children.html


What planet do these people occupy?

Stop digging up the dead, I say. Go after the living, and there are MANY of them.

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Guest on 12.04.14 12:17

@PeterMac wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
We'll wait and see if all names connected to Smith are in the book, if not why not?
They will not be
The reason ?
C-R ?

Libel lawyers are paid good money to protect whoever pays them.
They are not concerned if they thereby protect paedophiles, perverts, mass murderers, or people who have possibly, allegedly, committed other serious offences, and thereby enable those persons to continue their activities.
Their bank balance and their professional reputation is what matters. And Professional reputation means they 'won' the case.

Thanks for that PeterMac, so there will be lots of super injunctions out then, I wonder if these injunctions carry on when the person is dead to protect their families.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Snifferdog on 12.04.14 12:40

You are so correct Sallypelt - the dead cannot speak and their corpses are not going anywhere. We can't even extract useful information out of them.
Aquila one cannot believe the pathetic excuses we get from those that KNEW BUT DID NOTHING. These are the very ones who are supposed to be beyond reproach and protecting the citizens. The mind truly does boggle at their arrogance and effrontry. These think their citizens are Dumb and they should be investigated as well. The old adage "birds of a feather stick together" and "like attracts like" are so true...
all imo

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by sallypelt on 12.04.14 12:42

Q&A: Super-injunctions

So what is a super-injunction?

There are different types of injunctions and a super-injunction is the most powerful. A super-injunction stops anyone publishing information about the applicant which is said to be confidential or private - but also prevents anyone from reporting that the injunction itself even exists.

How does a super-injunction work in practice?

Taking a hypothetical case, a Premiership footballer asks the High Court to stop a kiss-and-tell story from appearing in next weekend's papers, saying that he is a victim of wrongdoing and blackmail by the other party.

If the judge agrees to a super-injunction, the newspaper cannot report the allegations - and it is also prevented from saying that the footballer went to court to gag the paper. If the newspaper breaks the injunction, the editor could be prosecuted for contempt of court.

What other injunctions exist?

A court can make an anonymised order. Lord Neuberger's report describes an anonymised order as an injunction that stops someone from publishing information "which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private where the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated."

So how many injunctions are there which are either supers or anonymised?

We don't know exactly and the report says the Ministry of Justice should start collating figures. Since January 2010 two super-injunctions have been granted. One was overturned on appeal and the second was only enforced for seven days. The report says super-injunctions are now only being granted for very short periods and only where this level of secrecy is necessary. However, at the same time, there has been an increase in anonymised orders where the names of the parties involved are kept from the public, but not the existence of an injunction.

Who created super-injunctions? Was it the judges?

Judges don't make new laws - Parliament does. The problem over super-injunctions has come about because judge must interpret what exactly Parliament means in a particular law.

In 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights became embedded in British law - creating a right to privacy enforceable by the courts. The legislation simultaneously created a competing right to freedom of speech. Parliament said that these two rights had to be balanced - and the judges were left to work that out.

So does this report change the law at all?

Again, no. The report makes clear that the judges were not "vested with any authority to enlarge or reduce" the rights to privacy or freedom of expression.

In April, Prime Minister David Cameron waded into the debate saying he felt "uneasy" about super-injunctions and said that judges were developing a privacy law without Parliament's say so. But the day before the report's launch, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt ruled out a new privacy law.

So while the judges cannot change the law, they have proposed making it simpler for the public and media to know what is going on.

So how will they do that?

The report says that judges who are asked to grant injunctions should make sure that the media know about the application in advance. In effect, that means that the media or other members of the public will have a greater and clearer opportunity to contest orders before they happen.

Who currently has a super-injunction?

The BBC cannot tell you because that would mean it would be breaking the super-injunction and its reporters would be in contempt of court.

But I can read about them on Twitter?

Allegedly. Speaking at the report's launch, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, did not rule out the possibility of specific future measures to prevent people spreading stories online.

He said: "Are we really going to say that somebody who has a true claim for privacy, perfectly well made, which the newspapers and media can't report, has to be at the mercy of somebody using modern technology?

"At the moment that may seem to be the case, but I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who in effect peddle lies about others [by using modern technology] may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages."

What about Parliamentarians? Haven't they been busy busting super-injunctions?

MPs and peers have the protection of Parliamentary Privilege - the law which basically protects everything they say and do in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The law exists to protect Parliament's right to do its work without interference.

Lord Neuberger said however that the law on Parliamentary Privilege is "astonishingly unclear" and he asked whether it was a "good idea" for lawmakers to be "flouting a court order just because they disagree".

As for journalists repeating what allegations made in Parliament, the committee's report says: "It is an open question" whether publishing information that breaches a court order and was deliberately intended to do so, would have legal protection because it could have been done in malice."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13473070

sallypelt

Posts : 3303
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Dead v Alive - A comparison of certainty

Post by Letterwriter on 12.04.14 13:09

A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: "Cyril Smith's acts were vile and repugnant..."

Isn't it funny how, after a quick trial by media, everyone is certain that the dead person in question was a paedophile - eg Smith, Savile.

However, upon examination of the evidence available in respect of a living person, so far, a lot of juries have not been so certain.

Makes me wonder how any trial of Smith or Savile would have gone had they been tried by jury while alive rather than by media once dead.

Letterwriter

Posts : 68
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Cristobell on 12.04.14 13:14

I sometimes wonder if child abuse is quite as prolific as 'they' would have us believe?

For example, some might say that a government could create an artificial fear of terrorism in order to bring in controversial laws that allow them to arrest citizens and imprison them without going through the due judicial process. If the Laws are 'sweeping' enough, they could be used to arrest just about anyone, as we saw during that disgraceful Labour party conference in 2005 where anti war protesters were arrested.

History has shown us that governments can and do use questionable propaganda in order to enforce laws that support their 'power'.  In WWII, Hitler successfully created a hate campaign against an ethnic minority that resulted in the deaths of over 6m Jews. History is littered with examples of governments scapegoating minorities for their own evil ends.   

Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.

The internet is evolving at such a rate it is virtually impossible to police.  For any law or restriction 'they' bring in, there will be hackers and information seekers who will be one step ahead within hours.  Internet crime is a new phenomenon. and ultimately the only way in which it can be stopped would be to use the same restrictions as Cuba and China, and no-one wants that I hope.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Snifferdog on 12.04.14 13:20

Politicians already have the wherewithal to snoop on each other and on the internet.

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by worriedmum on 12.04.14 14:16

@Snifferdog wrote:You are so correct Sallypelt - the dead cannot speak and their corpses are not going anywhere. We can't even extract useful information out of them.
Aquila one cannot believe the pathetic excuses we get from those that KNEW BUT DID NOTHING. These are the very ones who are supposed to be beyond reproach and protecting the citizens. The mind truly does boggle at their arrogance and effrontry. These think their citizens are Dumb and they should be investigated as well. The old adage "birds of a feather stick together" and "like attracts like" are so true...
all imo
 bravo

And don't forget, these people get voted in because they are perceived as having 'nous'. So  their 'explanations' sound a little lame to me...

worriedmum

Posts : 1631
Reputation : 250
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by j.rob on 12.04.14 17:31

@Cristobell wrote:I sometimes wonder if child abuse is quite as prolific as 'they' would have us believe?

For example, some might say that a government could create an artificial fear of terrorism in order to bring in controversial laws that allow them to arrest citizens and imprison them without going through the due judicial process. If the Laws are 'sweeping' enough, they could be used to arrest just about anyone, as we saw during that disgraceful Labour party conference in 2005 where anti war protesters were arrested.

History has shown us that governments can and do use questionable propaganda in order to enforce laws that support their 'power'.  In WWII, Hitler successfully created a hate campaign against an ethnic minority that resulted in the deaths of over 6m Jews. History is littered with examples of governments scapegoating minorities for their own evil ends.   

Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.

The internet is evolving at such a rate it is virtually impossible to police.  For any law or restriction 'they' bring in, there will be hackers and information seekers who will be one step ahead within hours.  Internet crime is a new phenomenon. and ultimately the only way in which it can be stopped would be to use the same restrictions as Cuba and China, and no-one wants that I hope.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable comment and I think that the Madeleine case was designed, in part, imo, to create an atmosphere of  paranoia and to allow the state to have greater control over an individuals right to privacy (DNA banks, possibly micro-chipping, Amber Alerts and so on.)

However, even just looking back on my own experiences (and no, thankfully, no abuse to speak of) I remember one girl in my class who told us what her 'Uncle' would do. We were so innocent and naive we believed her explanation of why he would do it and to my knowledge no-one ever reported this to a member of staff. And I remember the odd teacher/club leader who you never wanted to have near you as you heard rumours about them or you just sensed that their behaviour/motives were inappropriate.

Statistically, harm is most likely to be done by family or close acquaintances so that creating a climate of fear over 'stranger abduction' is willfully spreading paranoia about something that is, indeed, rare. As the McCanns themselves have repeatedly stated. If Kate had thought for one minute that leaving Madeleine without a babysitter would expose her to any risk - however small - she would never have done it.

Which makes it more that peculiar that, practically the minute Kate 'found Madeleine missing' she just KNEW she had been abducted by a stranger.

I'm sorry but why does anyone believe either of the McCanns? They have the Clarence affliction and probably the same number of teeth, imo.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by AndyB on 12.04.14 18:06

@Cristobell wrote:Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.
Yes it's possible but given that they pretty much spy on us with impunity already I think its unlikely. Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg. Prior to his death if I'd posted on here about Jimmy Saville being a prolific paedophile I think the vast majority of people would have dismissed me as a raving loony, yet look at what we know now. The scandal has now reached the Palace of Westminster in the form of Cyril Smith so where will it be and what will we know next year or the year after? I guess the answer to that depends on how widespread it is and the establishment's ability to maintain the cover-up, but the more I read about things like Dunblane (and to an extent the Madeleine McCann case) the more disheartened I become.

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Guest on 12.04.14 23:42

Lord Acton 1887 ( and George Orwell ~ 1940s) "Power corrupts and all power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

 Unfortunately the good great men and women are fewer in number and power. But we can make a difference. Knowledge is power.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Guest on 13.04.14 11:01

The sad case of Ben Cowburn was mentioned somewhere recently; I'm hoping that someone will remember where and this can be moved to the same topic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603439/TV-comedian-accused-grooming-teenager-uses-libel-lawyer-explain-boys-family.html

What an interesting choice of libel lawyers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by mouse on 13.04.14 23:24

@AndyB wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.
Yes it's possible but given that they pretty much spy on us with impunity already I think its unlikely. Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg. Prior to his death if I'd posted on here about Jimmy Saville being a prolific paedophile I think the vast majority of people would have dismissed me as a raving loony, yet look at what we know now. The scandal has now reached the Palace of Westminster in the form of Cyril Smith so where will it be and what will we know next year or the year after? I guess the answer to that depends on how widespread it is and the establishment's ability to maintain the cover-up, but the more I read about things like Dunblane (and to an extent the Madeleine McCann case) the more disheartened I become.

"Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg."

Agree particularly with above line. I think that being snooped on is a far less worrying concern than the abuse of children - but maybe that is just me. Though I do not think that this is really the reason for the 'hysteria' Cristobel states. I think those on high would like nothing better than to completely shut down any more discussion of child abuse, because too many have a so called unhealthy interest in the subject. Let's face it, the crime of child abuse - for that is what it is - is actually now looked down on more than a murder charge - it can completely ruin lives/families....it is the one crime that a human being can be feel totally ashamed of if it were to be made public. In this world nobody wants to be a friend of/work with/live with a child abuser, unless they are another child abuser...or very strange. Please also do not think that I wish to be snooped on by government - I'm against that too of course, though if I was snooped on I would feel that I don't have anything to hide in that dept, but many others obviously do...and that's the prob!

What really gets my goat at the moment though - is the fact that some are using these recent cases of accused who have now been proclaimed innocent of historical abuse cases as a reason to not bringing these cases anymore - as if they don't ever happen. That these accusers made it all up, were liars. Some might have been jumping on the bandwagon - but many I'm sure were not. These cases were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. But strange then, how these same people (some in government, some in the legal world) were very quiet when the lead singer of the 'Lost Prophets' who abused babies for goodness sake - was found guilty, as was Stuart Hall. Let us remember that the Singer was reported to the police some time ago, but the police never took it up, as was Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith I believe was also reported but nothing happened.....See the pattern. Now I know that some will say that the latter two are dead so they could still be innocent, but for a moment feel how those who have accused them, feel about this....that the police - if they had done their job at the time - they could have had some justice, and we would not be looking at them as historical cases. We also have to ponder then if we should not bring say.....Murder trials, GBH, Fraud etc, etc....if so many people get off these cases too, and we know that they do...But isn't that what our justice system is all about. Some will be found guilty, some innocent...So begs the question - what are we expecting here....guilty everytime???? Mass hysteria? I say those that have jumped on the bandwagon to stop historic cases coming to court are the hysterical ones....and for what reason - only they will know......I feel that really - this is all about stopping the subject of child abuse being discussed so publicly, thereby stopping cases of those in the system who have cases pending, and for those not accused as yet.....

Anyway I've had my rant...Apologies for this, but this subject always hits a raw nerve for a reason, and it always needles particularly when certain groups begin to club together in some sort of campaign - I believe Keith Vaz has now joined the bandwagon along with a tory mp whose name at this hour escape me (of course again covering all partys - the mp is very friendly and supportive of Liberty) and before we know it - victims are labelled liars and fantasists - thus putting off any future victims from coming forward and testifying. Sadly many of these cases for true victims will not have the desired outcome they yearn for, but again, if the police had done their job in the first place......I just admire those who have come forward for their bravery. It takes a huge amount of guts.....

HYSTERIA...NO! A black out on child abuse cases is what those on high are trying their hardest to do, thereby casting all sorts of doubt, almost threatening their accusers - some are now wanting them named for goodness sake.....What were these MPs saying before about doing more for victims of these such crimes??? And where exactly did all the various expensive tax payer funded Saville investigations get us apart from biding some time for those with a particular interest. Sadly those on high with their 'interests' I would say are winning once again....Isn't it time that somebody spilled the beans on them all?

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Snifferdog on 14.04.14 1:41

The beans are already being spilled, and available to read on the net. There are books written by researchers and victims the subject if one wishes to investigate further. As AndyB wrote there are many people who would like to have a blackout on these child abuse cases coming to light. To my mind paedophilia/child abuse is rife, especially amongst those who have placed themselves on high.

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by mouse on 14.04.14 10:01

"Isn't it time that somebody spilled the beans on them all?"

When I said this - I meant by somebody - someone in a position of power. The PM/High Ranking Politician/High Ranking Police Office/Opposition Leader - somebody significant enough to make a change. Somebody who'll demand a proper investigation be made into this whole disgusting mess, start by looking into all the ex-members of pie and those who supported them would be a start. A thorough investigation into those who knew stuff at the Beeb, the various hospitals/childrens homes/mental institutions etc where to-date nobody significant has been charged.

I agree child abuse is rife, and world wide, and as I pretty much stated - I think a black out is what this group, whoever they all are, is what they desire.

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Cristobell on 14.04.14 12:08

@mouse wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.
Yes it's possible but given that they pretty much spy on us with impunity already I think its unlikely. Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg. Prior to his death if I'd posted on here about Jimmy Saville being a prolific paedophile I think the vast majority of people would have dismissed me as a raving loony, yet look at what we know now. The scandal has now reached the Palace of Westminster in the form of Cyril Smith so where will it be and what will we know next year or the year after? I guess the answer to that depends on how widespread it is and the establishment's ability to maintain the cover-up, but the more I read about things like Dunblane (and to an extent the Madeleine McCann case) the more disheartened I become.

"Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg."

Agree particularly with above line. I think that being snooped on is a far less worrying concern than the abuse of children - but maybe that is just me. Though I do not think that this is really the reason for the 'hysteria' Cristobel states. I think those on high would like nothing better than to completely shut down any more discussion of child abuse, because too many have a so called unhealthy interest in the subject. Let's face it, the crime of child abuse - for that is what it is - is actually now looked down on more than a murder charge - it can completely ruin lives/families....it is the one crime that a human being can be feel totally ashamed of if it were to be made public. In this world nobody wants to be a friend of/work with/live with a child abuser, unless they are another child abuser...or very strange. Please also do not think that I wish to be snooped on by government - I'm against that too of course, though if I was snooped on I would feel that I don't have anything to hide in that dept, but many others obviously do...and that's the prob!

What really gets my goat at the moment though - is the fact that some are using these recent cases of accused who have now been proclaimed innocent of historical abuse cases as a reason to not bringing these cases anymore - as if they don't ever happen. That these accusers made it all up, were liars. Some might have been jumping on the bandwagon - but many I'm sure were not. These cases were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. But strange then, how these same people (some in government, some in the legal world) were very quiet when the lead singer of the 'Lost Prophets' who abused babies for goodness sake - was found guilty, as was Stuart Hall.  Let us remember that the Singer was reported to the police some time ago, but the police never took it up, as was Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith I believe was also reported but nothing happened.....See the pattern. Now I know that some will say that the latter two are dead so they could still be innocent, but for a moment feel how those who have accused them, feel about this....that the police - if they had done their job at the time - they could have had some justice, and we would not be looking at them as historical cases. We also have to ponder then if we should not bring say.....Murder trials, GBH, Fraud etc, etc....if so many people get off these cases too, and we know that they do...But isn't that what our justice system is all about. Some will be found guilty, some innocent...So begs the question - what are we expecting here....guilty everytime????  Mass hysteria? I say those that have jumped on the bandwagon to stop historic cases coming to court are the hysterical ones....and for what reason - only they will know......I feel that really - this is all about stopping the subject of child abuse being discussed so publicly, thereby stopping cases of those in the system who have cases pending, and for those not accused as yet.....

I don't think this is about stopping the subject of child abuse being discussed Mouse, I believe the opposite, it is about promoting the discussion of child abuse. Organisations such as CEOP want child abuse right at the front of public thinking, in a way you could compare it to the old 'reds under the bed' threat the USA used in the late 50's to flush out communists.

The case of Missing Madeleine was manna from heaven for those who want to spread the word that there are paedophiles and child abductors all around us waiting to steal our innocent children from their beds.  As Tony pointed out there was no suggestion of child abuse when the CEOP representatives arrived in PDL.




Anyway I've had my rant...Apologies for this, but this subject always hits a raw nerve for a reason, and it always needles particularly when certain groups begin to club together in some sort of campaign - I believe Keith Vaz has now joined the bandwagon along with a tory mp whose name at this hour escape me (of course again covering all partys - the mp is very friendly and supportive of Liberty) and before we know it - victims are labelled liars and fantasists - thus putting off any future victims from coming forward and testifying. Sadly many of these cases for true victims will not have the desired outcome they yearn for, but again, if the police had done their job in the first place......I just admire those who have come forward for their bravery. It takes a huge amount of guts.....

I am actually a survivor of the abuse that went on in the Catholic care homes Mouse, so I have no agenda to protect the guilty.  I know first hand the abuse that went on and believe those responsible should be brought to justice.  However, I also know that unscrupulous people will use a genuine philanthropic subject to achieve their own ends, usually power and money.  The abusers from the home I was in, were also guilty of financial crimes and this is usual in these cases.

HYSTERIA...NO!  A black out on child abuse cases is what those on high are trying their hardest to do, thereby casting all sorts of doubt, almost threatening their accusers - some are now wanting them named for goodness sake.....What were these MPs saying before about doing more for victims of these such crimes??? And where exactly did all the various expensive tax payer funded Saville investigations get us apart from biding some time for those with a particular interest. Sadly those on high with their 'interests' I would say are winning once again....Isn't it time that somebody spilled the beans on them all?

The question I would ask Mouse, is who are the victims? Are we to believe this abuse is going on in normal families, among our neighbours and friends?  During Operation Ore, 130 children were snatched from their families, quite literally, some in dawn raids, while their fathers were arrested and charged with paedophile crimes for allegedly using their credit cards for a child porn website in the US.  A lot of the card details had been used fraudulently. Over 100 of these children were eventually returned to their families, but we can only imagine the horror all those involved must have lived through.  33 men committed suicide. This is why we must guard against hysteria Mouse.  God forbid we should get to a situation where neighbour is pointing the finger at neighbour.  

In trying to figure out who the victims are, I watched a video of Jim Gamble and he was discussing Missing Children, the charity, and the reason why Madeleine's case has been so unique.  He mentioned incredible figures, 100,000 people go missing every years, etc, and he itemised what becomes of them and gives an example of 99 still unaccounted for.  This where I become confused.  Because of those 99, apparently many are children who have been brought into the country illegally from places like Vietnam and Cambodia and they are being forced to work in marijuana factories, as slaves etc. He then said these are children who fall under the net without parents looking for them, and nameless.  Which had me rather confused as to how they form part of the 99 still missing.

When a child goes missing anywhere in the world, the news become global within hours, if not minutes.  It is worth looking at the Wiki charts of abductions, to see how rare child abduction really is, the Lindbergh baby is just one page up from Madeleine.  There was an horrific case in Belgium, where children were literally being snatched off the streets.  It makes chilling reading, and the scandal went right to the heart of the Belgian government, so I accept that paedo gangs do exist, but in Belgium, the entire country was looking for the children who had been abducted. If gangs of paedophiles are operating here in the UK, who are the victims? Men are being arrested and charged for watching child porn, but who is producing it? Imo the primary targets should be the makers and producers who have these poor kids at their mercy and the customers should be traced from that point outwards.

As a feminist, I am actually going to take up the banner for men here as I am seeing most of those accused as being the victims.  Men, and indeed some women like porn, thats a fact, it might be distasteful to some, but for many it makes the world go around.  The level of people's tastes vary enormously, and I could write some very amusing articles about some of the men I have met along the way, and they probably could about me, lol, but I'll spare this forum, suffice to say, lets take this topic out of the area of taboo because if we all throw our arms up in the air in shock and reach for the smelling salts every time sex is mentioned, we cannot discuss the real issues at the heart of this thread.  

Clearly hundreds of thousands of people do use their credit cards to watch porn online, and in doing so, they could inadvertently link to sites that could get them arrested.  The margins for error are so fuzzy that almost anyone could be incriminated. Sadly, most of the men whose lives were destroyed by Operation Ore are reluctant to speak about it for obvious reasons, but I don't think it should be brushed under the carpet, because if it is, it leaves the doors wide open for the same thing to happen again. 

Imo, there's nothing wrong with people looking at porn on the net and it will be impossible to ban because porn, like life, will always find a way.  The beauty of the internet is that we can look up, research, anything at all we want.  I am currently trying to make the 'perfect loaf' and I fear a baking term may become 'filtered' for my own sake, and all bread recipes will be cut off to me.  Those, btw, are the kind of laws we will be asking for if we pursue the line of policing the internet.

I'm going to use a very irritating AA phrase here Mouse, where you say you have nothing to hide, I would add YET.  It may be that in some time in the future you will sign a Petition, or voice your opinion on a subject that concerns you.  Some might even consider your posting on this forum subversive.  And do you really want the authorities going through your finances, your health records, every fingerprint you have left on the internet? Having nothing to hide is a terrible reason for giving away our freedoms, and remember you are also giving away the freedoms of your children and their children.   













 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by AndyB on 14.04.14 12:37

@mouse wrote:Isn't it time that somebody spilled the beans on them all?
The obvious answer is "yes, way past time". The difficulty is who?

You might find this interesting: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/the-strange-chain-that-links-harriet-harman-cyril-smith-nigel-evans-dave-lee-travis-boris-johnson-rupert-murdoch-leon-brittan-nick-clegg-and-david-cameron/

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by mouse on 14.04.14 19:03

[quote="Cristobell"][quote="mouse"]
@AndyB wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:Returning to child abuse, is it possible that in creating hysteria about child abuse, especially online, the authorities could legitimately snoop on everyone's online activity under the pretext of tracking down paedophiles. Few would protest because in doing so, they would be seen as having something to hide.
Yes it's possible but given that they pretty much spy on us with impunity already I think its unlikely. Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg. Prior to his death if I'd posted on here about Jimmy Saville being a prolific paedophile I think the vast majority of people would have dismissed me as a raving loony, yet look at what we know now. The scandal has now reached the Palace of Westminster in the form of Cyril Smith so where will it be and what will we know next year or the year after? I guess the answer to that depends on how widespread it is and the establishment's ability to maintain the cover-up, but the more I read about things like Dunblane (and to an extent the Madeleine McCann case) the more disheartened I become.

"Sadly I think that what we see, far from being manufactured hysteria, is just the very tip of a particularly repugnant iceberg."

Agree particularly with above line. I think that being snooped on is a far less worrying concern than the abuse of children - but maybe that is just me. Though I do not think that this is really the reason for the 'hysteria' Cristobel states. I think those on high would like nothing better than to completely shut down any more discussion of child abuse, because too many have a so called unhealthy interest in the subject. Let's face it, the crime of child abuse - for that is what it is - is actually now looked down on more than a murder charge - it can completely ruin lives/families....it is the one crime that a human being can be feel totally ashamed of if it were to be made public. In this world nobody wants to be a friend of/work with/live with a child abuser, unless they are another child abuser...or very strange. Please also do not think that I wish to be snooped on by government - I'm against that too of course, though if I was snooped on I would feel that I don't have anything to hide in that dept, but many others obviously do...and that's the prob!

What really gets my goat at the moment though - is the fact that some are using these recent cases of accused who have now been proclaimed innocent of historical abuse cases as a reason to not bringing these cases anymore - as if they don't ever happen. That these accusers made it all up, were liars. Some might have been jumping on the bandwagon - but many I'm sure were not. These cases were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. But strange then, how these same people (some in government, some in the legal world) were very quiet when the lead singer of the 'Lost Prophets' who abused babies for goodness sake - was found guilty, as was Stuart Hall.  Let us remember that the Singer was reported to the police some time ago, but the police never took it up, as was Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith I believe was also reported but nothing happened.....See the pattern. Now I know that some will say that the latter two are dead so they could still be innocent, but for a moment feel how those who have accused them, feel about this....that the police - if they had done their job at the time - they could have had some justice, and we would not be looking at them as historical cases. We also have to ponder then if we should not bring say.....Murder trials, GBH, Fraud etc, etc....if so many people get off these cases too, and we know that they do...But isn't that what our justice system is all about. Some will be found guilty, some innocent...So begs the question - what are we expecting here....guilty everytime????  Mass hysteria? I say those that have jumped on the bandwagon to stop historic cases coming to court are the hysterical ones....and for what reason - only they will know......I feel that really - this is all about stopping the subject of child abuse being discussed so publicly, thereby stopping cases of those in the system who have cases pending, and for those not accused as yet.....

I don't think this is about stopping the subject of child abuse being discussed Mouse, I believe the opposite, it is about promoting the discussion of child abuse. Organisations such as CEOP want child abuse right at the front of public thinking, in a way you could compare it to the old 'reds under the bed' threat the USA used in the late 50's to flush out communists.

The case of Missing Madeleine was manna from heaven for those who want to spread the word that there are paedophiles and child abductors all around us waiting to steal our innocent children from their beds.  As Tony pointed out there was no suggestion of child abuse when the CEOP representatives arrived in PDL.




Anyway I've had my rant...Apologies for this, but this subject always hits a raw nerve for a reason, and it always needles particularly when certain groups begin to club together in some sort of campaign - I believe Keith Vaz has now joined the bandwagon along with a tory mp whose name at this hour escape me (of course again covering all partys - the mp is very friendly and supportive of Liberty) and before we know it - victims are labelled liars and fantasists - thus putting off any future victims from coming forward and testifying. Sadly many of these cases for true victims will not have the desired outcome they yearn for, but again, if the police had done their job in the first place......I just admire those who have come forward for their bravery. It takes a huge amount of guts.....

I am actually a survivor of the abuse that went on in the Catholic care homes Mouse, so I have no agenda to protect the guilty.  I know first hand the abuse that went on and believe those responsible should be brought to justice.  However, I also know that unscrupulous people will use a genuine philanthropic subject to achieve their own ends, usually power and money.  The abusers from the home I was in, were also guilty of financial crimes and this is usual in these cases.

HYSTERIA...NO!  A black out on child abuse cases is what those on high are trying their hardest to do, thereby casting all sorts of doubt, almost threatening their accusers - some are now wanting them named for goodness sake.....What were these MPs saying before about doing more for victims of these such crimes??? And where exactly did all the various expensive tax payer funded Saville investigations get us apart from biding some time for those with a particular interest. Sadly those on high with their 'interests' I would say are winning once again....Isn't it time that somebody spilled the beans on them all?

The question I would ask Mouse, is who are the victims? Are we to believe this abuse is going on in normal families, among our neighbours and friends?  During Operation Ore, 130 children were snatched from their families, quite literally, some in dawn raids, while their fathers were arrested and charged with paedophile crimes for allegedly using their credit cards for a child porn website in the US.  A lot of the card details had been used fraudulently. Over 100 of these children were eventually returned to their families, but we can only imagine the horror all those involved must have lived through.  33 men committed suicide. This is why we must guard against hysteria Mouse.  God forbid we should get to a situation where neighbour is pointing the finger at neighbour.  

In trying to figure out who the victims are, I watched a video of Jim Gamble and he was discussing Missing Children, the charity, and the reason why Madeleine's case has been so unique.  He mentioned incredible figures, 100,000 people go missing every years, etc, and he itemised what becomes of them and gives an example of 99 still unaccounted for.  This where I become confused.  Because of those 99, apparently many are children who have been brought into the country illegally from places like Vietnam and Cambodia and they are being forced to work in marijuana factories, as slaves etc. He then said these are children who fall under the net without parents looking for them, and nameless.  Which had me rather confused as to how they form part of the 99 still missing.

When a child goes missing anywhere in the world, the news become global within hours, if not minutes.  It is worth looking at the Wiki charts of abductions, to see how rare child abduction really is, the Lindbergh baby is just one page up from Madeleine.  There was an horrific case in Belgium, where children were literally being snatched off the streets.  It makes chilling reading, and the scandal went right to the heart of the Belgian government, so I accept that paedo gangs do exist, but in Belgium, the entire country was looking for the children who had been abducted. If gangs of paedophiles are operating here in the UK, who are the victims? Men are being arrested and charged for watching child porn, but who is producing it? Imo the primary targets should be the makers and producers who have these poor kids at their mercy and the customers should be traced from that point outwards.

As a feminist, I am actually going to take up the banner for men here as I am seeing most of those accused as being the victims.  Men, and indeed some women like porn, thats a fact, it might be distasteful to some, but for many it makes the world go around.  The level of people's tastes vary enormously, and I could write some very amusing articles about some of the men I have met along the way, and they probably could about me, lol, but I'll spare this forum, suffice to say, lets take this topic out of the area of taboo because if we all throw our arms up in the air in shock and reach for the smelling salts every time sex is mentioned, we cannot discuss the real issues at the heart of this thread.  

Clearly hundreds of thousands of people do use their credit cards to watch porn online, and in doing so, they could inadvertently link to sites that could get them arrested.  The margins for error are so fuzzy that almost anyone could be incriminated. Sadly, most of the men whose lives were destroyed by Operation Ore are reluctant to speak about it for obvious reasons, but I don't think it should be brushed under the carpet, because if it is, it leaves the doors wide open for the same thing to happen again. 

Imo, there's nothing wrong with people looking at porn on the net and it will be impossible to ban because porn, like life, will always find a way.  The beauty of the internet is that we can look up, research, anything at all we want.  I am currently trying to make the 'perfect loaf' and I fear a baking term may become 'filtered' for my own sake, and all bread recipes will be cut off to me.  Those, btw, are the kind of laws we will be asking for if we pursue the line of policing the internet.

I'm going to use a very irritating AA phrase here Mouse, where you say you have nothing to hide, I would add YET.  It may be that in some time in the future you will sign a Petition, or voice your opinion on a subject that concerns you.  Some might even consider your posting on this forum subversive.  And do you really want the authorities going through your finances, your health records, every fingerprint you have left on the internet? Having nothing to hide is a terrible reason for giving away our freedoms, and remember you are also giving away the freedoms of your children and their children.   


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Response

Firstly AndyB - thank you for posting the link - shall read with interest. Think we are both on the same page on this one.

Secondly - Cristobel - I think we shall have to agree to disagree on most of our opinions on this subject. I do believe, as others do, that those up on high do not want child abuse discussed publically, this hysteria thing, frightening people, witch hunting etc - I just don't buy it!. If they wanted to frighten us so much - more people would know about CEOP , and other organisations, which talk a lot but don't really push a strong message out there in the public eye.You tell me how many people, I don't mean people on this site, people out on the street if you asked them who CEOP are - do you really think they would know who this organisation is and for what purpose. You only have to look at the Harriet Harman story - whilst Maria Miller was hounded for an apology, Harriet and her Hubby who refused to give one - were left to sit comfortably gathering splinters on the benches of the HOC, along with all of those top legal bods still proudly wearing their wigs. The media could have gone for them - but they haven't, and they won't, apart from the DM of course, but then excuses were trotted out on all the media, practically verbatim, that DM are just wanting their revenge. Where are all the prosecutions against those that covered up for Jimmy Saville? Why was the Jersey Care Home abuse case pretty much blacked out, and members of the investigating team pulled apart? Remember that Pic of JS sitting outside the place... I could go on and on.

(quote) 'The question I would ask Mouse, is who are the victims? Are we to believe this abuse is going on in normal families, among our neighbours and friends?'(end of quote)

The people/children who have abused. And Yes - it is, unfortunately. Obviously - not in every home - thank goodness most families are caring and loving. And I'm not saying we should all finger point. - just stay open-minded enough to realise - that sometimes in life on a rare occasion when something doesn't look right, and leads you to feel somebody may be in harms way - we should go with our gut. We might be wrong, but we might just save a child or an adult in some cases, of being abused, or worse. Remember Madeleine and her siblings were imo neglected. From the outside - the family, both middle class, well-dressed young doctors - would appear a very normal, happy family I would think. But on that night in May, in fact for several nights, this loving couple left their beautiful children unattended. The lady upstairs, who heard crying or what she thought was crying, reported the fact....She did her duty, all she could. It's not pointing the finger at your neighbour - it is doing your duty - but only when it is needed.

As for saying I have nothing to hide YET - I'm sure you know that I was referring to child abuse, having nothing to hide there for sure. Nothing else. I have absolutely nothing against porn on the internet though I'm not a viewer of such, and I don't believe I even mentioned the subject.. You describe men being arrested for looking at pictures of child porn - That expression sickens me; It is not child porn but child abuse images. Anyway, as I said, adult porn, as long as nobody gets hurt - I have nothing against, and I would not wish for any filters on my internet browsing. As for Jim Gambol - I don't think he is good guy. Besides, didn't he put down all the members of forums who don't support the Mccanns Account as Internet Nutters, or the like. Creepy guy imo....just going with my gut.












 
[

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Cristobell on 15.04.14 12:03

Thank you for your reply Mouse, and of course differing views lead to interesting discussions, so no problem.

What I was trying to highlight was the danger of instigating witch hunts, no yourself of course, but society in general.  We are all so repulsed by child abuse that it is an especially sensitive subject, almost taboo, and that lack of willingness to discuss it,opens the door to all sorts.  Imo, the primary focus of these crimes should be the makers of the porn and the rescue of the children.  

During Operation Ore thousands of men were arrested for viewing child pornography, their children taken into care and their lives devastated. The majority of them were completely innocent, their credit card details had been used fraudulently, but the damage was done, 33 of them committed suicide.  

I watched an excellent documentary last night by Jameela Jamil, where she investigates pornography and its effects on children and teenagers. Apparently much of the 'child porn' on the net stems from teenagers 'sexting' each other and passing the messages on.  Anyone viewing these underage age images is technically guilty of a sex offence and can be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.  

The answer of course is education, education, education!  At the end of the documentary, she showed how some schools were educating youngsters, some as young as 5 on the dangers of the internet etc, and the results were very impressive.  The way in which to protect children I feel, is to go directly to the source - speak to them!

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by PeterMac on 15.04.14 12:07

@Cristobell wrote:
During Operation Ore thousands of men were arrested for viewing child pornography, their children taken into care and their lives devastated. The majority of them were completely innocent, their credit card details had been used fraudulently, but the damage was done, 33 of them committed suicide.  
!

see
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/apr/19/hitechcrime.money
and then compare it with
http://google-law.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/operation-ore-was-it-distraction-used.html

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by Cristobell on 15.04.14 12:32

Thank you Petermac.  I did in fact have have a close read of the Duncan Campbell article the other day, its chilling stuff and imo, it should strike terror in everyone, because it shows how easy it is for unscrupulous people to incriminate their enemies on a crime so heinous that burning at the stake would be preferable.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by mouse on 15.04.14 18:13

@Cristobell wrote:Thank you for your reply Mouse, and of course differing views lead to interesting discussions, so no problem.

What I was trying to highlight was the danger of instigating witch hunts, no yourself of course, but society in general.  We are all so repulsed by child abuse that it is an especially sensitive subject, almost taboo, and that lack of willingness to discuss it,opens the door to all sorts.  Imo, the primary focus of these crimes should be the makers of the porn and the rescue of the children.  

During Operation Ore thousands of men were arrested for viewing child pornography, their children taken into care and their lives devastated. The majority of them were completely innocent, their credit card details had been used fraudulently, but the damage was done, 33 of them committed suicide.  

I watched an excellent documentary last night by Jameela Jamil, where she investigates pornography and its effects on children and teenagers. Apparently much of the 'child porn' on the net stems from teenagers 'sexting' each other and passing the messages on.  Anyone viewing these underage age images is technically guilty of a sex offence and can be placed on the Sex Offenders Register.  

The answer of course is education, education, education!  At the end of the documentary, she showed how some schools were educating youngsters, some as young as 5 on the dangers of the internet etc, and the results were very impressive.  The way in which to protect children I feel, is to go directly to the source - speak to them!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


My Response to Cristobel

I'm afraid we are poles apart in this argument. You again say men were arrested for downloading 'child porn' - that disgusting phrase which really means 'abusive images of children' - A chlid had to be abused/exploited for people to view these pics. And I stand not for men or women on this issue, but for children - boys and girls. They are the main victims in all of this. But we do also have to face the facts that men are more likely to be accused of child sexual abuse than women. Sorry, but that is the way it is. Believe me I feel sorry for the majority of men out there who have been let down by these pathetic sad abusers, that they have to take the odd looks when a man smiles at a little child in public. But I'm sure, if they are decent human beings they will not let the looks etc worry them, when they realise that their fleeting feeling of being somebody suspicious for 5 mins, is because of those out there who will abuse/groom/take advantage etc. A child's safety is the most important thing.

I think that is all I have to say, particularly as you appear to be quite supportive of Jim Gambol - who if I remember rightly, did not think downloading child images off the internet was such a big deal - this from an ex copper!

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Savile Abuse Enquiry now covers 41 hospitals (was - Child Abuse Scandal: How close to the very top levels of society does this paedophile scandal reach?)

Post by j.rob on 23.04.14 19:07

I am curious about Gerry's year in Amsterdam starting in January 2004 where he apparently had a fellowship to study cardiac MRI.


 In the light of the Gasper statements and other red flags around this case. 

No idea as to the veracity of these links and apologies for the horrible nature of the contents. But, unfortunately, paedophilia is a crime that thrives on secrecy. So best to let light into dark places and get the cockroaches out. 


If it is true that Jim Gambol, avid McCann supporter, did not think downloading child porn from the internet was such a big deal, I find that quite disturbing. But then I find most things about the disappearance of poor little Madeleine disturbing. 


ukpaedos-exposed.com/.../elm-guest-house-links-to-holland/


http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/httpwww_27.html


https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/a-paedophile-ring-in-amsterdam-march-1997/

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 225
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 22 of 23 Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum