MP Paedophile Killer?

Autonomous Cowherd

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-saw-mp-kill-boy-at-paedophile-party-says-alleged-victim-30749664.html

Could this be true? I have seen stories here and there about such crazy things but to be honest I have always presumed it was the ultra-looney brigade who put about such tales (and I say that as a semi-loon myself, so no serious offense intended).

If such things are possibly true, and if there has been a cover up to the level of Downing Street, do you not think it undermines everything we think we know about political life, society and heck, maybe even our civilisation as a whole?

I do.

Fuhrer

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-saw-mp-kill-boy-at-paedophile-party-says-alleged-victim-30749664.html

Could this be true? I have seen stories here and there about such crazy things but to be honest I have always presumed it was the ultra-looney brigade who put about such tales (and I say that as a semi-loon myself, so no serious offense intended).

If such things are possibly true, and if there has been a cover up to the level of Downing Street, do you not think it undermines everything we think we know about political life, society and heck, maybe even our civilisation as a whole?

I do.

There was a whole group called PIE that used to promote paedos in the 70's or 80's that had several Tory members from what I heard.

Tail Docker

Amazing how revelations come out years after the fact, when perpetrators are about to snuff it themselves, yet it's stifled when it's current. Suggests that when their "power" of Office has faded they slip out of the circle of scummers and facts emerge. Also makes me wonder if this would be possible without collusion from high ranking members of the Police.

Autonomous Cowherd

I suppose what I mean by what i said is having been brought up lower middle class, educated well, raised Catholic though absconded at 16, I find that one by one the pillars of what we once thought of as 'decent' society have been leveled, from the priests to the guards etc and so on. And now those who serve US as public representatives could actually prove to harbour total monsters in their midst and protect them from prosecution over decades.

I am just sick of it all. I do not believe in this so-called civilisation that runs along these tainted lines. I don't support the Church so that lets me out on that one. I have lived a life of relative chosen freedom outside the constraints of the norm so that leaves me out of the stupid mass of what passes for acceptable society. But why the hell should I pay taxes to support a political system that is inherently sick and corrupt. And it does seem to me to be.
(I know it's UK...but still. I have met high fliers and politicians from different countries and they are a breed.)

Piliger

It's probably the result of someone high on drugs.

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

There was a whole group called PIE that used to promote paedos in the 70's or 80's that had several Tory members from what I heard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

The group's stated aim was "to alleviate [the] suffering of many adults and children" by campaigning to abolish the age of consent thus legalising sex between adults and children.

ಠ_ಠ

Donkey Oaty

From what we do know about certain people - take Sir Cyril Smith as an example - there is no reason think that these allegations are implausible.

Autonomous Cowherd

My name is URL wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange



ಠ_ಠ

Ugh.
Just flipping ugh.
I grow truly bored of what we are prepared to swallow down with our lattes. We are a complacent, subservient species. We get the leaders we deserve perhaps.

Ave Sodalis

My name is URL wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange



ಠ_ಠ

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/50449357.jpg

Pumpkinseeds

I think it's just the tip of the iceberg really. There have been accusations in the past that kids were taken from care homes and state institutions in the UK to be sexually abused at paedophile parties by celebrities, senior politicians, members of the judiciary and a whole host of other upstanding pillars of the community. They were very different times and it isn't hard to believe that it would have been covered up.

AlanS181824

Sounds a bit much really.

Fuhrer

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it's just the tip of the iceberg really. There have been accusations in the past that kids were taken from care homes and state institutions in the UK to be sexually abused at paedophile parties by celebrities, senior politicians, members of the judiciary and a whole host of other upstanding pillars of the community. They were very different times and it isn't hard to believe that it would have been covered up.

Rotherham was also a massive cover up and it wasnt a different time,

These things undoubtedly happened and are probably still happening

porsche959

We will have to wait and see what happens, but Police believe survivor is credible.

Incidentally its a welcome surprise to see the indo even reporting this.

My name is URL

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Ugh.
Just flipping ugh.
I grow truly bored of what we are prepared to swallow down with our lattes. We are a complacent, subservient species. We get the leaders we deserve perhaps.

Apparently other such advocacy groups still exist around the world.

Bit mad to think that the one in UK actually got government funding.

Makes the story in the OP seem a lot more plausible really.

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

Apparently other such advocacy groups still exist around the world.

Bit mad to think that the one in UK actually got government funding.

Makes the story in the OP seem a lot more plausible really.

Like Nambla.

porsche959

My name is URL wrote: »

Apparently other such advocacy groups still exist around the world.

Bit mad to think that the one in UK actually got government funding.

Makes the story in the OP seem a lot more plausible really.

Apparently pie folded or went underground in the early eighties due to media and public pressure, but few members were prosecuted at the time.

porsche959

i await, with bated breath, eoghan harris's fearsome denunciation of British establishment-protected paedophiles.

Specialun

If anything it enforces what we knew about political life

The rich/elite look after themselves and their own interest..fook the rest

floggg

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I suppose what I mean by what i said is having been brought up lower middle class, educated well, raised Catholic though absconded at 16, I find that one by one the pillars of what we once thought of as 'decent' society have been leveled, from the priests to the guards etc and so on. And now those who serve US as public representatives could actually prove to harbour total monsters in their midst and protect them from prosecution over decades.

I am just sick of it all. I do not believe in this so-called civilisation that runs along these tainted lines. I don't support the Church so that lets me out on that one. I have lived a life of relative chosen freedom outside the constraints of the norm so that leaves me out of the stupid mass of what passes for acceptable society. But why the hell should I pay taxes to support a political system that is inherently sick and corrupt. And it does seem to me to be.
(I know it's UK...but still. I have met high fliers and politicians from different countries and they are a breed.)

To be honest your problem seems to be your wide eyed naivety regarding your so called pillars of society.

Did you really think that just because somebody put on a uniform or carried a certain title they weren't capable of wrong doing?

There will always be people who abuse their power and privilege. In fact, the more morally bankrupt tend to be drawn to positions of power so they can abuse it.

That is unfortunately the way for the world, and no system will ever be immune to it.

The bigger problem in the past was the blind deference shown to these people by naive plebs who believed the "pillars of society" were incorruptible. Society preferred to turn a blind eye to these things because life was easier that way - unless you a victim of this sort of thing in which case nobody wanted to hear your tale.

Nowadays we know better and we are much better at asking the hard questions and getting the hard answers.

So rather than things getting worse, things are in fact getting much much better. While we unfortunately won't be always able to prevent these things occurring, we are making it much harder for people to get away with it.

Autonomous Cowherd

Specialun wrote: »

If anything it enforces what we knew about political life

The rich/elite look after themselves and their own interest..fook the rest

Well, if that is truly the case, and more and more I have moved from a reasonably centrist position on this to one that more than flirts with tin foil hatters, then why the heck are we so compliant?

Because when we stand by still, as we do and hardly raise a murmur over what various shocks we get, we are accomplices and history will know us as such. For we are educated and aware and have not the excuse of being an insensible peasantry.

And yet we allow our society to be felled by a thousand sinister cuts.

Why support it anymore?

I want a complete change. I'm fed up with it.

mad muffin

I thought this was going to be a story about an MP by day and a killer of pedophiles by night.

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Kill them all. Let Lucifer sort them out :mad:

Autonomous Cowherd

floggg wrote: »

To be honest your problem seems to be your wide eyed naivety regarding your so called pillars of society.

Did you really think that just because somebody put on a uniform or carried a certain title they weren't capable of wrong doing?

There will always be people who abuse their power and privilege. In fact, the more morally bankrupt tend to be drawn to positions of power so they can abuse it.

That is unfortunately the way for the world, and no system will ever be immune to it.

The bigger problem in the past was the blind deference shown to these people by naive plebs who believed the "pillars of society" were incorruptible. Society preferred to turn a blind eye to these things because life was easier that way - unless you a victim of this sort of thing in which case nobody wanted to hear your tale.

Nowadays we know better and we are much better at asking the hard questions and getting the hard answers.

So rather than things getting worse, things are in fact getting much much better. While we unfortunately won't be always able to prevent these things occurring, we are making it much harder for people to get away with it.

I agree with your first part. I have always been a bit naive....or hopeful rather. But what I have bolded I disagree with. Completely.

And as for these pillars of society the difference between them and fancy pantses we doffed our caps to is that they are the (so-called) servants of the people paid from the public purse. We have paid for them to have their decadent debauched lives of privilege. And still do. Through the nose.

Pumpkinseeds

Fuhrer wrote: »

Rotherham was also a massive cover up and it wasnt a different time,

These things undoubtedly happened and are probably still happening

I totally agree. The reasoning behind Rotherham seems more to do with the authorities trying to avoid dealing with it in order to avoid being labelled as racist.

Fuhrer

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I totally agree. The reasoning behind Rotherham seems more to do with the authorities trying to avoid dealing with it in order to avoid being labelled as racist.

Yeah but you can see authorities covering up crimes of powerful people, less they get some retribution coming down on them by the same reasoning

porsche959

Incidentally silence from the labour front bench on this so far, it was maverick Tory mp Peter bone who today asked the attorney general to ensure the investigation is sufficiently resourced.

lazybones32

It wouldn't surprise me tbh...

ceadaoin.

Since the whole Jimmy Savile stuff has come out I've read a bit into it. I ended up on a well known CT site where there was a large thread on it which was running for years. Most of the stuff written on there years ago which most people at the time would have said was looney stuff turned out to be all true. There definitely is/was a cover up going on and it probably does go up to very high levels. Just look at all the care home abuse that was going on in the UK as well as the recent scandal in Rotherham. Shocking really.

I don't know if the full truth will ever come out though. Probably not until the main perpetrators are dead anyway.

Fuhrer

This is probably related

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/senior-mps-half-brother-admits-historial-sex-offences-young-boys

Peist2007

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Since the whole Jimmy Savile stuff has come out I've read a bit into it. I ended up on a well known CT site where there was a large thread on it which was running for years. Most of the stuff written on there years ago which most people at the time would have said was looney stuff turned out to be all true. There definitely is/was a cover up going on and it probably does go up to very high levels. Just look at all the care home abuse that was going on in the UK as well as the recent scandal in Rotherham. Shocking really.

I don't know if the full truth will ever come out though. Probably not until the main perpetrators are dead anyway.

Pretty much highlights why those who question the status quo should be protected from this damaging new trend of labelling those with contrarian views as nutters and "tin-foil hatters". Those are the contrarian views that lead to progress and, in cases like this, justice

Donkey Oaty

Peist2007 wrote: »

Pretty much highlights why those who question the status quo should be protected from this damaging new trend of labelling those with contrarian views as nutters and "tin-foil hatters". Those are the contrarian views that lead to progress and, in cases like this, justice

It really depends on whether or not they use these scandals as evidence for the lizard men.

not yet

Gives a whole new meaning to who ate all the PIE's

Autonomous Cowherd

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It really depends on whether or not they use these scandals as evidence for the lizard men.

Not all people who see through the shambolic fakery that passes for a civilisation believe in lizard men. It is just a glib methodology to dismiss everything that does not accord with a majority-agreed cosy world view. Solzhenistsyn said that when people are arrested usually they ''reply with a lamb-like bleat ''Me? What for?'' '' See even back then there were sheep and there were non-sheep. Subscribing to lizard men ideas was not required.

Buona Fortuna

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it's just the tip of the iceberg really. There have been accusations in the past that kids were taken from care homes and state institutions in the UK to be sexually abused at paedophile parties by celebrities, senior politicians, members of the judiciary and a whole host of other upstanding pillars of the community. They were very different times and it isn't hard to believe that it would have been covered up.

Thats a fair comment. I watched a thing on 4OD the other day, "It was alright in the 70s" http://www.channel4.com/programmes/it-was-alright-in-the-1970s/4od#3790294

Now there was obviously the Benny Hill prog (26 Million viewers), another was an episode of The Likely Lads, they were in bed together (á la Eric and Ernie) and talking about how tempting the local school girls were. This was when the usual school leaving age was 16. There were several other quite shocking examples.

Now that excuses the Savilles and Glitters of this world not one jot, but I think it does provide some sort of commentary to the "Ah sure youre grand" attitude of people who should have done an awful lot more than they did.

Magico Gonzalez

I'd say they are referring to Cyril Smith, where it goes after him is open to speculation.

porsche959

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I'd say they are referring to Cyril Smith, where it goes after him is open to speculation.

No, seemingly allegation concerns a former Tory mp, still alive.

porsche959

People complaining on Twitter about the guardian ignoring this and similar allegations.

They have a point - the small team at exaronews and right wing papers like the mail and even telegraph have been doing a better job than the paper that likes to think of itself as the doyen of left wing, antiestablishment thinking.

RDM_83 again

porsche959 wrote: »

Incidentally silence from the labour front bench on this so far, it was maverick Tory mp Peter bone who today asked the attorney general to ensure the investigation is sufficiently resourced.

porsche959 wrote: »

People complaining on Twitter about the guardian ignoring this and similar allegations.

They have a point - the small team at exaronews and right wing papers like the mail and even telegraph have been doing a better job than the paper that likes to think of itself as the doyen of left wing, antiestablishment thinking.

There's a reason for this, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewit back in the 70's/80's as part of the NCCL had at least some correspondence with the PIE

porsche959

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There's a reason for this, Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewit back in the 70's/80's as part of the NCCL had at least some correspondence with the PIE

Indeed - I'm aware of that, but in my view it doesn't satisfactorily explain the guardian's seeming reluctance to look into establishment paedos - though it might at least partially explain the labour front benches silence.

Donkey Oaty

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Not all people who see through the shambolic fakery that passes for a civilisation believe in lizard men. It is just a glib methodology to dismiss everything that does not accord with a majority-agreed cosy world view. Solzhenistsyn said that when people are arrested usually they ''reply with a lamb-like bleat ''Me? What for?'' '' See even back then there were sheep and there were non-sheep. Subscribing to lizard men ideas was not required.

Not sure how any of that remotely relates to what I said - maybe a few more quotes relating to life in the Soviet Union will help clarify matters?

Autonomous Cowherd

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Not sure how any of that remotely relates to what I said - maybe a few more quotes relating to life in the Soviet Union will help clarify matters?

Smiles fair point guv

R1_Pete

Fuhrer wrote: »

Like Nambla.

Never heard of that, googled it. Sorry I did. Sick c***s

RDM_83 again

porsche959 wrote: »

Indeed - I'm aware of that, but in my view it doesn't satisfactorily explain the guardian's seeming reluctance to look into establishment paedos - though it might at least partially explain the labour front benches silence.

Hmmm I don't really know, the Guardian would be pretty pro those two figures though.
At a guess its because Pedophile "hysteria" is something the Red-tops play too, so the Guardian will try and dissociate itself from that even when the cases are serious and legitimate (which we don't know yet about this case but we do know that they weren't big on putting many column inches onto the sex scandals in the northern towns until it became unavoidable).
To put it bluntly stuff like this is more of a working class concern and the Guardian isn't that sort of Left-wing, poor white kids aren't of as much interest

porsche959

The generally pro-establishment telegraph are taking this story seriously, they have a front page story tomorrow re one of the child murders allegedly linked to Westminster child abusers.

enfant terrible

Some interesting info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Dickens#Paedophile_ring_investigation

Between 1981 and 1985, Dickens campaigned against a suspected paedophile ring he claimed to have uncovered that was connected to trading child pornography.[2] In 1981, Dickens named the former British High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman, as a paedophile in the House of Commons, using parliamentary privilege so he could not get sued for slander. Dickens asked why he had not been jailed after the discovery on a bus of violent pornography.

In 1983, Dickens claimed there was a paedophile network involving "big, big names – people in positions of power, influence and responsibility" and threatened to name them in the Commons.[3] The next year, he campaigned for the banning of Hayman's Paedophile Information Exchange organisation. Dickens had a thirty-minute meeting with the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, after giving him a dossier containing the child abuse allegations. Although Dickens said he was "encouraged" by the meeting, he later expressed concern that PIE had not been banned.[2]

On 29 November 1985, Dickens said in a speech to the Commons that paedophiles were "evil and dangerous" and that child pornography generated "vast sums". He further claimed that: "The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House. Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list".[2] Dickens' son later said that about the time when the dossier was given to the Home Secretary, the MP's London flat and constituency home were both broken into but nothing was taken, presumably in a search for documents.[4][5]

The Labour MP Tom Watson asked the Home Office in February 2013 for Dickens' dossier.[2] A Home Office review in 2013 concluded that any information requiring investigation was referred to the police but revealed that Mr Dickens' dossier was "not retained".[3][6] After the issue had been raised again by Labour MP Simon Danczuk in July 2014, former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said the circumstances in which the dossier had gone missing was alarming and recommended an inquiry into the fate of the dossier.[5] Prime Minister David Cameron asked the Home Office Permanent Secretary to investigate what had happened to the missing dossier. Danczuk responded that another internal inquiry was merely trying to limit damage, and that a public inquiry was necessary to retain public confidence.[7] The missing dossier has been linked with ongoing investigations into the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal.[8][9]

ceadaoin.

enfant terrible wrote: »

Some interesting info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Dickens#Paedophile_ring_investigation

Between 1981 and 1985, Dickens campaigned against a suspected paedophile ring he claimed to have uncovered that was connected to trading child pornography.[2] In 1981, Dickens named the former British High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman, as a paedophile in the House of Commons, using parliamentary privilege so he could not get sued for slander. Dickens asked why he had not been jailed after the discovery on a bus of violent pornography.

In 1983, Dickens claimed there was a paedophile network involving "big, big names – people in positions of power, influence and responsibility" and threatened to name them in the Commons.[3] The next year, he campaigned for the banning of Hayman's Paedophile Information Exchange organisation. Dickens had a thirty-minute meeting with the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, after giving him a dossier containing the child abuse allegations. Although Dickens said he was "encouraged" by the meeting, he later expressed concern that PIE had not been banned.[2]

On 29 November 1985, Dickens said in a speech to the Commons that paedophiles were "evil and dangerous" and that child pornography generated "vast sums". He further claimed that: "The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House. Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list".[2] Dickens' son later said that about the time when the dossier was given to the Home Secretary, the MP's London flat and constituency home were both broken into but nothing was taken, presumably in a search for documents.[4][5]

The Labour MP Tom Watson asked the Home Office in February 2013 for Dickens' dossier.[2] A Home Office review in 2013 concluded that any information requiring investigation was referred to the police but revealed that Mr Dickens' dossier was "not retained".[3][6] After the issue had been raised again by Labour MP Simon Danczuk in July 2014, former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said the circumstances in which the dossier had gone missing was alarming and recommended an inquiry into the fate of the dossier.[5] Prime Minister David Cameron asked the Home Office Permanent Secretary to investigate what had happened to the missing dossier. Danczuk responded that another internal inquiry was merely trying to limit damage, and that a public inquiry was necessary to retain public confidence.[7] The missing dossier has been linked with ongoing investigations into the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal.[8][9]

A bit strange alright how so many files relating to institutional child abuse go missing or are 'destroyed'. If that isn't enough evidence that this stuff is being covered up and people are being protected then I don't know what is

NIMAN

The more I read about this the more I think

1) This is shocking, how can people let this be hidden
or
2) This is an urban myth that has gathered legs over the years

Son Of A Vidic

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It really depends on whether or not they use these scandals as evidence for the lizard men.

One would have needed to have lived a very sheltered life and have missed some shocking events & revelations in recent years. To come out with that kind of pointless nonsense.

indigo twist

Misleading thread title. I thought it was going to be about some vigilante MP who killed paedophiles!

Autonomous Cowherd

indigo twist wrote: »

Misleading thread title. I thought it was going to be about some vigilante MP who killed paedophiles!

Sorry. I was at a loss for words.

But if you read it, the gist is true. An MP who was a Paedophile AND a Killer and then a question mark of disbelief, largely because it appears this one and several others of the ilk have had their evil-doings covered up by British Parliament. The disappearance of dossiers and so on. All the stuff of a conspiracy.

And to me it looks like only the Daily Telegraph are going with it on front page. Ah well....child murdering rapist members of Parliament must not be newsworthy. Tell us about Kim Kardashian's a8se though, why dontcha....

I appreciate the input in this thread. The references and so on. Gracias.

Gyalist

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I appreciate the input in this thread. The references and so on. Gracias.

While you're at it you should do a search on "Kincora Boys Home" in Belfast. Private Eye ran a long campaign for an official inquiry. Three people received fairly minor sentences but there was unease that there were other powerful people who were protected by the British establishment.

Peist2007

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It really depends on whether or not they use these scandals as evidence for the lizard men.

Contrarian views dont necessarily mean lizard men. But cheers for showing the problem