Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

[seemslikeadream]

It's pretty easy to point at the whole establishment, say there are loads of protected pedophiles in there somewhere, and eventually turn out to be right. It's also courageous, in its way. If you're combining that with tales of alien lizard overlords, copious false material and generally lousy research, plus personal messianism, then you're serving to discredit all of it. You're probably discouraging others who actually know what the fuck they're talking about from venturing into the same territory. So fuck David Icke.

Day before yesterday was the first time I ended up debating 9/11 in a long time, and as has so often been the case I had to deal with good, reasonable people whose minds had been sealed shut against skepticism by the various absurdities of "Loose Change," and who couldn't overcome the "conspiracy theory" frame. Fuck all of these conspiratainers, whether they're amateurs unable to see they're out of their depth or merchant-predators, like Alex Jones. Objectively they work for the bad guys.

.

It's just fine for the Catholic Church to pedal devils and demons for centuries but let Icke call someone a reptile and he's the craziest person on earth....I prefer the word vampire and I truly believe there is pure evil in this world and it takes the form of a human body..btw I don't work for the bad guys

[JackRiddler]

It's just fine for the Catholic Church to pedal devils and demons for centuries but let Icke call someone a reptile and he's the craziest person on earth....I prefer the word vampire and I truly believe there is pure evil in this world and it takes the form of a human body..btw I don't work for the bad guys

No, you don't work for the bad guys. Nor do the conspiratainers, necessarily. I said, objectively, they work for the bad guys. What the Catholic Church does cannot serve as a justification or excuse for what someone else does, and crazy can be crazy no matter who "the craziest person on earth" might be. Icke didn't "call someone a reptile," he wrote in publications that literally extraterrestrial reptile shapeshifters embody as the apparent humans who run the earth. Also, he's said he's Jesus. So since he's not necessary for any of the rest of his analysis (all of which is borrowed, poorly), I've got to ask what the need is to defend him, or to inject non-sequitur defenses of him into threads where he's altogether off-topic. I mean if he was Shayler, see, who actually knew confirmable shit from the inside, then you'd want to keep the good and toss the bad (which in Shayler's case may be the result of him being blackmailed, who knows). But Icke is unnecessary. Maybe Performance Artist Joe Blow Dada-Nazi of East Bumfuck also once said Heath was a child molester - who cares?

.

[seemslikeadream]

What the Catholic Church does cannot serve as a justification or excuse for what someone else does, and crazy can be crazy no matter who "the craziest person on earth" might be. Icke didn't "call someone a reptile," he wrote in publications that literally extraterrestrial reptile shapeshifters embody as the apparent humans who run the earth. Also, he's said he's Jesus.

.

Every Catholic priest thinks he's Jesus so.....

in persona Christi Capitis


at least Icke isn't insisting I eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus ...and that is exactly what the priest does, turns the wine and host into the REAL body and blood of Christ....talk 'bout conspiracy theories!


oh and Icke never promised he'd absolve me of all my sins...ensuring my spot in heaven

[smiths]

This isn't a David icke thread, can we keep it on topic?

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Essential but highly disturbing viewing here, a Welsh documentary made by HTV in 1997 and only ever shown in Wales. I had no idea this existed till somebody posted it over on DS. It goes into how the North Wales care home scandal started, concentrating on Bryn Alyn after it came under the control of the prolific convicted paedophile John Allen. He was mentioned in Nick Davies' article. He was put in charge of these children through the privatization of the local authority care system in North Wales.

Some unbelievable stuff in here, about the monetary side of the business - Allen spent huge sums of public money on "gifts" for certain boys that were supposed to be in his care (usually motorbikes), thousands of pounds on state of the art video equipment(cameras, for filming the boys), and a yacht which he shared with the Medical Officer of the Bryn Alyn homes (a fucking repulsive creature called Peter Kedney, who appears in the vid to angrily deny that anything untoward ever happened within the private child abuse empire they built, despite the fact that John Allen was already in jail for abuse at the time this documentary was made. He comes across as a violent bastard, and weirdly enough shares some mannerisms with Savile in his more threatening moods).

It goes into the deeply suspicious deaths of some of the victims after they had left the care system.

I found this documentary enraging and frustrating, but it has to be watched to really understand what went on in North Wales. And this doesn't even touch the stuff that was going on at Bryn Estyn in the same time frame.







It has been suggested that at Bryn Alyn, as at Kincora, the security services may have been involved for blackmail purposes, but that'll be no surprise to anyone here.

Some more detail on the suspicious fire in Brighton:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nquiry.htm

[AhabsOtherLeg]

I see John Jillings has had a convenient memory lapse over the names of "prominent individuals" that appeared in his original pre-Waterhouse report, of which all copies (except hopefully the "silent" copy) were destroyed. Not a good sign, that.

I also see Rod Richards, though appearing like one of the good guys at first by insisting he saw Peter Morrison's name in the original Jillings Report, now wants us to concentrate exclusively on Morrison, who is already dead, and McA, who is ancient.

I fear he might have good reason for wanting the new inquiry to focus on McA... there is a possibility that McA was not involved in the abuse himself, but a local relative with the same name was. Not sure about that yet.

Worth bearing in mind that Rod Richards himself is ex-Army Intelligence and MI6, so it's probably best to stay wary of any direction he wants to point the inquiry in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/wales ... 308735.stm

[RocketMan]

Smacks of desperation in my opinion. And unbelievably glib. Savile was not gay. Shouldn't he also have warned about a pogrom towards necrophiliacs...??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... aedophilia

David Cameron has warned that accusations of paedophilia against senior Conservative politicians risk creating a "witch hunt", particularly against gay people.

The prime minister made his comments after being confronted on daytime television with a piece of paper listing the names circulating on the internet about the Tory politicians possibly involved in child sex abuse allegations. It was accidentally briefly flashed on air.

Speaking on ITV1's This Morning, Cameron appealed to anybody with information to contact the police but raised concerns over the internet speculation about who may be embroiled in the scandal dating back to the 1970s and 80s.

"I've heard all sorts of names bandied around and what then tends to happen is everyone sits around and speculates about people, some of whom are alive, some of whom are dead," he told This Morning.

"I do think it's very important that anyone who's got any information about any paedophile, no matter how high up in the country or whether they are alive or dead, go to the police."

The presenter Phillip Schofield passed Cameron a piece of paper listing names he had gathered from the internet, telling Cameron "you know the names on that piece of paper, will you be speaking to these people?".

Cameron replied: "There is a danger if we are not careful that this can turn into a sort of witch hunt, particularly about people who are gay, and I'm worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now, taking a list of names off the internet."

He said the allegations were "extremely serious" and the government had "moved quickly to try to get to the bottom of what they are".

[AhabsOtherLeg]

David Cameron shown the same list of names we've all seen (many of them have been circulating for decades) by Phillip Schofield on ITV's This Morning.



EDIT: Cross-posted there Rocketman.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Smacks of desperation in my opinion. And unbelievably glib. Savile was not gay. Shouldn't he also have warned about a pogrom towards necrophiliacs...??

I agree. The many statements that were made by victims and dismissed by the authorities all those years ago can't just be handwaved away again because a few internet far-rightists have jumped on the bandwagon and are trying to use these events for their own political gain. They tried to use Dunblane as well (and of course Rochdale, where Nick Griffin nearly derailed the whole trial just to promote his own racism: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -jury.html) but that doesn't make these allegations and the lengthy cover-ups connected to them any less serious. The hard questions about why powerful people and institutions were placed above suspicion despite there being very credible evidence against them still have to be asked.

Cameron isn't worried about a witch hunt against gay people (his own party has led a few of those in the past), he is worried about the next election. Already. And of course some of his personal friends and colleagues are on that list (some of whom I think have been wrongly added... even Simon Regan of Scallywag has said he got it wrong about Portillo, for example, though he had just been raided by Special Branch over it at the time, so who knows).

EDIT: Semper, forgot to say thanks for that reminder about the Candian High Commissioner. Unbelievable. I was trying to explain to someone the other day what PIE was. "It was kind of like the British version of NAMBLA." Then they asked what NAMBLA was... After a few minutes I realised they were looking at me with outright alarm and distaste. Even knowing about these subjects can make you a bit suspect in some people's eyes, which is yet another barrier to exposing it all. Imagine how hard it must've been for the victims themselves to come forward and try to explain how the rings worked?

Going back to Icke, that's one of the reasons I don't really follow him or use his site very much. It's hard enough to get people to acknowledge that there is strong evidence of very powerful and protected paedophile networks operating within the framework of the British state and media, without also trying to convince them that the whole thing tracks back to an ancient Babylonian snake cult from space.

For Slimmouse, I can think of one "innocent" reason why Ted Heath might've decided (or been advised by his lawyers) not to sue Icke, that being the Streisand Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys.[7] As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.[8]

If he is guilty then I hope to God it'll come out, but I'm not too hopeful with government inquiries being what they are.

[Wombaticus Rex]

After a few minutes I realised they were looking at me with outright alarm and distaste. Even knowing about these subjects can make you a bit suspect in some people's eyes, which is yet another barrier to exposing it all. Imagine how hard it must've been for the victims themselves to come forward and try to explain how the rings worked?

Now that I'm seeing it every time I explain "what I'm up to these days," that passage hit me like a ton of bricks. I still cannot imagine the frustration and horror that victims deal with from a herd who just didn't want to know.

Also, wasn't the "witch hunt" angle exactly how Richard Webster white-washed Bryn Estyn?

Why yes, yes I think it was.

[slimmouse]

Thanks for the info Ahab,

But bigger thanks for putting innocent in commas. My recent life experiences in writing that goddamn book have taught me to seriously temper my opiinions and check my facts, which has been one of the best lessons I've ever learned.

All that said, this whole thing should be relatively easily linked to the Haute Garrenne stuff (and of course we both know what happened there)., even if from a largely "speculative" viewpoint given how all that panned out.

And its not that these are the only pointers to where this really leads. Kevin Annett is a good name to google WRT this.

[Project Willow]

Cameron, "That is what the police are for."

Uh-huh. For making sure it all stays underground.

[gnosticheresy_2]

It's all a case of mistaken identity so please move along, nothing to see here.

'Mistaken identity' led to top Tory abuse claim

Local councillor who was victim of abuse at Welsh care home says he does not believe Lord McAlpine was involved

David Leigh, Steven Morris and Bibi van der Zee
The Guardian, Thursday 8 November 2012 22.10 GMT


New evidence obtained by the Guardian suggests that the senior Conservative figure at the centre of sex abuse allegations broadcast last week by BBC2's Newsnight has been a victim of mistaken identity.

A local councillor who was himself a victim of abuse at Bryn Estyn, the Wrexham care home at the centre of the allegations, told the Guardian on Thursday he did not believe Lord (Alistair) McAlpine was involved in the scandal.

McAlpine, who served as a Tory treasurer under Margaret Thatcher, has been widely named on the internet after another former resident of the home, Steve Messham, told Newsnight that he had been taken to a Wrexham hotel and abused by a prominent Thatcher-era Tory figure more than a dozen times.

McAlpine has vehemently denied the allegations pointing out that he lived in the south of England at the time and had only been to Wrexham once in his life. On Thursday Keith Gregory, the Wrexham councillor who has been an eloquent spokesperson for the victims of abuse this week, said he believed a different member of the McAlpine family who lived locally may have been mistaken for Lord McAlpine.

He said a man who children at the home believed to be a member of the McAlpine family would arrive at Bryn Estyn in an expensive car. "He was a right flashy thing," he said.

Lord McAlpine was exonerated by the 1997 Waterhouse inquiry of any involvement in the abuse of children in the north Wales homes but not named because of an order by the retired judge preventing the identification of either victims or alleged abusers. As a result he has been the subject of persistent smears, which resurfaced following the Newsnight allegations about a senior Tory.

But the allegations made by Messham began to unravel after it emerged that he told the Waterhouse inquiry in 1997 that the McAlpine family member he believed to be his abuser was now dead. Lord McAlpine is alive and living in Italy.

The Guardian has identified a number of inconsistencies between the Newsnight allegations and testimony heard by the Waterhouse inquiry.

The mounting concerns over Messham's allegations will be awkward for David Cameron who has already been accused of over-reacting to claims that senior Conservatives were involved in child abuse by ordering two inquiries into an issue which had already been thoroughly investigated by a public inquiry.

Gregory said boys from Bryn Estyn would be taken in "working parties" to the homes of two McAlpine family members in the area – Gerwyn Hall and Marchwiel Hall, both a few miles south-east of Wrexham town centre. "We were like little slaves – we'd do gardening, cleaning the yards, all sorts of things," said Gregory. "We were taken in a van to do work." He said he was not aware of any abuse of children at either of the homes and there is no other credible evidence of such abuse.

Gerwyn Hall, a grand Georgian house hidden by woodland from the public road, was occupied by Jimmie McAlpine, who died in 1991, six years before the Waterhouse inquiry began. Jimmie's wife, Cynthia, still living at the hall, declined to talk when approached by the Guardian.

Jimmie McAlpine chaired the north of England builders Alfred McAlpine Ltd. His Times obituary recorded: "His other main interest was vintage cars, and he amassed what was at one time the biggest private collection in Britain."

The Waterhouse inquiry, when it attempted to investigate the McAlpine allegations, recorded: "According to [Messham's] statement to the police, X [the letter assigned to conceal the identity of the McAlpine family member] had several different motor cars and would wait for him at the bottom of Bryn Estyn Lane."

Waterhouse, a retired high court judge, reported his frustration that Messham would not at the time reveal the alleged forename of the McAlpine he believed had abused him, or who had suggested the name to him. The judge concluded that although Messham was testifying in good faith, and had indeed suffered extensive sexual abuse, his evidence was inconclusive about "any member of the X family". He left open the possibility that Messham might have been wrongly told by a third party that a McAlpine was involved, or have jumped to conclusions.

Messham did not respond on Wednesday or Thursday to requests to comment on the questions raised over his allegation.

Rumours about one or other member of the McAlpine family have accumulated over the years because of a controversial decision by Waterhouse that he would ban publication during the hearings of the names of alleged, but unproven abusers. This attempt at secrecy left the field open for gossip and allegations of a cover-up.

But, crucially, Messham's 1997 evidence to Waterhouse should have ruled out speculation about Lord McAlpine, whose Italian home has been mobbed by reporters for the past week. Reporters covering the inquiry at the time concluded that Messham could not be referring to Lord McAlpine because Messham said his abuser was dead. In another apparent discrepancy, the Times reported this week that their reporter put Lord McAlpine's name to Messham in 1996. "But he said that his abuser was called 'Tom' and had a flat in Wrexham".

The only apparent corroborative evidence about Lord McAlpine has also been undermined. It came from another boy who was not a Bryn Estyn inmate. He described being abused in Wrexham five years later by a wealthy figure with a Harrods charge card. Traced by the Guardian, this victim, who wants to remain anonymous, confirms that his sole knowledge of Lord McAlpine comes from being shown a photograph of him subsequently by a journalist.

The victim told the Waterhouse inquiry, under the name "Witness C" that he was no longer sure he had identified the right man. Waterhouse reported: "C had subsequently indicated … that he could not be 100% sure that his abuser was a member of the X [McAlpine] family, and it is clear that he was referring to a different person."

A BBC spokesman said on Thursday that the Newsnight investigation "set out to explore alleged failures in a child abuse inquiry. An abuse victim had serious allegations to make and deserved to be heard. We broadcast as much information as we had but made clear we did not have enough evidence to name new individuals."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/0 ... CMP=twt_gu

[semper occultus]

....to nobody's surprise David Aaronovitch floats to the surface on Radio 4 this morning peddling his standard debunker "voice-of-reason" schtick ( "what is another enquiry into Bryn Estin actually going to achieve...? )- cheque's in the post Davey-boy yer fucking whore...

[gnosticheresy_2]

Lord McAlpine's statement – full text

Over the last several days it has become apparent to me that a number of ill- or uninformed commentators have been using blogs and other internet media outlets to accuse me of being the senior Conservative party figure from the days of Margaret Thatcher's leadership who is guilty of sexually abusing young residents of a children's home in Wrexham, north Wales, in the 1970s and 1980s.

It has additionally become apparent to me that a number of broadcasters and newspapers have, without expressly naming me, also been alleging that a senior Conservative party figure from that time was guilty of or suspected of being guilty of the sexual abuse of residents of this children's home.

It is obvious that there must be a substantial number of people who saw that I had been identified in the internet publications as this guilty man and who subsequently saw or heard the broadcasts or read the newspapers in question and reasonably inferred that the allegation of guilt in those broadcasts and newspapers attached to me.

Even though these allegations made of me by implication in the broadcast and print media, and made directly about me on the internet, are wholly false and seriously defamatory I can no longer expect the broadcast and print media to maintain their policy of defaming me only by innuendo.

There is a media frenzy and I have to expect that an editor will soon come under pressure to risk naming me. My name and the allegations are for all practical purposes linked and in the public domain and I cannot rewind the clock.

I therefore have decided that in order to mitigate, if only to some small extent, the damage to my reputation I must publicly tackle these slurs and set the record straight. In doing so I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.

On Tuesday 6 November the home secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, made a statement in the House of Commons about the historic allegations of child abuse in the North Wales police force area. She explained that in 1991, North Wales police conducted an investigation into allegations that, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, children in homes that were managed and supervised by Clwyd county council were sexually and physically abused. The result of the police investigation was eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Despite the investigation and convictions, it was widely believed, she said, that the abuse was in fact on a far greater scale, but a report produced by Clwyd council's own inquiry was never published, because so much of its content was considered by lawyers to be defamatory.

In 1996, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, the then secretary of state for Wales, invited Sir Ronald Waterhouse to lead an inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the Gwynedd and Clwyd council areas. Mrs May told the House of Commons that the Waterhouse inquiry sat for 203 days and heard evidence from more than 650 people. Statements made to the inquiry named more than 80 people as child abusers, many of whom were care workers or teachers. In 2000, the inquiry's report Lost in Care made 72 recommendations for changes to the way in which children in care were protected by councils, social services and the police. Following the report's publications, 140 compensation claims were settled on behalf of the victims.

Mrs May further said that the report found no evidence of a paedophile ring beyond the care system, which was the basis of the rumours that followed the original police investigation and, indeed, one of the allegations made in the past week. Last Friday, a victim of sexual abuse at one of the homes named in the report – Mr Steve Messham – alleged that the inquiry did not look at abuse outside care homes, and he renewed allegations against the police and several individuals. I am, as is now well known to readers of the internet and to journalists working for the print and broadcast media, one of the individuals implicated by Mr Messham.

I have every sympathy for Mr Messham and for the many other young people who were sexually abused when they were residents of the children's home in Wrexham. Any abuse of children is abhorrent but the sexual abuse to which these vulnerable children were subjected in the 1970s and 1980s is particularly abhorrent. They had every right to expect to be protected and cared for by those who were responsible for them and it is abundantly clear that they were horribly violated. I have absolutely no sympathy for the adults who committed these crimes. Those who have been convicted were deservedly punished and those who have not yet been brought to justice should be as soon as possible.

The facts are, however, that I have been to Wrexham only once. I visited the local constituency Conservative Association in my capacity as deputy chairman. I was accompanied on this trip, at all times, by Stuart Newman, a Central Office agent. We visited Mary Bell, a distant relative of mine and close friend of Stuart Newman. We did not stay the night in Wrexham. I have never been to the children's home in Wrexham, nor have I ever visited any children's home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature. I have never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, I did not own a Rolls-Royce, have never had a "Gold card" or "Harrods card" and never wear aftershave, all of which have been alleged. I did not sexually abuse Mr Messham or any other residents of the children's home in Wrexham. Stuart Newman is now dead but my solicitors are endeavouring to locate a senior secretary who worked at Central Office at the time to see if she can remember the precise date I visited that association.

I fully support the decision (announced by the home secretary in the House of Commons on Tuesday) of the chief constable of north Wales, Mr Mark Polin, to invite Mr Keith Bristow, the director general of the National Crime Agency, to assess the allegations recently received, to review the historic police investigations and to investigate any fresh allegations reported to the police into the alleged historic abuse in north Wales care homes. Although I live in Italy and have done so for many years and although I am in poor health, I am entirely willing to meet Mr Polin and Mr Bristow in London as soon as can be arranged so that they can eliminate me from their inquiries and so that any unwarranted suspicion can be removed from me.

I wish to make it clear that I do not suggest that Mr Messham is malicious in making the allegations of sexual abuse about me. He is referring to a terrible period of his life in the 1970s or 1980s and what happened to him will have affected him ever since. If he does think I am the man who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person.

I conclude by reminding those who have defamed me or who intend to do so that in making this statement I am by no means giving up my right to seek redress at law and repeat that I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/0 ... -full-text