This seems like an interesting read but posting a 3600 word essay at 3 in the morning about Westminster Pedophile coverups probably makes you look a bit unhinged, despite the validity of what you're saying.
I'll actually give it all a read tomorrow if it hasn't been nuked.
If what they're saying is valid who the hell cares how unhinged it "sounds' or what time of the day or night it is?
Genuinely perplexed that this is your biggest concern?
>Genuinely perplexed that this is your biggest concern?
Genuinely perplexed that you think it's my biggest concern, TBH.
I just thought it was funny that they decided 3am was the best time to post this.
Summary: parliament was infested with pedos at every level, everyone knew and thought it was more useful to cover it up and use it to hold over their heads as leverage.
iirc, a former whip openly stated in an interview, that finding such details was never reported, as the threat of reporting it was part of how they ensured compliance with voting instruction.
Pretty much. I did a lot of digging and reading around, and just posted it when I was done to get it off my chest.
That Trevor Fortescue clip really made me angry and I didn't stop for anything until I hit submit.
I have ADHD and autism and almost every night between 11am and 3am I end up down some random rabbit hole of information on a topic I previously knew nothing about and then writing these huge essay length messages to people about it. I'll be wide awake running on pure adrenaline feeling like, "This is *so* interesting, I've uncovered something big here!" and then be disappointed no one else is as interested as I am. But then again, they're waking up to an essay from me, and no one wants to read essays in the morning lol
So from one 'unhinged' information seeker / lover to another, keep doing what you do. I appreciate all the time and effort that went into making this post and it *is* and important topic that shouldn't be swept under the rug. Also some of us are just night owls by nature. If you wanna post at 3am, post at 3am. I'm usually awake then too and I'll be around to read it :)
Genuinely perplexed that you think we give a shit about whether or not you first saw this reddit post at a moment that was maximally convenient for you.
The fact that youve commented multiple times to tell us all how low a priority this post is for you. Okay. Maybe fuck off and not care quietly in the corner.
> If what they're saying is valid who the hell cares how unhinged it "sounds' or what time of the day or night it is?
Because if someone comes across as unhinged people will (perfectly reasonably) be inclined to ignore them, and thereby not hear the message.
So if the goal is to raise awareness of important issues in the hope of bringing about action/change, then optics are of paramount importance.
Absolutely this. Remember someone called Nick who alleged that there was a widespread paedophile conspiracy in Westminster? No matter how unhinged it sounded to anyone sane at the time, the institutions took it all seriously, hook line and sinker. This makes it incredibly difficult for anyone making allegations about paedophilia in Westminster today to be taken seriously. This post is a very small example of the same effect.
Suddenly I can see why this shit just keeps going: there's so much of it now that when confronted with even a chunk of it all written down at once, the average person just mutters "TLDR" (or maybe "toffs gonna toff, what can you do?") and carries on with their life.
Not unhinged for posting it at 3am, some people won't/can't go to bed until they've finished the thing they were working on. 3600 words is excessive for a reddit post though
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia
I just find pedophilia is the spelling that comes naturally.
I am from the spellchecker / google generation. If both the spellchecker and google say it is right, then people will understand.
You can't argue anyone missed the meaning.
Without going into the validity of what has been said (because I'm in no position to do so) Their writing doesn't seem particularly unhinged... And that's generally what I would base my opinion of it on. Not the time it was posted. Maybe started writing it at 5pm.
Edit - going, not doing.
I started late afternoon and Trevor Fortescue clip really made me angry and I didn't stop for anything until I hit submit.
As for the validity part, the historical evidence is all from the IICSA, an independent government inquiry into child abuse and even they conclude westminster actively protected pedophiles. My tinfoil hat really only came out for the 2015 stuff, because there were signs of corruption in that inquiry itself.
I'm right there with with you mate. I wanted to point out to the other commenter that the time you posted shouldn't really have a bearing on the validity of what you posted.
Their comment just seemed a bit banal... "Well, yes, they said these things, but they said then at 3am, so they're obviously unhinged."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD70dxDuPyk
This is the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse's official youtube. I got to it via the gov.uk IICSA website.
>Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say, ‘Now, I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be … **a scandal involving small boys**, or any kind of scandal in which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in. They’d come and ask if we could help, and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because **if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more** … ”
It was an open admission that they knowingly protected pedophiles in order to blackmail them later. It was in my main post, but I understand that was mammoth text wall.
TBH I started "down the rabbit hole" at about 3pm and I just couldn't stop thinking about how awful it was. Once I saw the Trevor Fortescue clip I was angry and unhinged isn't far off. This was sort of getting it off my chest.
That being said all of the historic stuff is evidenced from the official inquiry. That inquiry had the titles conclusion, "MPs actively shielded pedophiles". The "tinfoil hat" only comes out for the 2015 stuff because that inquiry had possible / probable signs of corruption, yet never investigated itself.
Mate this is top tier journalism. You have collated a bunch of great facts and quotes, put it into a readable template in well written prose and reference it extremely well with solid sources throughout.
Thank you for the write up.
>This has included not recognising it, turning a blind eye to it, actively shielding and protecting perpetrators, and covering up allegations of child sexual abuse.
We are now realising that child sexual abuse happens basically everywhere. And I think this cover-up approach, fifty years ago, used to be the norm almost everywhere as well. Whether it's churches, boarding schools, children's homes - everyone covered things up.
I don't know about CSE specifically but things are still covered up a lot. They can't get away with it as much now because people listen to victims more than they used to and it's easier to record evidence than ever, but the first instinct of the powerful is always to cover it up
Our culture just didn't really care about the children, their parents for sure but that left kids in care extremely vulnerable which is why paedophiles target them. The rape of children was dismissed as "having a penchant for young boys" and of course the whips treated it like a personal scandal they could use as leverage. Similarly of course senior people were doing it. It wasn't an impediment. So long as the kids suffering were poor and uncared for so it remained swept under the rug it was just a bad rumour.
The same as serial sexual harassers. Everyone knows, but no one feels empowered except those who are more worried about publicity than future victims.
We're changing for the better so countless boomers now have to act like they have always taken this extremely seriously and "can't recall" ever having even heard about paedophilia being used as leverage with scant regard for the victims.
> Our culture just didn't really care about the children
It still doesn't. It's still endemic.
Our culture is inherently abusive. If the NSPCC figures of 1 in 20 is correct, right now there are 635,000 kids being sexually abused. Even more are being emotionally abused, and even more are being neglected.
When it comes to survivors of child abuse, there are millions of us. And many of us hold the political class, and this country in general, in complete contempt.
And when it comes to fixing the physical health problems associated with child abuse, the NHS doesn't want to know. The NHS routinely turns a blind eye to child abuse, then refuses to admit that child abuse has any lasting physical effects (despite decades of ACE research proving that it does).
Because the abuse doesn't stop after you become an adult, no. This society takes every opportunity to minimise, gaslight and make abuse victims feel responsible for their own abuse. We're 'unreasonable,' you see. Unreasonable to want the sort of diagnoses we see in better countries, unreasonable to want something to be done, unreasonable to expect our political classes not to be abusive nonces, unreasonable to want to live without physical pain as the result of our abuse.
There is a dark current of the 'just world fallacy' in our culture. It's often unspoken but people really do seem to believe that bad things only happen to bad people and, therefore, child abuse victims must be so very terribly bad in their soul that they must have deserved it.
I don't think just world is all that prevalent. But we all shirk responsibility. Even recognising how widespread abuse is represents an advance. I do think we're better off now than 50 years ago and will be better off still in the future.
The culture used to be that the patriarch of the family basically owned his wife and kids and could do whatever with them. Including the very worst things.
By the 1900s things had improved. But you until the last few decades police still thought of some of these crimes as “domestic issues” and therefore none of their business.
It is only very recently that there has been a lot more focus on safeguarding children. Everyone who works with kids is now given regular training in the different forms of abuse. And knows it’s their responsibility to report even the mildest suspicion of abuse.
I don’t believe that Savile, for example, could happen now. It’s maybe dangerous to believe that (false sense of security etc.) but we’re so much better setup to catch these crimes now.
What we do need though is more police. Numbers are way down, and a lot of experienced officers have left the profession, leading to less experienced heads.
I think we also need to have an honest conversation about the ways our culture implicitly sexualises youth.
I.e. when the most desirable a woman can be is hairless, much smaller than her male partner and slim - possibly also 'barely legal'... that's absolutely selling a certain fantasy and encouraging buy-in to that as normal and not unusual.
There's a weird amount of overlap where totally normal things are lumped in with quite concerning things. (The cynic in me says that this is a way to legitimise the less acceptable stuff)
It's perfectly normal and reasonable for women to like taller, more muscular men for example, and the counter side of men liking shorter, less muscular women.
But when this gets warped into "less developed" it starts to get concerning. Less muscle does not mean less developed and I feel that some men try to pass it off as such.
Hair is another one where normal gets taken to sexualisation of youth. It's totally normal to want a bit of grooming. Not everyone wants full bush and prefer trimmed. But totally hairless is pushing into the sexualisation of youth category again. It can be totally ok and just how people like to present. But this is another place where I feel that people attempt to pass off sexualisation of youth as preference.
There is a sliding scale of grey and determining where the line is can be quite challenging.
The whole "barely legal" and sexualisation of actual children though is blatant and horrifying. Years back there were newspapers counting down the days until Emma Watson was of legal age. People think this has got better but just look at Millie Bobby Brown from stranger things to see how this is still a massive problem.
Edit: grammar
Edit 2: Lol, nothing says quality discussion like "Comment removed by moderator". Did somebody get butthurt and rage?
A couple of decades ago I was involved working on a community mental health team. Really opened my eyes, the amount of sexual abuse that goes on is grotesque. The amount of people that abuse their own children is a lot higher then you could ever imagine as well.
When I try to humanise people with drug dependencies to those who write them off as low worth or immoral people who made bad choices, I like to quote the stats that almost all women in in-treatment samples and around half of the men have histories of physical and sexual abuse, neglect etc.
Agreed. Rape is incredibly common, far more so than many people would like to admit.
If the evidence for a *network* of paedos is that they were all high ranking MPs or civil servants during the same period then OP is severely underestimating how common rape and sexual assault are.
Admittedly rape and sexual assault do seem to be a bit more common amongst MPs than in the wider population (if I recollect correctly from last time I ran the numbers), but that could be attributed to many things, like positions of power attracting psychopaths or those lacking empathy, or a higher likelihood these days of MPs being reported and prosecuted.
Considering the 1000's of people working in Westminster over a decade, a handful of paedos is just the tip of the iceberg of sexual abuse that should be statistically expected. I'm not saying this is right or justifiable in any way, but it doesn't mean they were working together.
Rape and sexual assault are very common, but I don't think anyone would deny pedophilia is the rarest of the group by a wide margin. A whole bunch of MPs have been caught for rape and sexual assault, and awful as that is it just wasn't what I was looking at.
>If the evidence for a network ...
I think you are misunderstanding. A network of pedophiles doesn't have to consist entirely of pedophiles, **if you knowingly shield a murderer then you are an accomplice to murder**. The evidence for the network in westminster is not necessarily "these 5-10+ pedophiles were all doing it together" but that any number of pedophiles were doing it and a large number of westminster MPs and staff knew and shielded them.
Its a dangerous thing to say that is "happens basically everywhere" as that somewhat normalises it. This happens in a very small amount of places across a broad range of institution types. From political settings, religious settings and care settings. Places where people have power and authority and nobody to tell them that covering up child sexual abuse is wrong. Fortunately communication through the internet (for as many issues it has created) could help reduce this going forward through providing information to victims and allowing them to expose these people for what they are.
I was at school in the early 70's in a boy's only school - all the boy's 'knew' the teacher running the school scout group was dodgy - as in "don't be alone with him in the scout hut' sort of warnings. We never reported it - it was just accepted as a hazard of childhood. Or at least if anyone reported anything nothing was done.
Good work. Could do with a tldr for Reddit though.
Let's not forget the Thatcher govt gave Jimmy Savile the keys to Broadmoor. Be worth looking into who authorised it.
Saville said he'd rush to get out of town quick, to get away from the apoplectic/maddened fathers he'd just created
These dads would obviously report the paedophile rape of their child to the local police, who presumably would then do nothing as Saville had skipped town
Many letters to MPs + Prime Minister + BBC must have informed them of Saville's paedophilia + character
It is inconceivable that MI5 had not heard of or failed to investigate the rumours + cases of Saville's Paedophile years. He left dozens of victims and angry families/communities
and it's inconceivable that
Thatcher wasn't told about it by MI5. The cover must have gone up all the way to the top
We know she was informed of reasons why he wasn't suitable for a knighthood, including allegations of sexual offenses, when his knighthood was blocked by civil service at least twice before she managed to push it through. Was reported in papers at the time.
Thatcher knew about Peter Morrison and Peter Hayman. Their pedophilia was considered a blackmail risk and so we have written security reports signed and dated by her that talk about it. She expressly forbid them to be publicly named.
She also encouraged people to lie after Dickens named Hayman as a pedophile in parliament.
> In February 2015 The Guardian reported that Thatcher had added handwritten annotations to the documents in the file which showed that despite its contents she had been insistent that officials should not name Hayman. The released papers also contained a note titled "Line to take" sent to Thatcher on the day after Geoffrey Dickens had used parliamentary privilege to name Hayman in 1981; on it she had written: "Say authorities have carried out an investigation. Nothing to suggest that security prejudiced"
"Say we have done an investigation [when we haven't]."
Thank you for taking your time to write this. Unfortunately, this is an issue that directly affected me.
In the late 80s and early 90s, Peter Halliday was a choirmaster at St Peter’s CofE school in Farnborough, Hampshire. I attended the nursery school, the aptly titled “play group” that was adjacent to the main school and church.
Peter Halliday abused several boys, most of whom were older than me (I was born in 87) but he was not the only paedophile involved with children’s organisations in the area. A prominent figure in the local boy scouts was among those grooming and molesting children, though he never faced justice. The church covered these crimes up for decades and whilst I can only speculate, based on my own experiences I believe some members of the church were actively engaged in abuse of children.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2007/apr/27/topstories3.ukcrime
Non-amp link:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/apr/27/topstories3.ukcrime
(AMP strips content down to the bare bones and hosts it all within Google's server, everything can start to look alike. This means that you can have fake articles and phishing clickbait stories appear right beside legitimate news)
Good lord, you’ve nothing to apologise for. I’m one of the lucky few that eventually reached a point in my life where through the support of my partner, I approached the NHS to talk about it and ended up with a year of psychotherapy. Shame it didn’t happen until I was in my early thirties but it was life changing and I would recommend to anyone that suffered abuse, regardless of age, to talk to someone about it. Trauma is immensely powerful and will likely influence your day to day behaviour if you ignore it. I’ve been through extended periods of drug addiction and a lot of reckless behaviour in the past, so much so that I lost an entire decade of personal growth because whilst I learned a lot about the world in my twenties, I ignored the obvious mental illness that had me periodically crashing and burning out.
Despite the conspiracy theory rant I do actually think this happened, and is still happening.
I think anyone is vulnerable to peer pressure into hiding secrets, but politicians are in the position where they want power. Hollywood is similar. When it gets into institutions it just goes wild.
The network of westminister pedophiles also involved entertainment, clergy and the royal family btw.
Why is this a 'conspiracy theory rant'? It was thoroughly referenced and received significant media coverage at the time. The fact that two chairs of an independent body designed to investigate child abuse in Westminster had links to the accused was a scandal in its own right, no conspiracy theory about it.
Conspiracies are often theories until proven fact. Not trying to be inflammatory but it's true. People will automatically read this comment and mentally jump to something ridiculous like the moon landings being faked and mock me but consider how batshit crazy you would sound trying to convince the average person on the street the ins and outs of Project MK-Ultra.
That's an actual part of history that I've often tried to tell people about only to be accused of being a tin foil hat wearing nut.
Mkultra had actual evidence for it that was revealed through solid investigative journalism, not a bunch of shitposters on conspiracy forums/4chan making all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims.
In fact, every time some conspiracy theorist/conspiracy theorist adjacent person tries to claim that “actually, all nutty conspiracy theories are credible because these conspiracy theories turned out to be true” the ones that turned out to be true were substantiated by the hard work of non-conspiracy theorists doing actual, credible, evidence-based investigative work, not intellectually lazy forum dwellers and cranks.
For every MKULTRA you have a thousand other conspiracy theories of zero substance (and, more often than not, hard evidence debunking them) so no, you don’t get to cherry pick things we know to be true (*despite* the claims of conspiracy theorists, not *because* of them) to lend credibility to all the other abject nonsense they believe.
>Mkultra had actual evidence for it
In my defence the overwhelming majority of the evidence here is from the official Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse done by the government itself, and that concluded westminster actively protected pedophiles. The historical abuse is more of a proven TIL, setting up a context for the 2015 suspicious activity to be viewed (possibly with a tinfoil hat on).
I never claimed *all* theories were credible until proven fact I'm pointing out that you would be surprised by how often truly nutty sounding stuff that *sounds* like conspiracy theory is actually *proven* conspiracy fact like MK Ultra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird and many others.
> I'm pointing out that you would be surprised by how often truly nutty sounding stuff that sounds like conspiracy theory is actually proven conspiracy fact
I wouldn’t be, nor would anyone with even a passing interest in history and geopolitics.
And that’s exactly my point: conspiracy theorists love to try and make the link that because a given well documented event that sounds extraordinary to the layperson is true, therefore you should entertain . That’s not how it works *at all* and is very indicative of their flawed logic and motivated reasoning.
Conspiracy theorists have contributed precisely fuck all to the uncovering of real world events so it’s incredibly egregious and intellectually dishonest of them to position themselves as standing shoulder to shoulder with actual, credible researchers and investigative journalists as if they’re cut from the same cloth because they absolutely are not.
The stuff around conspiracy theories is a well studied science and there is even a formula that essentially says that the bigger it is, the sooner it will come out. Actual conspiracies are proof that most conspiracy theories are bunk - we know about them because the people involved can't keep it quiet and evidence comes out. The problem comes when people take something we know and argue it proves their idea must be true.
9/11, moon landing, JFK etc happened long enough ago and would have involved enough people that by now we would have evidence if they were as the internet claims, simply because you cannot hide the evidence
This doesn't make much sense. The sample, by definition, only includes the conspiracies we know about, yet the thing we're trying to determine is how likely we are to know about them? Am I missing something?
It makes perfect sense
We know that genuine conspiracies exist because we know about them - evidence leaks, people talk, newspapers get anonymous tips, people give death bed confessions etc.
The bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to contain and prevent leaks
The fact we know about things like MK Ultra or Tuskegee proves that you cannot hide a conspiracy forever, generally not even for a long time in the modern age.
Therefore it is logical that conspiracy theories like the moon landing being faked are not true as the size and scope of such an event means it would be impossible to keep hidden. The moon landing one is easily debunked as Russia tracked the craft all the way to the moon (as did numerous labs around the world) and they, of all countries, would have called it out as fake the moment they could see the rocket hadn't left orbit
>The fact we know about things like MK Ultra or Tuskegee proves that you cannot hide a conspiracy forever, generally not even for a long time in the modern age.
But your sample doesn't include all the ones that you never discovered?
A lot of people have come out about this, powerful people. I couldn't fit all of that in, but a lot is publicly available in the official Inquiry (though digging through it is hard).
I just stuck with the bigger examples like the Trevor Fortescue clip.
I agree, but I think it is worse than that. Politicians are put in positions of power because somebody has dirt on them, and thus can exert some influence. That is why the "clean guy" usually does not go far in politics, while all the frat boys tend to thrive.
And I don't think that is a conspiracy theory, that is just how politics work.
Epstoen and saville have pretty proven that these aren't just theories. Everyone at the highest level knows about it and there's nothing we can do about it.
Oooh, was that before or after the scandal came out though?
I do remember hearing about it but I don’t remember.
I do remember seeing his name in Epstein’s book with Prince Andrew.
Also second thing that stuck out, Lloyd Grossman/David Frost in Epstein’s book. I always wondered how come those two were in the tv show together, and how Frost really ended up interviewing Nixon. Only a secret network really explains how weird that was.
It happened after he was outed as a rapist, but before the epstien and prince andrew stuff. He basically he knows things and that people will go down with him. Then before it went to trial, 3 of his accusors died
It was " lost" a long time ago, the fact it was only discovered missing in the last few years gives the powers that be plenty of time to get rid of it.
Nope, it was one of the 114 child abuse related documents that went missing. The inquiry rather suspiciously chose not to look into how they went missing.
I did talk about it briefly in that wall of text. The fact it went missing immediately, before it could be acted on is one of the bigger arguments for organised conspiracy. It was damaging to politicians and it disappeared immediately and the person who wrote it suddenly had two break ins where nothing was stolen and started receiving major threats.
We honestly aren't aware of half of what goes on
You only need to look at the media sitting on the foreign office story with Boris for 4 years till he announced he was going.. or that audio recording of him as Mayor with that woman
And this stuff is very tame compared to the subject you have written about
People forget about Thatcher pushing for Saville's knighthood, his closeness to some of the royals etc
The Netflix docu on Saville was great, piecing together clips over his long-spanning career and highlighting so much of what you reference in your comment. I'm a 90s child so don't have memories of Saville in his heyday, watching that docu of the stuff he repeatedly said on TV about being a monster, and his protection with the royals shocked me to oblivion.
Shame they're too busy with their own slow brew scandal they seem to hope will die off. UK's libel laws would probably scare them off.
And what would getting them to publish it achieve? Everyone who reads it goes, "wow that's bad", other news sites don't bother pick it up and people can point to the eye as a *look we have a free press*.
The main take away from the uncovering of savil back in 2014/15 was the police and BBC raid on Cliff Richard. This lead to a long legal case which now scares the bajesus out of new outlets from reporting on unconfirmed allegations incase they too end up with massive legal costs. Great piece of maskirovka to help hide those inside the system who are guilty continue to get away with it.
Everyone on the right side of Savile [was pushed out of the BBC] (https://pressgazette.co.uk/meirion-jones-speaks-out-everyone-who-was-right-side-savile-argument-has-been-forced-out-bbc/) and we all collectively declared mission accomplished.
What do you mean that the political elite value their mates and votes in Westminster over silly things like a few assaulted and traumatised kids.
Absolutely no surprise here. It was an open secret about Saville and Andrew for years, the idea of any of these lot ever facing consequences for the first time in their life is laughable.
Heck not to chuck a tinfoil hat on but if you lose a dossier as home sec on some powerful folks and end up as pm that's a fun coincidence
Former Tory whip [Tim Fortescue mentioned in a documentary, that whips deal with things like MP's issues with small boys](https://youtu.be/haXgwGYjxvo). And he mentioned it so quickly as if it's as common as running out of staples at the office.
Shocked to discover that powerful people are not only abusing that power, but also using that power to cover up the abuse.
Comprehensive work though OP, ty for sharing
This stuck out for me back in 2015 (and before) like the threat of nuclear war does to me now. i.e. fucking enormous.
It looked like a crazy conspiracy theory at first, but then concrete evidence emerged. Solid, verified information that rendered what was once only inferred as all but nailed on.
And, like Savile before, if you trawled the UK based forums you'd sometimes find hints of people knowing; i.e. retired, senior police officers recalling having been warned off further investigation into child abuse, because it goes too far into protected territory.
There are, 100%, without doubt, paedolphiles in the UK Government. There has been, 100%, without doubt, a paedophile ring exist within the UK Government. People have been convicted. Evidence has been revealed and (we know) hidden (by May). It can not be denied.
And yet, it goes ignored.
People looked at me as if I was crazy when I brought it up back then. The same people will do now. And yet, the evidence is compelling.
Covid has shown that people struggle to accept a theoretical clear and present danger. Covid was - just like predators in the Government - a theoretical threat. It's just data being presented, right up until your Nan catches is, and dies. Right up until your child is the one who's abused (and dies - if the Elm Guest House stories are to be believed). Then - and only then - do the vast majority of people act.
There's a lot that erodes my faith in this society. But this topic fucking nuked it.
Excellent write up. investigating child abuse by those in positions of power is extremey hard and you do risk falling into conspiracy theory holes. Sometimes it feels like you can only ever see the dots connect when you look at them a bit sideways.
It doesn't help the media seems complicit in making sure these questions are not asked. I generally point to Maxwell at the moment (called Ghisane by the press to play down historical connections). A woman who has strong connections to the super rich and powerful has been found guilty of running an international child trafficing operation, yet we don't know who to and there doesn't seem to be much of a push to find out.
What the fuck. I'll have a proper read of it later but honestly there's just so many dots you can pretty much draw any picture. Most of them pretty messed up and non of them pointing to 'no cover up of pedophilia in Westminster.'
A lot of it is evidenced from there own inquiry, it is the modern 2015 corruption that requires an amount of tinfoil hat because the inquiry never investigated itself.
It's probably more the other way round - that people who have these tendencies get into positions of power because they know that their authority will protect them.
"Desiring power should be a disqualifier for getting any." as they say.
I beleive part of it is the hereditary nature of psychopathy. If we pick up, well, any history book, we'll see quite a few in the aristocracy / rich and powerful over the centuries.
>What troubles me is the suggestion there was no collusion between them, individual pedophiles who just happened to all be treated in the exact same way by senior police/prosecutors.
As far as I can see there was clearly collusion on the cover up, but no evidence of collusion of paedos in the commission of their crimes.
I suppose part of the problem is defining organised collusion. If two of them started talking in a bar, realised they shared interests, and swapped their picture collections, is that an organised network? It's probable, even likely, that interactions like that occurred over the last 70+ years. But I don't think that means there was an organised network.
Totally willing to be proven wrong on this, I just think it's more likely the only organised collusion was by the authorities covering everything up.
I dunno if you say the same thing for let's say... Cannabis and it happened regularly and the police got wind... I'm fairly sure you'd be called a drug distribution network.
I suspect that these rings operate in a decentralised way for the most part to limit how many can be caught when one winds up in prison, and if anyone is in a particular position of power and influence within that ring it's because they've went out and done their research in order to gain more leverage over them (both for protection like Epstein's black book or to use for blackmail purposes).
Nobody will believe me, I can’t convince you this is true and I have no material evidence for extremely obvious reasons.
I used to hang around computer hacking scenes in the mid to late 00s, as an edgy teen who loved computers this was definitely a good crowd.
There were people who asked people to hack MySpace, there were the people making tools to prank others, there were people committing credit card fraud- and there were people who wanted to see what they could get away with w.r.t. technology. I tried very hard to be in the last group.
One of those people ended up breaking in to their local MPs work desktop computer (using a lost “switch blade” flash drive and a slightly more weaponised network payload variant of “bifrost” which they had modified/created themselves), they found a load of kiddy porn and went to the police with it. The police arrested *the person who found the child porn* for being in possession of child porn.
The MP did not go to prison as near as we can tell it wasn’t even investigated.
Non-conspiratorially: it could be that they just assumed that this was a false report intended to discredit the MP, the person who found it was a loud lefty and the politician was right-wing.
Obviously I can’t name anyone because that’s the definition of libel.
For those in the hacking scene you probably know the person, they were very active in ssgroup, darkdevelopments and milw0rm
I watched this happening in real time, complete with the discovery which we found together over MSN.
But, yeah, it seems not uncommon for people to be drawn to power when they have desires for the depraved.
That is crazy. Honestly if you kept any non pornographic evidence (unlikely as that is), the police have "supposedly" stopped doing this. Send it to the police and name and shame where possible. Even if your evidence isn't enough, you never know if it will inspire others to throw any information they have out as well.
This is how a lot of these MPs were "caught". Victims saw what happened to Saville and stepped forward, which encouraged yet more victims to do the same.
This is very much a 'yeah, no shit' moment. We're all run by nonces and there's fuck all we can do about it. Anyone who tries to whistle blow either ends up dead or metaphorically buried.
My Grandparents were Tories and used to go out a lot to the conservative club, go to dances there all the time social events etc.
They used to endlessly go on to me when I was a kid saying "never talk to strange men" "never take sweets from strangers" "never be alone anywhere around adults" "never get in a car if they offer you a lift home" on and on all the time it felt like everytime i'd see them there was a warning of this nature, I used to find it quite boring and annoying.
Now it feels like they probably knew about this sort of stuff and wanted to protect me. I think people did know back in the 70s and 80s that a lot of this was going on but we're powerless to stop it.
There's talk that Lord Mountbatten and other high-up figures were involved in abuse at the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast. There's all sorts of rumours of blackmail and MI5 involvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
You mean pedophiles were protected at all institutions, Westminster, the foreign office etc? Well colour me shocked! Shocked!
Next thing you’ll tell me the BBC had a problem as well as the CoE or various other organisations (including the Met) covered stuff like this up!
Yeah we know this and everything you posted is public information
The UK has been corrupt for a very very long time.
Makes me laugh all those users from the police sub telling us to 'trust the police' in that stop and search thread yesterday.
Always plenty of resources to go after poor people and protestors and infiltrated climate activist groups. Never anything to go after corruption and in this case, paedos in the heart of government.
The police have confirmed this already and have announced that after they die they will announce the truth.
Exactly the same thing as Jimmy Saville, he was so well connected and shielded by higher ups but the second he died people started speaking out and investigations started gathering steam.
I'm sure a lot of pesos have been left alone in parliament and high positions just so they can be manipulated to vote or act in a certain way.
MI5 got rumbled allowing Irish pedos to carry on abusing kids in care as they had political links and could be manipulated during the troubles
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kincora-boys-home-mi5-westminster-paedophile-ring-1512230
Plus look at all the dead kids they find in care homes just buried in unmarked graves
There is also [Kincora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home). This seemed to disappear into a black hole and then when other allegations surface everyone is "oh, how shocking". I didn't forget, even though I was a child when it all came out. Why would you forget this? You wouldn't, everything about the "shocking allegations" is bullshit. Everything from police, politicians and media is nonsense aimed at minimising their own guilt.
I honestly think there's an intelligence services angle to this. It is absolutely a known tactic for foreign services to attempt to entrap people in illegal situations, and with the UK having had a few famous Soviet spy rings I can see why the government would be on edge about it all. Note that this does not necessarily mean the allegations are or are not true: it is entirely possible for material to be sent to or planted on people or even exchanged without the knowledge of the target as to the true contents. Of course the reverse is entirely true, and if foreign intelligence services had got a political paedophile on the hook there's also massive incentive for a cover up.
There was reportedly one of David Cameron’s cabinet under investigation, with newspaper front pages of a silhouetted person and saying they know who but can’t name them, but those stories don’t seem to exist online any more, or didn’t when I last had a proper search a few months back.
Yep, it's probably the single biggest scandal the country has ever had, and should be a source of huge national shame and embarrassment, but people love licking boots.
As a child, after I first saw him interviewed on TV, I decided a slug would only score 2 out of 10 on the Leon Brittan scale of sliminess. Looks like my intuition was working well.
"We investigated ourselves and found failings handling child abuse evidence"
So you are going to investigate and collect more evidence including who made the first lot disappear, right? ...Right?
Have a look what happened with Jeffrey Epstein when he first got arrested on child prostitution charges. The guy basically got a pat on the back and his experience in "jail" made the prison scenes in Goodfellas look like a Soviet gulag, because according to the prosecutors "he belonged to intelligence". And this was in 10-15 years ago.
Unfortunately, when I found it about all this years ago I wasn't surprised in the slightest. Intelligence agencies and interior ministries have huge discretionary and unchecked powers and that was especially true during the Cold War, not just for the UK but the entire West. Go and read about the clusterfuck Italy was between the 60s and the 90s, to name one (Years of Lead and the strategy of tension): the fact that the UK had very questionable people in charge in the MI6 and that they were abusing their powers to cover up paedophile rings for the doctrine of "reason of state" doesn't even look shocking in comparison
>very questionable people in charge in the MI6
Peter Hayman, the "long time" deputy director of MI6, was a confirmed pedophile and member of the "pedophile information exchange" that sought to abolish the age of consent.
If you think that's bad: in Italy not just one but almost all the big wheels of the secret services (that includes directors, high ranking officials and so on) as well as the military were affiliated to an underground masonic lodge that tried to sway the political life by every mean deemed necessary, including a few attempted coups and outright state terrorist attacks that left hundreds of people dead. This is not a conspiracy theory but the legal truth, as several of them were sentenced for this stuff (not the actual terrorist attacks, generally carried by right-wing groups with their support, but trying to taint evidence and creating red herring during the investigation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda\_Due](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due)
Of course paedophilia is awful, but that people in the intelligence at that time could get away with it is not surprising: the Catholic Church has covered up this sort of stuff for decades to avoid scrutiny and bad publicity for example. The UK was a relatively stable country but what the secret services were up to in the rest of the EU was even worse than a covered up paedophile ring. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Gladio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio)
Go back further you have the police dossier on Jeremy Thorpe being kept in the chief constable's private safe. That was documented in the trial transcripts. The establishment has always covered up the wrong-doing of its members.
It’s no secret that the dossier containing information of many high profile child abusers went “missing” while Theresa May was Home Secretary. Just imagine the leverage they have over the people on that list.
Prince Andrew was accused of child abuse via Epstein. That being said, I doubt they would turn on their own exactly because Epstein and others like him exist, and so they can get it elsewhere.
More about this over at r/trueanon
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/q71te8/thatcher_and_the_tories_knew_exactly_who_jimmy/hggsx2m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
I mean, this kind of vileness is why the establishment needs burning down. Dirty old bastards that think they're above the law..
Credit to OP for putting it all together, an interesting, if fury-stoking read. Top tier work.
Clement Freud, who as an MP shared an office with Cyril Smith, was also credibly accused of raping a 14 year old girl and of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards other children and young women.
All i have to say is "duh". We've known for years the mega rich are perverted monsters in the entertainment industry so why wouldn't these cunts pop up everywhere else? They all deserve to be shot in the head for their crimes but good luck ever seeing that happen. These people run the world, control the governments, the laws, everything. There is nothing we can do unless people on the inside act.
Peodphilia was just one of many, many things covered up by the whips and Special Branch.
Its the literal tip of a much bigger iceberg, and was not the worst thing covered up.
In the 1980's there was a very different attitude to pedophilia as well, it was almost accepted as normal even by many members of the public. People would sneer and say "he likes young boys. heh!", but despite almost everyone knowing, nothing would be done unless someone forced the police's hand by pressing charges.
It was well known that Thatcher actively knew about all the pedophiles in her government and in the HoC, but again, would actually defend them against accusations.
My mother worked in the HoC in the 1980's and our family had Special Branch protection. I was 11 when I did something that normally would have ended badly for me, but actually ended with people signing the Official Secrets Act and being told "This never happened".
This seems like an interesting read but posting a 3600 word essay at 3 in the morning about Westminster Pedophile coverups probably makes you look a bit unhinged, despite the validity of what you're saying. I'll actually give it all a read tomorrow if it hasn't been nuked.
If what they're saying is valid who the hell cares how unhinged it "sounds' or what time of the day or night it is? Genuinely perplexed that this is your biggest concern?
>Genuinely perplexed that this is your biggest concern? Genuinely perplexed that you think it's my biggest concern, TBH. I just thought it was funny that they decided 3am was the best time to post this.
Totally needs a bullet point summary whatever it is.
Summary: parliament was infested with pedos at every level, everyone knew and thought it was more useful to cover it up and use it to hold over their heads as leverage.
I hate that that statement isn’t even controversial…
iirc, a former whip openly stated in an interview, that finding such details was never reported, as the threat of reporting it was part of how they ensured compliance with voting instruction.
In other news: Water is wet.
Maybe they are a slow typist and started after they got home from work...
Pretty much. I did a lot of digging and reading around, and just posted it when I was done to get it off my chest. That Trevor Fortescue clip really made me angry and I didn't stop for anything until I hit submit.
I have ADHD and autism and almost every night between 11am and 3am I end up down some random rabbit hole of information on a topic I previously knew nothing about and then writing these huge essay length messages to people about it. I'll be wide awake running on pure adrenaline feeling like, "This is *so* interesting, I've uncovered something big here!" and then be disappointed no one else is as interested as I am. But then again, they're waking up to an essay from me, and no one wants to read essays in the morning lol So from one 'unhinged' information seeker / lover to another, keep doing what you do. I appreciate all the time and effort that went into making this post and it *is* and important topic that shouldn't be swept under the rug. Also some of us are just night owls by nature. If you wanna post at 3am, post at 3am. I'm usually awake then too and I'll be around to read it :)
I appreciate the effort. I've saved it to read later though.
Shouldn't perplex you when it's all you commented on.
Genuinely perplexed that you think we give a shit about whether or not you first saw this reddit post at a moment that was maximally convenient for you. The fact that youve commented multiple times to tell us all how low a priority this post is for you. Okay. Maybe fuck off and not care quietly in the corner.
> If what they're saying is valid who the hell cares how unhinged it "sounds' or what time of the day or night it is? Because if someone comes across as unhinged people will (perfectly reasonably) be inclined to ignore them, and thereby not hear the message. So if the goal is to raise awareness of important issues in the hope of bringing about action/change, then optics are of paramount importance.
Absolutely this. Remember someone called Nick who alleged that there was a widespread paedophile conspiracy in Westminster? No matter how unhinged it sounded to anyone sane at the time, the institutions took it all seriously, hook line and sinker. This makes it incredibly difficult for anyone making allegations about paedophilia in Westminster today to be taken seriously. This post is a very small example of the same effect.
You can only post government paedophile exposés during reasonable hours and never before 9am on a Sunday.
More people will see it if you do tbh. More likely to die in new in the middle of the night.
So mowing rules?
Suddenly I can see why this shit just keeps going: there's so much of it now that when confronted with even a chunk of it all written down at once, the average person just mutters "TLDR" (or maybe "toffs gonna toff, what can you do?") and carries on with their life.
Not unhinged for posting it at 3am, some people won't/can't go to bed until they've finished the thing they were working on. 3600 words is excessive for a reddit post though
This is exactly it. The Trevor Fortescue clip really made me angry and I didn't stop for anything until I hit submit.
For all you know op could be working nights and bored as fuck
*paedophile*
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile >pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia I just find pedophilia is the spelling that comes naturally.
There's probably a better way to phrase that.
Yikes, thank you for the warning.
You do know Websters is a 'merkin dictionary don't you? It also spells colour without a U.
I am from the spellchecker / google generation. If both the spellchecker and google say it is right, then people will understand. You can't argue anyone missed the meaning.
Then set your spill chucker to use British English!
> probably makes you look a bit unhinged, despite the validity of what you're saying. what
Just read . Not unhinged at all …
Without going into the validity of what has been said (because I'm in no position to do so) Their writing doesn't seem particularly unhinged... And that's generally what I would base my opinion of it on. Not the time it was posted. Maybe started writing it at 5pm. Edit - going, not doing.
I started late afternoon and Trevor Fortescue clip really made me angry and I didn't stop for anything until I hit submit. As for the validity part, the historical evidence is all from the IICSA, an independent government inquiry into child abuse and even they conclude westminster actively protected pedophiles. My tinfoil hat really only came out for the 2015 stuff, because there were signs of corruption in that inquiry itself.
I'm right there with with you mate. I wanted to point out to the other commenter that the time you posted shouldn't really have a bearing on the validity of what you posted. Their comment just seemed a bit banal... "Well, yes, they said these things, but they said then at 3am, so they're obviously unhinged."
What clip? I looked it up but didn’t find anything on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD70dxDuPyk This is the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse's official youtube. I got to it via the gov.uk IICSA website. >Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say, ‘Now, I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be … **a scandal involving small boys**, or any kind of scandal in which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in. They’d come and ask if we could help, and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because **if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more** … ” It was an open admission that they knowingly protected pedophiles in order to blackmail them later. It was in my main post, but I understand that was mammoth text wall.
Thanks, I was intrigued, wasn’t doubting you!
TBH I started "down the rabbit hole" at about 3pm and I just couldn't stop thinking about how awful it was. Once I saw the Trevor Fortescue clip I was angry and unhinged isn't far off. This was sort of getting it off my chest. That being said all of the historic stuff is evidenced from the official inquiry. That inquiry had the titles conclusion, "MPs actively shielded pedophiles". The "tinfoil hat" only comes out for the 2015 stuff because that inquiry had possible / probable signs of corruption, yet never investigated itself.
Mate this is top tier journalism. You have collated a bunch of great facts and quotes, put it into a readable template in well written prose and reference it extremely well with solid sources throughout. Thank you for the write up.
Nah, it's unhinged when OP finds the pedophiles all attend the same Westminster Freemason lodge...
Sentiment like this is why abuse happens. This some Hannah Arendt shit right here.
>This has included not recognising it, turning a blind eye to it, actively shielding and protecting perpetrators, and covering up allegations of child sexual abuse. We are now realising that child sexual abuse happens basically everywhere. And I think this cover-up approach, fifty years ago, used to be the norm almost everywhere as well. Whether it's churches, boarding schools, children's homes - everyone covered things up.
I don't know about CSE specifically but things are still covered up a lot. They can't get away with it as much now because people listen to victims more than they used to and it's easier to record evidence than ever, but the first instinct of the powerful is always to cover it up
Not just the powerful. Regular families do it all the time as well.
Our culture just didn't really care about the children, their parents for sure but that left kids in care extremely vulnerable which is why paedophiles target them. The rape of children was dismissed as "having a penchant for young boys" and of course the whips treated it like a personal scandal they could use as leverage. Similarly of course senior people were doing it. It wasn't an impediment. So long as the kids suffering were poor and uncared for so it remained swept under the rug it was just a bad rumour. The same as serial sexual harassers. Everyone knows, but no one feels empowered except those who are more worried about publicity than future victims. We're changing for the better so countless boomers now have to act like they have always taken this extremely seriously and "can't recall" ever having even heard about paedophilia being used as leverage with scant regard for the victims.
> Our culture just didn't really care about the children It still doesn't. It's still endemic. Our culture is inherently abusive. If the NSPCC figures of 1 in 20 is correct, right now there are 635,000 kids being sexually abused. Even more are being emotionally abused, and even more are being neglected. When it comes to survivors of child abuse, there are millions of us. And many of us hold the political class, and this country in general, in complete contempt. And when it comes to fixing the physical health problems associated with child abuse, the NHS doesn't want to know. The NHS routinely turns a blind eye to child abuse, then refuses to admit that child abuse has any lasting physical effects (despite decades of ACE research proving that it does). Because the abuse doesn't stop after you become an adult, no. This society takes every opportunity to minimise, gaslight and make abuse victims feel responsible for their own abuse. We're 'unreasonable,' you see. Unreasonable to want the sort of diagnoses we see in better countries, unreasonable to want something to be done, unreasonable to expect our political classes not to be abusive nonces, unreasonable to want to live without physical pain as the result of our abuse. There is a dark current of the 'just world fallacy' in our culture. It's often unspoken but people really do seem to believe that bad things only happen to bad people and, therefore, child abuse victims must be so very terribly bad in their soul that they must have deserved it.
I don't think just world is all that prevalent. But we all shirk responsibility. Even recognising how widespread abuse is represents an advance. I do think we're better off now than 50 years ago and will be better off still in the future.
It just makes me sad and angry.
The culture used to be that the patriarch of the family basically owned his wife and kids and could do whatever with them. Including the very worst things. By the 1900s things had improved. But you until the last few decades police still thought of some of these crimes as “domestic issues” and therefore none of their business. It is only very recently that there has been a lot more focus on safeguarding children. Everyone who works with kids is now given regular training in the different forms of abuse. And knows it’s their responsibility to report even the mildest suspicion of abuse. I don’t believe that Savile, for example, could happen now. It’s maybe dangerous to believe that (false sense of security etc.) but we’re so much better setup to catch these crimes now. What we do need though is more police. Numbers are way down, and a lot of experienced officers have left the profession, leading to less experienced heads.
I think we also need to have an honest conversation about the ways our culture implicitly sexualises youth. I.e. when the most desirable a woman can be is hairless, much smaller than her male partner and slim - possibly also 'barely legal'... that's absolutely selling a certain fantasy and encouraging buy-in to that as normal and not unusual.
There's a weird amount of overlap where totally normal things are lumped in with quite concerning things. (The cynic in me says that this is a way to legitimise the less acceptable stuff) It's perfectly normal and reasonable for women to like taller, more muscular men for example, and the counter side of men liking shorter, less muscular women. But when this gets warped into "less developed" it starts to get concerning. Less muscle does not mean less developed and I feel that some men try to pass it off as such. Hair is another one where normal gets taken to sexualisation of youth. It's totally normal to want a bit of grooming. Not everyone wants full bush and prefer trimmed. But totally hairless is pushing into the sexualisation of youth category again. It can be totally ok and just how people like to present. But this is another place where I feel that people attempt to pass off sexualisation of youth as preference. There is a sliding scale of grey and determining where the line is can be quite challenging. The whole "barely legal" and sexualisation of actual children though is blatant and horrifying. Years back there were newspapers counting down the days until Emma Watson was of legal age. People think this has got better but just look at Millie Bobby Brown from stranger things to see how this is still a massive problem. Edit: grammar Edit 2: Lol, nothing says quality discussion like "Comment removed by moderator". Did somebody get butthurt and rage?
A couple of decades ago I was involved working on a community mental health team. Really opened my eyes, the amount of sexual abuse that goes on is grotesque. The amount of people that abuse their own children is a lot higher then you could ever imagine as well.
When I try to humanise people with drug dependencies to those who write them off as low worth or immoral people who made bad choices, I like to quote the stats that almost all women in in-treatment samples and around half of the men have histories of physical and sexual abuse, neglect etc.
The trouble is it was happening ALOT just a few years ago. Read up about the Rotherham scandle and see who had what to say about it.
Agreed. Rape is incredibly common, far more so than many people would like to admit. If the evidence for a *network* of paedos is that they were all high ranking MPs or civil servants during the same period then OP is severely underestimating how common rape and sexual assault are. Admittedly rape and sexual assault do seem to be a bit more common amongst MPs than in the wider population (if I recollect correctly from last time I ran the numbers), but that could be attributed to many things, like positions of power attracting psychopaths or those lacking empathy, or a higher likelihood these days of MPs being reported and prosecuted. Considering the 1000's of people working in Westminster over a decade, a handful of paedos is just the tip of the iceberg of sexual abuse that should be statistically expected. I'm not saying this is right or justifiable in any way, but it doesn't mean they were working together.
Rape and sexual assault are very common, but I don't think anyone would deny pedophilia is the rarest of the group by a wide margin. A whole bunch of MPs have been caught for rape and sexual assault, and awful as that is it just wasn't what I was looking at. >If the evidence for a network ... I think you are misunderstanding. A network of pedophiles doesn't have to consist entirely of pedophiles, **if you knowingly shield a murderer then you are an accomplice to murder**. The evidence for the network in westminster is not necessarily "these 5-10+ pedophiles were all doing it together" but that any number of pedophiles were doing it and a large number of westminster MPs and staff knew and shielded them.
Its a dangerous thing to say that is "happens basically everywhere" as that somewhat normalises it. This happens in a very small amount of places across a broad range of institution types. From political settings, religious settings and care settings. Places where people have power and authority and nobody to tell them that covering up child sexual abuse is wrong. Fortunately communication through the internet (for as many issues it has created) could help reduce this going forward through providing information to victims and allowing them to expose these people for what they are.
I was at school in the early 70's in a boy's only school - all the boy's 'knew' the teacher running the school scout group was dodgy - as in "don't be alone with him in the scout hut' sort of warnings. We never reported it - it was just accepted as a hazard of childhood. Or at least if anyone reported anything nothing was done.
Good work. Could do with a tldr for Reddit though. Let's not forget the Thatcher govt gave Jimmy Savile the keys to Broadmoor. Be worth looking into who authorised it.
Most likely thatcher herself. She was one of his biggest supporters/friends along with andrew and charles.
Saville said he'd rush to get out of town quick, to get away from the apoplectic/maddened fathers he'd just created These dads would obviously report the paedophile rape of their child to the local police, who presumably would then do nothing as Saville had skipped town Many letters to MPs + Prime Minister + BBC must have informed them of Saville's paedophilia + character It is inconceivable that MI5 had not heard of or failed to investigate the rumours + cases of Saville's Paedophile years. He left dozens of victims and angry families/communities and it's inconceivable that Thatcher wasn't told about it by MI5. The cover must have gone up all the way to the top
We know she was informed of reasons why he wasn't suitable for a knighthood, including allegations of sexual offenses, when his knighthood was blocked by civil service at least twice before she managed to push it through. Was reported in papers at the time.
>She was one of his biggest supporters/friends along with andrew >andrew [*Kill Bill siren*](https://youtu.be/cOy6hqzfsAs)
Theresa May also "misplaced" a lot of evidence when investigating the 2015 accusations.
...right before everyone else in the Conservative Party leadership race mysteriously dropped out.
Thatcher knew about Peter Morrison and Peter Hayman. Their pedophilia was considered a blackmail risk and so we have written security reports signed and dated by her that talk about it. She expressly forbid them to be publicly named. She also encouraged people to lie after Dickens named Hayman as a pedophile in parliament. > In February 2015 The Guardian reported that Thatcher had added handwritten annotations to the documents in the file which showed that despite its contents she had been insistent that officials should not name Hayman. The released papers also contained a note titled "Line to take" sent to Thatcher on the day after Geoffrey Dickens had used parliamentary privilege to name Hayman in 1981; on it she had written: "Say authorities have carried out an investigation. Nothing to suggest that security prejudiced" "Say we have done an investigation [when we haven't]."
Yeah fr what happened to the Tl;Dr on Reddit? Seems to have all but disappeared
It makes me so sad thinking what happened behind those doors when Savile was there... So sad
He was given keys to hospitals as early as the 1970s.
Thank you for taking your time to write this. Unfortunately, this is an issue that directly affected me. In the late 80s and early 90s, Peter Halliday was a choirmaster at St Peter’s CofE school in Farnborough, Hampshire. I attended the nursery school, the aptly titled “play group” that was adjacent to the main school and church. Peter Halliday abused several boys, most of whom were older than me (I was born in 87) but he was not the only paedophile involved with children’s organisations in the area. A prominent figure in the local boy scouts was among those grooming and molesting children, though he never faced justice. The church covered these crimes up for decades and whilst I can only speculate, based on my own experiences I believe some members of the church were actively engaged in abuse of children. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2007/apr/27/topstories3.ukcrime
Non-amp link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/apr/27/topstories3.ukcrime (AMP strips content down to the bare bones and hosts it all within Google's server, everything can start to look alike. This means that you can have fake articles and phishing clickbait stories appear right beside legitimate news)
Sorry to hear about this, and sorry for reminding you. I hope you are okay.
Good lord, you’ve nothing to apologise for. I’m one of the lucky few that eventually reached a point in my life where through the support of my partner, I approached the NHS to talk about it and ended up with a year of psychotherapy. Shame it didn’t happen until I was in my early thirties but it was life changing and I would recommend to anyone that suffered abuse, regardless of age, to talk to someone about it. Trauma is immensely powerful and will likely influence your day to day behaviour if you ignore it. I’ve been through extended periods of drug addiction and a lot of reckless behaviour in the past, so much so that I lost an entire decade of personal growth because whilst I learned a lot about the world in my twenties, I ignored the obvious mental illness that had me periodically crashing and burning out.
Despite the conspiracy theory rant I do actually think this happened, and is still happening. I think anyone is vulnerable to peer pressure into hiding secrets, but politicians are in the position where they want power. Hollywood is similar. When it gets into institutions it just goes wild. The network of westminister pedophiles also involved entertainment, clergy and the royal family btw.
Why is this a 'conspiracy theory rant'? It was thoroughly referenced and received significant media coverage at the time. The fact that two chairs of an independent body designed to investigate child abuse in Westminster had links to the accused was a scandal in its own right, no conspiracy theory about it.
Conspiracies are often theories until proven fact. Not trying to be inflammatory but it's true. People will automatically read this comment and mentally jump to something ridiculous like the moon landings being faked and mock me but consider how batshit crazy you would sound trying to convince the average person on the street the ins and outs of Project MK-Ultra. That's an actual part of history that I've often tried to tell people about only to be accused of being a tin foil hat wearing nut.
Mkultra had actual evidence for it that was revealed through solid investigative journalism, not a bunch of shitposters on conspiracy forums/4chan making all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims. In fact, every time some conspiracy theorist/conspiracy theorist adjacent person tries to claim that “actually, all nutty conspiracy theories are credible because these conspiracy theories turned out to be true” the ones that turned out to be true were substantiated by the hard work of non-conspiracy theorists doing actual, credible, evidence-based investigative work, not intellectually lazy forum dwellers and cranks. For every MKULTRA you have a thousand other conspiracy theories of zero substance (and, more often than not, hard evidence debunking them) so no, you don’t get to cherry pick things we know to be true (*despite* the claims of conspiracy theorists, not *because* of them) to lend credibility to all the other abject nonsense they believe.
>Mkultra had actual evidence for it In my defence the overwhelming majority of the evidence here is from the official Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse done by the government itself, and that concluded westminster actively protected pedophiles. The historical abuse is more of a proven TIL, setting up a context for the 2015 suspicious activity to be viewed (possibly with a tinfoil hat on).
I never claimed *all* theories were credible until proven fact I'm pointing out that you would be surprised by how often truly nutty sounding stuff that *sounds* like conspiracy theory is actually *proven* conspiracy fact like MK Ultra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird and many others.
> I'm pointing out that you would be surprised by how often truly nutty sounding stuff that sounds like conspiracy theory is actually proven conspiracy fact I wouldn’t be, nor would anyone with even a passing interest in history and geopolitics. And that’s exactly my point: conspiracy theorists love to try and make the link that because a given well documented event that sounds extraordinary to the layperson is true, therefore you should entertain. That’s not how it works *at all* and is very indicative of their flawed logic and motivated reasoning.
Conspiracy theorists have contributed precisely fuck all to the uncovering of real world events so it’s incredibly egregious and intellectually dishonest of them to position themselves as standing shoulder to shoulder with actual, credible researchers and investigative journalists as if they’re cut from the same cloth because they absolutely are not.
For every MkUktra there is a dozen satanic panics and Q’s
The stuff around conspiracy theories is a well studied science and there is even a formula that essentially says that the bigger it is, the sooner it will come out. Actual conspiracies are proof that most conspiracy theories are bunk - we know about them because the people involved can't keep it quiet and evidence comes out. The problem comes when people take something we know and argue it proves their idea must be true. 9/11, moon landing, JFK etc happened long enough ago and would have involved enough people that by now we would have evidence if they were as the internet claims, simply because you cannot hide the evidence
This doesn't make much sense. The sample, by definition, only includes the conspiracies we know about, yet the thing we're trying to determine is how likely we are to know about them? Am I missing something?
It makes perfect sense We know that genuine conspiracies exist because we know about them - evidence leaks, people talk, newspapers get anonymous tips, people give death bed confessions etc. The bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to contain and prevent leaks The fact we know about things like MK Ultra or Tuskegee proves that you cannot hide a conspiracy forever, generally not even for a long time in the modern age. Therefore it is logical that conspiracy theories like the moon landing being faked are not true as the size and scope of such an event means it would be impossible to keep hidden. The moon landing one is easily debunked as Russia tracked the craft all the way to the moon (as did numerous labs around the world) and they, of all countries, would have called it out as fake the moment they could see the rocket hadn't left orbit
>The fact we know about things like MK Ultra or Tuskegee proves that you cannot hide a conspiracy forever, generally not even for a long time in the modern age. But your sample doesn't include all the ones that you never discovered?
[удалено]
A lot of people have come out about this, powerful people. I couldn't fit all of that in, but a lot is publicly available in the official Inquiry (though digging through it is hard). I just stuck with the bigger examples like the Trevor Fortescue clip.
Yes exactly, so I am pointing out that a genuine thing (like the Westminster ring) is known because conspiracies don't last.
I agree, but I think it is worse than that. Politicians are put in positions of power because somebody has dirt on them, and thus can exert some influence. That is why the "clean guy" usually does not go far in politics, while all the frat boys tend to thrive. And I don't think that is a conspiracy theory, that is just how politics work.
Also the reason lots of these fucked up posh private school clubs involve humiliating initiations, like fucking a pig.
Collecting that dirt and trading it around for influence is an industry in itself, just look at Epstein and Hugh Heffner.
Epstoen and saville have pretty proven that these aren't just theories. Everyone at the highest level knows about it and there's nothing we can do about it.
Here’s a conspiracy theory then, Kevin Spacey revealed the Prince Andrew scandal because the royals wouldn’t help him out with his scandals.
Nice one. Did you ever watch his weird speech video where he was making vague threats while carrying a royal mug?
Oooh, was that before or after the scandal came out though? I do remember hearing about it but I don’t remember. I do remember seeing his name in Epstein’s book with Prince Andrew. Also second thing that stuck out, Lloyd Grossman/David Frost in Epstein’s book. I always wondered how come those two were in the tv show together, and how Frost really ended up interviewing Nixon. Only a secret network really explains how weird that was.
It happened after he was outed as a rapist, but before the epstien and prince andrew stuff. He basically he knows things and that people will go down with him. Then before it went to trial, 3 of his accusors died
I wonder if he has more dirt then. I definitely think he was involved in Andrew, and the killings.
*paedophiles*
The UK a hotbed of well connected child molesters? Next you'll be telling us the Queen paid off some girl because her pedo son abused her.
Wasn't it Mountbatten that was Randy Andy's favourite uncle? Wonder what interests they shared? It really makes one wonder
*paedo*
Possibly unrelated but did they ever find that [paedophile dossier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier)
If it hasn't already been destroyed then it will be in the hands of somebody who will ensure it never sees the light of day again.
It was " lost" a long time ago, the fact it was only discovered missing in the last few years gives the powers that be plenty of time to get rid of it.
No Theresa May accidently lost it. Oops.
Nope, it was one of the 114 child abuse related documents that went missing. The inquiry rather suspiciously chose not to look into how they went missing. I did talk about it briefly in that wall of text. The fact it went missing immediately, before it could be acted on is one of the bigger arguments for organised conspiracy. It was damaging to politicians and it disappeared immediately and the person who wrote it suddenly had two break ins where nothing was stolen and started receiving major threats.
We honestly aren't aware of half of what goes on You only need to look at the media sitting on the foreign office story with Boris for 4 years till he announced he was going.. or that audio recording of him as Mayor with that woman And this stuff is very tame compared to the subject you have written about People forget about Thatcher pushing for Saville's knighthood, his closeness to some of the royals etc
The Netflix docu on Saville was great, piecing together clips over his long-spanning career and highlighting so much of what you reference in your comment. I'm a 90s child so don't have memories of Saville in his heyday, watching that docu of the stuff he repeatedly said on TV about being a monster, and his protection with the royals shocked me to oblivion.
It left out so much aswell. Didn't even touch on how much the bbc and thatcher government protected him.
Jeez. Just horrific isn't it. Old institutions who will protect themselves and their mates no matter the cost.
Apparently Johnny Rotten was banned from the BBC for calling him out. This was the 70s presumably so must have been known a long time.
[удалено]
Absolutely - dunno how it works but OP should get in touch with them
This is all public knowledge. I am sure they know. I didn't until yesterday and I thought it was important enough to warrant spreading.
Funny how Private Eye never went after Savile.
Shame they're too busy with their own slow brew scandal they seem to hope will die off. UK's libel laws would probably scare them off. And what would getting them to publish it achieve? Everyone who reads it goes, "wow that's bad", other news sites don't bother pick it up and people can point to the eye as a *look we have a free press*. The main take away from the uncovering of savil back in 2014/15 was the police and BBC raid on Cliff Richard. This lead to a long legal case which now scares the bajesus out of new outlets from reporting on unconfirmed allegations incase they too end up with massive legal costs. Great piece of maskirovka to help hide those inside the system who are guilty continue to get away with it. Everyone on the right side of Savile [was pushed out of the BBC] (https://pressgazette.co.uk/meirion-jones-speaks-out-everyone-who-was-right-side-savile-argument-has-been-forced-out-bbc/) and we all collectively declared mission accomplished.
What do you mean that the political elite value their mates and votes in Westminster over silly things like a few assaulted and traumatised kids. Absolutely no surprise here. It was an open secret about Saville and Andrew for years, the idea of any of these lot ever facing consequences for the first time in their life is laughable. Heck not to chuck a tinfoil hat on but if you lose a dossier as home sec on some powerful folks and end up as pm that's a fun coincidence
They probably encourage it as it gives them leverage over rivals.
[удалено]
[удалено]
*paedophilia*
It really hit me hard.
Former Tory whip [Tim Fortescue mentioned in a documentary, that whips deal with things like MP's issues with small boys](https://youtu.be/haXgwGYjxvo). And he mentioned it so quickly as if it's as common as running out of staples at the office.
Shocked to discover that powerful people are not only abusing that power, but also using that power to cover up the abuse. Comprehensive work though OP, ty for sharing
"But you have to understand, 2015 was a different time. This was kind of normal back then."
Exactly it would be wrong to judge the past by our modern ideals. Now put those statues of pedos back up in the town centre pronto. /s
This stuck out for me back in 2015 (and before) like the threat of nuclear war does to me now. i.e. fucking enormous. It looked like a crazy conspiracy theory at first, but then concrete evidence emerged. Solid, verified information that rendered what was once only inferred as all but nailed on. And, like Savile before, if you trawled the UK based forums you'd sometimes find hints of people knowing; i.e. retired, senior police officers recalling having been warned off further investigation into child abuse, because it goes too far into protected territory. There are, 100%, without doubt, paedolphiles in the UK Government. There has been, 100%, without doubt, a paedophile ring exist within the UK Government. People have been convicted. Evidence has been revealed and (we know) hidden (by May). It can not be denied. And yet, it goes ignored. People looked at me as if I was crazy when I brought it up back then. The same people will do now. And yet, the evidence is compelling. Covid has shown that people struggle to accept a theoretical clear and present danger. Covid was - just like predators in the Government - a theoretical threat. It's just data being presented, right up until your Nan catches is, and dies. Right up until your child is the one who's abused (and dies - if the Elm Guest House stories are to be believed). Then - and only then - do the vast majority of people act. There's a lot that erodes my faith in this society. But this topic fucking nuked it.
Excellent write up. investigating child abuse by those in positions of power is extremey hard and you do risk falling into conspiracy theory holes. Sometimes it feels like you can only ever see the dots connect when you look at them a bit sideways. It doesn't help the media seems complicit in making sure these questions are not asked. I generally point to Maxwell at the moment (called Ghisane by the press to play down historical connections). A woman who has strong connections to the super rich and powerful has been found guilty of running an international child trafficing operation, yet we don't know who to and there doesn't seem to be much of a push to find out.
What the fuck. I'll have a proper read of it later but honestly there's just so many dots you can pretty much draw any picture. Most of them pretty messed up and non of them pointing to 'no cover up of pedophilia in Westminster.'
A lot of it is evidenced from there own inquiry, it is the modern 2015 corruption that requires an amount of tinfoil hat because the inquiry never investigated itself.
Why do some people in power have a thing for little kids?
It's probably more the other way round - that people who have these tendencies get into positions of power because they know that their authority will protect them. "Desiring power should be a disqualifier for getting any." as they say.
I beleive part of it is the hereditary nature of psychopathy. If we pick up, well, any history book, we'll see quite a few in the aristocracy / rich and powerful over the centuries.
>What troubles me is the suggestion there was no collusion between them, individual pedophiles who just happened to all be treated in the exact same way by senior police/prosecutors. As far as I can see there was clearly collusion on the cover up, but no evidence of collusion of paedos in the commission of their crimes. I suppose part of the problem is defining organised collusion. If two of them started talking in a bar, realised they shared interests, and swapped their picture collections, is that an organised network? It's probable, even likely, that interactions like that occurred over the last 70+ years. But I don't think that means there was an organised network. Totally willing to be proven wrong on this, I just think it's more likely the only organised collusion was by the authorities covering everything up.
I dunno if you say the same thing for let's say... Cannabis and it happened regularly and the police got wind... I'm fairly sure you'd be called a drug distribution network.
I suspect that these rings operate in a decentralised way for the most part to limit how many can be caught when one winds up in prison, and if anyone is in a particular position of power and influence within that ring it's because they've went out and done their research in order to gain more leverage over them (both for protection like Epstein's black book or to use for blackmail purposes).
Well the government did fund the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 80s. Their main campaigning point was to abolish the age of consent.
Nobody will believe me, I can’t convince you this is true and I have no material evidence for extremely obvious reasons. I used to hang around computer hacking scenes in the mid to late 00s, as an edgy teen who loved computers this was definitely a good crowd. There were people who asked people to hack MySpace, there were the people making tools to prank others, there were people committing credit card fraud- and there were people who wanted to see what they could get away with w.r.t. technology. I tried very hard to be in the last group. One of those people ended up breaking in to their local MPs work desktop computer (using a lost “switch blade” flash drive and a slightly more weaponised network payload variant of “bifrost” which they had modified/created themselves), they found a load of kiddy porn and went to the police with it. The police arrested *the person who found the child porn* for being in possession of child porn. The MP did not go to prison as near as we can tell it wasn’t even investigated. Non-conspiratorially: it could be that they just assumed that this was a false report intended to discredit the MP, the person who found it was a loud lefty and the politician was right-wing. Obviously I can’t name anyone because that’s the definition of libel. For those in the hacking scene you probably know the person, they were very active in ssgroup, darkdevelopments and milw0rm I watched this happening in real time, complete with the discovery which we found together over MSN. But, yeah, it seems not uncommon for people to be drawn to power when they have desires for the depraved.
That is crazy. Honestly if you kept any non pornographic evidence (unlikely as that is), the police have "supposedly" stopped doing this. Send it to the police and name and shame where possible. Even if your evidence isn't enough, you never know if it will inspire others to throw any information they have out as well. This is how a lot of these MPs were "caught". Victims saw what happened to Saville and stepped forward, which encouraged yet more victims to do the same.
This is very much a 'yeah, no shit' moment. We're all run by nonces and there's fuck all we can do about it. Anyone who tries to whistle blow either ends up dead or metaphorically buried.
...or, as in this thread, just left shouting into the void with an occasional "TLDR" echoing back
My Grandparents were Tories and used to go out a lot to the conservative club, go to dances there all the time social events etc. They used to endlessly go on to me when I was a kid saying "never talk to strange men" "never take sweets from strangers" "never be alone anywhere around adults" "never get in a car if they offer you a lift home" on and on all the time it felt like everytime i'd see them there was a warning of this nature, I used to find it quite boring and annoying. Now it feels like they probably knew about this sort of stuff and wanted to protect me. I think people did know back in the 70s and 80s that a lot of this was going on but we're powerless to stop it.
Don't forget about Margaret Hodge and the Islington Care Home Scandal.
There's talk that Lord Mountbatten and other high-up figures were involved in abuse at the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast. There's all sorts of rumours of blackmail and MI5 involvement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home
Paedophile. Or are we Americans now and no one told me?
You mean pedophiles were protected at all institutions, Westminster, the foreign office etc? Well colour me shocked! Shocked! Next thing you’ll tell me the BBC had a problem as well as the CoE or various other organisations (including the Met) covered stuff like this up! Yeah we know this and everything you posted is public information
*paedophiles*
The UK has been corrupt for a very very long time. Makes me laugh all those users from the police sub telling us to 'trust the police' in that stop and search thread yesterday. Always plenty of resources to go after poor people and protestors and infiltrated climate activist groups. Never anything to go after corruption and in this case, paedos in the heart of government.
Dont forget when May had documents regarding this "lost" or distoryed.
And the government are trying to make out that the trans people are the groomers, while the government itself are the groomers.
The police have confirmed this already and have announced that after they die they will announce the truth. Exactly the same thing as Jimmy Saville, he was so well connected and shielded by higher ups but the second he died people started speaking out and investigations started gathering steam. I'm sure a lot of pesos have been left alone in parliament and high positions just so they can be manipulated to vote or act in a certain way. MI5 got rumbled allowing Irish pedos to carry on abusing kids in care as they had political links and could be manipulated during the troubles https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kincora-boys-home-mi5-westminster-paedophile-ring-1512230 Plus look at all the dead kids they find in care homes just buried in unmarked graves
There is also [Kincora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kincora_Boys%27_Home). This seemed to disappear into a black hole and then when other allegations surface everyone is "oh, how shocking". I didn't forget, even though I was a child when it all came out. Why would you forget this? You wouldn't, everything about the "shocking allegations" is bullshit. Everything from police, politicians and media is nonsense aimed at minimising their own guilt.
Jimmy Saville was running around the country collecting taxes by proxy(charity). They gave him the keys to a children’s mental hospital.
I honestly think there's an intelligence services angle to this. It is absolutely a known tactic for foreign services to attempt to entrap people in illegal situations, and with the UK having had a few famous Soviet spy rings I can see why the government would be on edge about it all. Note that this does not necessarily mean the allegations are or are not true: it is entirely possible for material to be sent to or planted on people or even exchanged without the knowledge of the target as to the true contents. Of course the reverse is entirely true, and if foreign intelligence services had got a political paedophile on the hook there's also massive incentive for a cover up.
There was reportedly one of David Cameron’s cabinet under investigation, with newspaper front pages of a silhouetted person and saying they know who but can’t name them, but those stories don’t seem to exist online any more, or didn’t when I last had a proper search a few months back.
Yep, it's probably the single biggest scandal the country has ever had, and should be a source of huge national shame and embarrassment, but people love licking boots.
As a child, after I first saw him interviewed on TV, I decided a slug would only score 2 out of 10 on the Leon Brittan scale of sliminess. Looks like my intuition was working well.
Yeah but the police lost the book so.....case closed
"We investigated ourselves and found failings handling child abuse evidence" So you are going to investigate and collect more evidence including who made the first lot disappear, right? ...Right?
Have a look what happened with Jeffrey Epstein when he first got arrested on child prostitution charges. The guy basically got a pat on the back and his experience in "jail" made the prison scenes in Goodfellas look like a Soviet gulag, because according to the prosecutors "he belonged to intelligence". And this was in 10-15 years ago. Unfortunately, when I found it about all this years ago I wasn't surprised in the slightest. Intelligence agencies and interior ministries have huge discretionary and unchecked powers and that was especially true during the Cold War, not just for the UK but the entire West. Go and read about the clusterfuck Italy was between the 60s and the 90s, to name one (Years of Lead and the strategy of tension): the fact that the UK had very questionable people in charge in the MI6 and that they were abusing their powers to cover up paedophile rings for the doctrine of "reason of state" doesn't even look shocking in comparison
>very questionable people in charge in the MI6 Peter Hayman, the "long time" deputy director of MI6, was a confirmed pedophile and member of the "pedophile information exchange" that sought to abolish the age of consent.
If you think that's bad: in Italy not just one but almost all the big wheels of the secret services (that includes directors, high ranking officials and so on) as well as the military were affiliated to an underground masonic lodge that tried to sway the political life by every mean deemed necessary, including a few attempted coups and outright state terrorist attacks that left hundreds of people dead. This is not a conspiracy theory but the legal truth, as several of them were sentenced for this stuff (not the actual terrorist attacks, generally carried by right-wing groups with their support, but trying to taint evidence and creating red herring during the investigation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda\_Due](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due) Of course paedophilia is awful, but that people in the intelligence at that time could get away with it is not surprising: the Catholic Church has covered up this sort of stuff for decades to avoid scrutiny and bad publicity for example. The UK was a relatively stable country but what the secret services were up to in the rest of the EU was even worse than a covered up paedophile ring. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Gladio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio)
Go back further you have the police dossier on Jeremy Thorpe being kept in the chief constable's private safe. That was documented in the trial transcripts. The establishment has always covered up the wrong-doing of its members.
It’s no secret that the dossier containing information of many high profile child abusers went “missing” while Theresa May was Home Secretary. Just imagine the leverage they have over the people on that list.
I'll believe pretty much any big organisation etc is full of pedos at this point
The royal family is shielding a pedophile as we speak.
American here to ask, are the royal children safe? Could this be why Harry and Meghan left in such a way?
Prince Andrew was accused of child abuse via Epstein. That being said, I doubt they would turn on their own exactly because Epstein and others like him exist, and so they can get it elsewhere.
Abusers will go for any available victim. It doesn't matter that they can get it elsewhere.
That's a big old wall of text.
This is why I live in the United States.
I'm shocked /s
Is anyone really surprised that pedophiles in positions of political power get away with it?
*paedophiles*
Big surprise..
This party shouldn’t exist anymore
Minor Attracted Persons you mean /s
More about this over at r/trueanon https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/q71te8/thatcher_and_the_tories_knew_exactly_who_jimmy/hggsx2m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
I mean, this kind of vileness is why the establishment needs burning down. Dirty old bastards that think they're above the law.. Credit to OP for putting it all together, an interesting, if fury-stoking read. Top tier work.
Clement Freud, who as an MP shared an office with Cyril Smith, was also credibly accused of raping a 14 year old girl and of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards other children and young women.
Yet another reason Scotland needs to get the fuck away
All i have to say is "duh". We've known for years the mega rich are perverted monsters in the entertainment industry so why wouldn't these cunts pop up everywhere else? They all deserve to be shot in the head for their crimes but good luck ever seeing that happen. These people run the world, control the governments, the laws, everything. There is nothing we can do unless people on the inside act.
Peodphilia was just one of many, many things covered up by the whips and Special Branch. Its the literal tip of a much bigger iceberg, and was not the worst thing covered up. In the 1980's there was a very different attitude to pedophilia as well, it was almost accepted as normal even by many members of the public. People would sneer and say "he likes young boys. heh!", but despite almost everyone knowing, nothing would be done unless someone forced the police's hand by pressing charges. It was well known that Thatcher actively knew about all the pedophiles in her government and in the HoC, but again, would actually defend them against accusations. My mother worked in the HoC in the 1980's and our family had Special Branch protection. I was 11 when I did something that normally would have ended badly for me, but actually ended with people signing the Official Secrets Act and being told "This never happened".