Tory MP accused of murdering his 12 year old abuse victim & another 2 murders!

It's also interesting that Thatcher had many meetings with Savile, encouraged his public profile and was apparently supportive, even though it must be likely that she also had police reports on him, since the police were suspicious of him from years earlier and regarded him as a possible suspect in the Ripper enquiry. (We now know.)

I am somewhat sceptical that these murders happened at all.

If there had been three unsolved murders of three young teenage boys in London at a similar time, the press would have been full of the story particularly if there was evidence of sexual abuse.

That means (a) that the disappearances were of people that would not be missed (cf Fred and Rose West) and either (b) the bodies could be comprehensively disposed of; or (b) the deaths passed off as natural causes.

That doesn't feel likely in the case of the Dolphin Square flats. Flats with concierges and high security for prominent people during the IRA bombing campaign do not seem the most obvious murder location. The security is sufficiently good at Dolphin Square that long after these events Princess Anne lived there.

Moreover covering up murders requires a conspiracy of a different order of magnitude to running a paedophile ring.

One can test any conspiracy by the number of non-conspirators needed to be involved and what those non-conspirators have to do. Non-conspirators are people who play a part believing what they are doing is proper and lawful (or is a different wrong to the actual wrong) whereas a conspirator knows that what precisely he is doing is wrong and why. This looks to be too difficult a conspiracy to be believable because it would seem to involve too many non-conspirators.

Not exactly a first
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304827/Sex-lies-Downing-Street-cover-left-Krays-free-kill.html

Maybe it's time we started asking ourselves if Tory culture is compatible with our modern British values.

You should really ask this question the other way around. Why didn't Margaret Thatcher give him a gong?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-made-repeated-attempts-to-get-jimmy-savile-knighted--despite-pleas-from-concerned-aides-8713407.html

What you have is a gong refusal from Wilson, a gong very quickly granted by Heath and gongs repeatedly withheld under Thatcher despite her clear personal wishes.

Frankly this looks like civil servants had damning information on him that they didn't share with the PM. If you didn't like the man but the PM and Prince Charles and the Great British public did, then as a senior civil servant surely you would go with the flow? Equally, if you had shared damning evidence with the PM and royalty, they would have dropped him like a stone.

Clearly the Catholic Church was taking its lead from No.10 in handing out its honour.

Maybe it's time we started asking ourselves if Tory culture is compatible with our modern British values.

Amongst much there that is perfectly believable, one thing rings very hollow:

Alec Douglas-Home was present the night 21st March 1963 Jack Profumo lied to his cabinet colleagues about an affair with Christine Keeler.

Can one really believe that only a year later he would accept Robert Boothby's assurance of no relationship with Kray?

And yet Armstrong didn't (as far as we know) warn her about the paedophile allegations against him which were already known to the police then and presumably the security services, who routinely vet people who have relationships with prime ministers - such as spending time at their family homes, which Savile did.

Either the upper echelons of the services were remarkably uninterested in the allegations (undue toleration of sex with boys, regardless of the ugly facts of those cases, passing them off as unimportant in the scheme of things?) or there is more to it. I suspect that Savile was sufficiently friendly with a range of senior people that he 'had protection'. And who better to offer such protection that senior Tories themselves involved in vile paedophile activities?

Boothby seems to have been one of the least attractive personalities of the 60s, yet he was on TV constantly (he was a panelist, for example, on BBC Parliament's replayed coverage of the 1964 General Election the other night) and was apparently welcome in every significant drawing room.

Clearly consorting with gangsters, having them procure teenage boys for you and having a drug habit were no bars to full acceptability in the establishment of the day.

Either the upper echelons of the services were remarkably uninterested in the allegations (undue toleration of sex with boys, regardless of the ugly facts of those cases, passing them off as unimportant in the scheme of things?) or there is more to it.

There doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence yet, but as we know that paedophiles are also sometimes murderers of children, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

If this does turn out to be true, there needs to be a proper enquiry into how much Margaret Thatcher knew about their activities and how MI5 behaved as well. For example, Prime Ministers receive briefings from the security services on the misconduct of MPs. It's obviously relevant to this story that the former deputy director of MI6, Peter Hayman, was apparently involved. It's also interesting that Thatcher had many meetings with Savile, encouraged his public profile and was apparently supportive, even though it must be likely that she also had police reports on him, since the police were suspicious of him from years earlier and regarded him as a possible suspect in the Ripper enquiry. (We now know.)

It also seems likely that there are people still living who conspired with these individuals and current serving Tory peers who knew of them.

Maybe it's time we started asking ourselves if Tory culture is compatible with our modern British values.

Our children are not safe with these people around, kick em out of Britain.

Edit: O the daily mail is publishing this? Better wait for a more legit, 50% truth non distorting paper to publish it first.