• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Operation Yewtree & Other Historical Child-Abuse Allegations

If these claims are accurate then I really hope they come to something, that said, some proportion of those involved will be deceased by now and others, unless they were very young for MP's at the time, will have been able to enjoy their political careers.

We do need to prosecute people like that, even if the consequences that are made for their behaviour are woefully inadequate. :(
 
How long before we have a paedophile sub-forum?

It's mind-numbing the number of similar threads we have. Can't we just lump them all into one giant thread I can ignore. They're all the same story with different names, after all.
 
:lol:

Stick it all in the 'Peter' file.
 
I don't think this was in relation to Yewtree, but since the allegations of sexual misdeeds of one sort or another keep rolling out, I'll drop it here to avoid starting another thread:

Former Home Secretary Leon Brittan is reported to have been interviewed by police over a historical allegation of rape.

The Independent on Sunday says Lord Brittan, as he is now known, is understood to have been questioned last month about the claim, which relates to an incident in London in 1967.

The Tory peer reportedly strongly denies the allegations.

Lord Brittan, 74, was not an MP at the time of the alleged rape.
Inquiries continue

In a statement, Scotland Yard said in late 2012 a woman claimed to police that she was raped by a man at an address in the capital.

It said the woman was over 18 at the time of the incident.

Police added that a man in his 70s was interviewed under caution, by appointment, at a central London location last month. He was not arrested and inquiries continue.

The BBC understands that man was Lord Brittan, who was home secretary in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government from 1983 to 1985.

Lord Brittan, who was first elected as an MP in 1974, later became Trade and Industry Secretary. He stood down from the Commons when he became a European commissioner in 1989.

Downing Street sources said they did not know about the questioning.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28181045
 
It's not all the same conspiracy though. Or if it is, its possibly the largest scandal ever to hit our governing classes - todays instalments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -lost.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aults.html

and comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... NCZUK.html

I'll stop posting the whole quote.

I have particular and personal reasons for despising child molesters - and the attitude of 'nothing to see here' is all-too-typical.

You might ask what is Fortean about it - well, a) we have a topic for conspiracies (or conspiracy theories) and b) Fort was very interested in the human ability to indulge in selective thinking and the ignorance of inconvenient facts - that ability seems to have been 100% in play in this issue.
 
theyithian said:
How long before we have a paedophile sub-forum?

It's mind-numbing the number of similar threads we have. Can't we just lump them all into one giant thread I can ignore. They're all the same story with different names, after all.
Click to expand...

The Jimmy Savile thread was recently separated into two threads, one for Jimmy and one for Yewtree. Perhaps we need one for Paedos in High Places (nice thread title). This thread can be used for that.
 
Cochise said:
It's not all the same conspiracy though. Or if it is, its possibly the largest scandal ever to hit our governing classes..
Click to expand...

I tend to agree - this particular case, should allegations and suppositions be proved, could and probably will completely eclipse Savile, Yewtree, etc (regardless how intertwined the narrative.) So, this thread can stand, but must be focussed on this issue alone. The Savile and Yewtree threads can absorb any other related issues - and we'll keep all ensuing discussions to these three threads alone. We shall, if necessary, split and move individual posts from one thread to another.

No need for a subby, so long as contributors think about where they're posting.
 
Cochise said:
I have particular and personal reasons for despising child molesters - and the attitude of 'nothing to see here' is all-too-typical.
Click to expand...

I think I may have expressed myself clumsily. The issue of sexual abuse is undoubtedly important enough and the discussion of possible conspiracies to mask them is borderline Fortean and quite in keeping with several strands of the field; my complaints are to do with the reporting and our dealing with it here:

First, the main threads seem to have, for the most part, reverted to cut & paste updates with sporadic comment.

Second, the reporting itself veers from unfounded speculation to catalogues of offences with really not all that much of the conspiracy angle other that vague innuendo (probably down to legal concerns). Surely the 'how' should reign over the 'what', 'how often' and 'to which soundtrack'?

Third, the reporting is too often salacious in tone, which is bitterly ironic given society's 'could not give a s***' attitude to the sexualisation of children.

Fourth, the trial updates a) are readily accessible in countless mainstream news sources and b) report all claims voiced in court, some of which are subsequently disproved - this is, of course, part and parcel of open justice but tiring to wade through. Investigations are ongoing: that's all we have in the way of solid fact in many cases. Further, we, as a society, seem to be veering from absolute ignorance of the very possibility of such predatory groups and individuals, to excessive credulity where all claims are accepted on face value; the McAlpine affair ought to have been salutary and anyone looking below the surface of the Saville enquiry will have seen that among the genuine claims are a number of cranks and treasure hunters all of whom are being given 'voice' as part of the media's audience-chasing and some people's guilt and misplaced atonement - that would be a Fortean thread to follow.

Last, the political parties are beginning to swing the issue around as a potential stick to beat each other with and establish their own orthodoxy. This makes me want to vomit.

So that's why I feel as if sticking my head in the sand until the final scene may be preferable.
 
I do entirely understand that angle, yes.

I am myself reasonably certain that something has been 'going on' in the way of cover up here for a long time, but I accept that there may be less to it than it looks like. There is certainly some basis in fact, as we know about Cyril Smith and we know there was at least some level of - if I put it as kindly as I can - discouragement of any investigation into his case. The same with other cases regarding deceased people that have now been revealed to have substance.

Unfortunately, the attempts of some to make it party political are inevitable, as is the salaciousness of some reports. That is simply human nature, as far as I can see. Nevertheless, those asking for the matter to be investigated like Norman Tebbit and Simon Danczuk do seem to be trying to make it an across-the-board investigation, it is those on the defensive who would seem to be reducing it to party politics, Well, they would, wouldn't they?

The false claims and compensation (or publicity) seekers are the other side of the coin, and are precisely why a proper investigation - seen to be independent and impartial - is needed. Hopefully it will discover that there are only a few offenders and the failure to pursue them is cock-up not conspiracy.

However, the indications are that is is something more serious, if not as serious as the most extreme claims make it. It already seems evident that in one political party at least the party's public image was seen as more important than expelling members that were known to the party hierarchy to abuse children. Lord Tebbit claims that was true of the whole establishment, and love him or loathe him I don't think that is a statement he would make lightly or with no evidence.

Whatever the result, it must not be swept back under the carpet or it will taint the entire political process in this country. As with Hillsborough, trying to continue the concealment will only make things worse still.
 
Peter Bottomley gave an interview on the Today programme this morning. To sum up: 'Nothing's going on now, I'd have known back then if anything was going on and there wasn't, and if anyone accuses me of impropriety I'll sue them like I did last time.'

So, nothing to see here, move along please.
 
OneWingedBird said:
What era are we talking for those outfits?

Newspaper suit suggests to me two-tone/ska, although depending on when he wore it, all that could be yet to happen.

The other two I shall muse upon during my Saturday afternoon bath.
Click to expand...

How did the bath go? :D

I reckon the newspaper suit, if it does have any meaning, refers to someone in the press industry like a reporter or editor or columnist.

That's IF it means anything, and that's a very big IF! ;)

We also have a Superman suit and 60s flower-power get-up.

*scratches head*

:lol:
 
Last, the political parties are beginning to swing the issue around as a potential stick to beat each other with and establish their own orthodoxy
Click to expand...

In fairness there's been rather less of that than there might have been. The MPs campaigning on this over the years have been from across the political spectrum and they seem sincere in their campaigns. The party machines will also hold back from making thus too overtly party political, not least because figures from all major parties and some minor ones are allegedly implicated.

if anyone accuses me of impropriety I'll sue them like I did last time
Click to expand...

As is entirely proper if a false allegation is made.

The internet is swarming with hysterical rumours at the moment - some of the names being bandied about will no doubt turn out to be up to no good, while others will be entirely innocent. I posted during the Philip Schofield - witchfinder general episode that there's a lot of homophobic and antisemitic nonsense mixed in with the more sober analyses. One good reason for an inquiry us to help separate the two.
 
Reeve was a youngster in the US in the 60s. Perhaps, it's all a load of bollox. Mod-pop-Carnaby St fashions were already pretty extreme at the time and sartorially, Savile liked to live it large. Perhaps, it's all a load of bollox.
 
Well, the enquiry is going to happen - let us hope it is not another punt into the long grass.

The victims, the public and of course anyone wrongly subject to allegations all need some clarity urgently.

And then there is this aspect (from Hansard):

Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): In the mid-1990s, a senior ex-Whip who had served in the 1970s told the BBC that the Whips Office routinely helped MPs with scandals, including those, in his own words, “involving small boys”, and that they did so to exert control over those individuals and prevent problems for the Government. That is just one powerful example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent justice from happening. May we have a full commitment that the inquiry will consider not just the police and social services but what happens at the heart of power, and that if those systems are found to exist today, they will be overturned, whether or not it makes life uncomfortable for political parties, Parliament or the Government?
Click to expand...

If the whips were using this knowledge to force votes to go in a particular direction, who knows what might have been decided differently if they had not had access to this leverage? Could a few forced votes of this nature , for example, have carried the balance that took us into Iraq?
 
This could be one of the most horrendous political scandals ever... or it could all go back to nothing.

There is evidence at least 20 prominent figures - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.

Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse.

The government has already announced two reviews into claims of abuse.

The Home Office's top civil servant will appear before MPs later.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said the child abuse probes had been spurred on by "dramatic shifts in public attitudes".

Permanent secretary Mark Sedwill will face questions from the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee about his department's handling of child abuse allegations made over a 20-year period.

'Almost exclusively boys'

Announcing the reviews in the House of Commons on Monday, Home Secretary Theresa May said the first would be a wide-ranging inquiry - similar to the inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster - led by an independent panel of experts on law and child protection.

The second review - which is to be led by head of the NSPCC Peter Wanless - would cover how police and prosecutors handled information given to them, she told MPs.
Click to expand...

More at the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28203914
 
Shades of the very murky business in Belgium 15 years or so ago, where parts of the political and judicial establishment became enmeshed in a vile scandal involving a child murderer. There were huge protests in Belgium but then it all seemed to fizzle out. Do any continental FTMB members have any more info on why this was?

Nick Davies - excellent journalist who also broke the phone hacking scandal - wrote some very powerful articles 10+ years ago about the trade in young boys and the apparent inability of the police in the UK or Holland to do much about it. They're still on the Guardian website and on Davies' own website - I quickly skimmed one of them at the weekend and I suspect that this current scandal links to some of the things he identified then.
 
The admission that the whips would use this kind of prediliction to exert pressure on MPs is not so far away from the full-blown version of the conspiracy theory.

Assisting a cover-up may be several steps removed from establishing or commandeering honey-traps but the power-relationships that could give rise to such corruption seem to have been fully understood in Westminster. The agencies at work in the wider world may not be so ready to talk to Hansard - even at one remove!

I understand the jaded appetites of some posters for this kind of material but, while some of us have been familiar with these allegations for years, it is only now getting headline treatment in the mainstream press. It will be a shock to many.

The Dickens file and subsequent revelations about multiple lost dossiers are mere straws in the wind: there is no reason to suppose that the late populist MP had any more evidence than can be gleaned from browsing in the murkier regions of the internet today.

I used to think this stuff began with the Wallace Affair but I have recently been reminded of the earlier "Playland" scandal and the self-styled Bishop of Medway, Roger Gleaves. Though dated April 1st, I don't think that glimpse of his later career is a hoax. Gleaves ran hostels for homeless boys and was the subject of several reports in the press and on television in the days of investigative journalism. It was widely believed that he enjoyed protection from some influential "clients". More on Gleaves here.

Much of the murk, we should remember, comes from known abusers who have threatened to spill the beans when they found themselves in the dock. The legal system has sometimes protected influential parties by preventing the disclosure of documents relating to them. We may expect some of these cases to be revisited by the press as the matter has come into the spotlight.

As a grim reminder of how different times were, here is a moment of the blackest comedy from 1967: A nine-year-old boy assaulted as a direct consequence of being used by police to trap a pervert.

"Now that we have our son back, we just wish to forget about it"

:nonplus:
 
I'll drop this in here, as it does have BBC links, but the main thrust of the story is the Anglican church's reaction to a paedo in their midst.

Chichester child abuse victims wait 10 years for report

A report on child abuse in the diocese of Chichester has been published more than a decade after it was written, following pressure from victims.
The report on abuse between the 1970s and 2000 in the diocese and at the Cathedral was written in January 2004.
The case review followed the conviction of Terence Banks in 2001 for 32 sexual offences against 12 boys over 29 years.

The diocese said victims had "consistently asked for the full facts to be brought to light".
The review was commissioned by the then Bishop of Chichester, the Right Reverend Dr John Hind.

Banks had a long association with Chichester Cathedral and grew up living in the Treasury, before leaving home to move to London.
While living in Hammersmith, Banks often visited Chichester at weekends and took over the role of head steward at the cathedral from his father, following his death in 1989.
He was offered a church-owned property after the death of his mother in 1994.

The report said Banks was widely regarded as part of the cathedral choir's organisation, although he had no official role. As a result he was able to be seen as having "some power" over both choristers and their parents.

He groomed and sexually abused children, both boys and girls, between January 1971 until just before his arrest in early 2000, the case review said.
He met all but one of his victims through his activities in the cathedral.
He took children out to tea and brought them presents.

The report said "he used alcohol to break down inhibitions" of his victims and would then introduce his victims to pornographic films "to start the process of abuse".
The assaults took place at his homes in Chichester and London, and he would also show the boys round BBC studios where he worked as a floor manager in the 1970s and 1980s.
One victim was taken to a hotel in Guildford and one to a sauna in Brighton. Two of the boys were abused in each other's presence.

The case review was set up after concerns about the way the church had responded to allegations made in 2000.
Banks was still allowed access to children while working at the cathedral, the report said.
The report said the Anglican community in the Chichester area had been "slow to change their child protection responses".

An allegation in 1991 about Banks' use of pornography with a 12-year-old was not reported to the dean of the cathedral.
In the same year, two victims reported abuse which was investigated by the cathedral but police were not informed.
The report said Banks' three youngest victims were 11 years old, but all were under the age of 16.

In 2001, Banks was found guilty of 32 sexual offences. A further eight charges, involving another three victims, remain on file. He was jailed for 16 years.

The diocese of Chichester said at the time of the report, case reviews were not published as a matter of course.
A spokesman said: "First and foremost our thoughts are with the survivors and their families.
"The effects of abuse can last a lifetime, and the passing of the years may or may not have brought any kind of healing."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-28211057

Banks must be about the same age as me, and I went to school in Chichester. We sometimes attended the cathedral for carol services, etc, so I may even have seen him, only a few years before his paedo 'career' took off.

There are parallels with the Savile case here - a respected insider, with religious connections, but with a vile secret of child abuse. There must also be the possibility that Banks met Savile at the beeb - I wonder if the police have questioned him about that?
 
rynner2 said:
Chichester child abuse victims wait 10 years for report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-28211057
Click to expand...
Another version of the story is here:

http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/n ... -1-6165986

This adds:
While working at the BBC during the 1970s and 1980s as a floor manager [Banks] lived in Hammersmith but frequently returned to Chichester for weekends and for several weeks over the summer, when he worked for the Festivities.

“He also worked at Chichester Festival Theatre in its earliest years, later becoming a trustee,” said the report."
Click to expand...
That's another place I might have seen him.
 
Even though I believe there is conspiracy on this subject, albeit perhaps something that has grown rather than been deliberately planned from the outset as the Ickeans would have us believe, I simply want a credible investigation.

If that investigation answers the various questions and concludes that there are only the cases that have been already brought to light and no other offenders and no cover up, I will be very happy. But I would rather see something organised on the lines of the latest Hillsborough enquiry which seems finally to have got to most of the truth, rather than something relying on the same old tired group of establishment figures.
 
I simply want a credible investigation
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is that I think Butler-Sloss will run such an inquiry admirably, but whatever she comes up with will now be tainted with the potential conflict of interest given her family background. I am not sure that simply replacing her will resolve matters either; anyone senior enough in the legal profession to run an inquiry of this nature will inevitably be an "Establishment" figure and hence subject to criticism.

Any outcome that doesn't involve half the House of Commons being unmasked devil-worshipping lizards won't satisfy the Internet conspiracy warriors. The reported remit of the inquiry also focuses very much on historical matters; it beggars belief that the terms of reference don't include more recent and indeed current events, in particular the grooming gang epidemic.

What a mess.
 
I don't think there's a conspiracy but I do think there tends to be a lot of collusion in these types of cases. Enabling by covering up other people's behaviour tends to end up with a lot of people being complicit to some degree, even some who might originally have acted in good faith eg covering up something they thought was 'misleading' for an associate they didn't believe was guilty.

Eventually it's a clusterfuck where anyone who knows what's going on is complicit enough to be screwed if they tell.
 
It is patently obvious that some people in power at least knew of the JS rumours and ignored them. It is equally obvious that the whips knew of similar behaviour by politicians and used it to obtain political favours. If you haven't heard the Tim Fortescue video I suggest you listen to it now:

http://order-order.com/2014/07/08/watch ... -cover-up/

I don't want to send these people to prison particularly, most of them are dead, but I do want to be assured that anyone still using such methods is removed from a place where they can influence lawmaking and the running of the country. Of course, it follows that any politician who has put themselves in a position where they can be blackmailed in such a way should be asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.

I'm moderately amazed that more people aren't infuriated by that aspect of the Westminster stuff.
 
Does Stephen Fry ever think before he opens his mouth?
The latest remarks by Stephen Fry about Operation Yewtree, the inquiry into historic sexual abuse, are particularly insensitive
By Bryony Gordon
7:00AM BST 15 Jul 2014

'Stephen Fry is a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like,” said someone or other way back when. Nobody can remember who coined it – was it Julie Burchill or Peter Hitchens or Plato? – but Fry seems to love giving us reasons to trot it out.

....

And now we have reports from a Labour Party fund-raiser hosted last week by Fry, where the ''national treasure’’ stood in front of an audience that included Ed Miliband, and attacked Operation Yewtree, the country’s most high-profile inquiry into historic sex abuse. He said that ''fewer than half’’ of the people arrested had been convicted of the crimes (this is actually on a par with conviction rates for sexual offences generally, but never mind), and urged the audience to remember that “people are innocent until [proved?] guilty”.

He is said to have singled out Keir Starmer, the former director of public prosecutions who was also present, for criticism, and apparently announced that the law should be toughened up to deter people from inventing claims about sex abuse. “It was all a bit awkward,” said a guest. “There was a smattering of applause, but mostly there was this deadly silence. And Ed looked as if he had swallowed a wasp.” :shock:

Fry is said to be particularly upset about the treatment of a chum, radio and television presenter Paul Gambaccini, who remains on bail following his arrest in November 2013 by police investigating claims of historic sex offences.
Even so, did Fry have to perpetuate the myth that most people who go to police with claims that they have been sexually assaulted are also attention-seeking fantasists?

There is no doubt that to be falsely accused of rape is hugely damaging, but such accusations are in fact incredibly rare. Did Fry read last year’s report by the Crown Prosecution Service, which found that in a 17-month test period, from 2011 and 2012, there were just 35 convictions of false allegations of rape, compared to 5,651 convictions for rape? Starmer, DPP at the time of that report, would be forgiven if he felt a bit peeved to find himself on the receiving end of a lecture by Blackadder’s General Melchett. :twisted:

As Starmer said when the study was published: “Because people recognise the devastating effect of false allegations and because they perceive there to be more false allegations than this report would suggest there are, arguably they adopt a cautious approach. If [that] leads to a more rigorous test being applied when people report rape or domestic violence, then that can lead to injustice for victims.”

All the statistics show that the problem lies not with people fabricating sexual assaults: it is our failure to take their reports seriously. It is thought that 12,000 men and 85,000 women are raped each year in England and Wales, and yet there were only 5,659 convictions for sexual offences in 2013, out of the 10,365 cases that got to court. The under-reporting of sexual offences is not something confined to an era when Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris roamed free and unchallenged by vulnerable people too scared to speak out or seek help. Even now, with the likes of Max Clifford and Stuart Hall behind bars and an apparently open society that seeks to provide justice to all, many men and women are still too ashamed to speak out against their attackers. They know their chances of being taken seriously are pathetically slim.

Fry’s intervention was appallingly judged, coming as it did in the same week that an inquiry was launched into an alleged paedophile ring at Westminster during the 1980s. The thought of him pontificating about sex-abuse investigations at a glittering £15,000-a-table political fund raiser must sicken any victim of assault who has been too frightened to try to bring their attackers to account. Operation Yewtree offers the opportunity for some kind of closure for many people who have suffered silently for decades. What a shame that Fry can’t bring his own views into the 21st century, too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... mouth.html
 
Much that I can't stand Fry, there is an irony award in there somewhere with all those historic offenses!
 
Fry is one of the celebrities often mentioned on the conspiracy sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top