The Student Room Group

Thatcherites, how do you feel about you're beloved PM protecting pedophiles?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by n01
Are Mi6 mind readers?


No. They are spies. They open letters, bug telephone calls, collect gossip and conduct covert observation. They are also given information from our allies' spies and seek to collect it from our enemies' spies.

I still think you are failing to grasp the point. Even if there was an agent in the wardrobe observing what the man was up to, it wasn't registering as child abuse. The child wasn't being seen as a victim. If there was a victim, the victim was national security or the Party. The child would merely be another possible source of a leak or a potential blackmailer.
Original post by nulli tertius
No. They are spies. They open letters, bug telephone calls, collect gossip and conduct covert observation. They are also given information from our allies' spies and seek to collect it from our enemies' spies.

I still think you are failing to grasp the point. Even if there was an agent in the wardrobe observing what the man was up to, it wasn't registering as child abuse. The child wasn't being seen as a victim. If there was a victim, the victim was national security or the Party. The child would merely be another possible source of a leak or a potential blackmailer.


And this demonstrated what her/their priorities were.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
And this demonstrated what her/their priorities were.


To prioritise, you must be making a choice,

The point I am making is they are not seeing an issue of child abuse at all any more than when Harman and her ilk were seeing an issue when NCCL was seeking "liberty" for middle aged men to abuse children.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
Reply 43
Avatar for n01
n01
Original post by nulli tertius
No. They are spies. They open letters, bug telephone calls, collect gossip and conduct covert observation. They are also given information from our allies' spies and seek to collect it from our enemies' spies.


So for them to find out there must have been at least a little more to it than just a sexual attraction?

Original post by nulli tertius

I still think you are failing to grasp the point. Even if there was an agent in the wardrobe observing what the man was up to, it wasn't registering as child abuse. The child wasn't being seen as a victim. If there was a victim, the victim was national security or the Party. The child would merely be another possible source of a leak or a potential blackmailer.


Oh no i get your point, i just don't think it's at all plausible. The reason the victims weren't considered was because they were unimportant. These people cared about national security the party and their careers, nothing else. The victims were vulnerable children, no one would believe them, so no need for them to be given a second thought.
Original post by n01
So for them to find out there must have been at least a little more to it than just a sexual attraction?



Oh no i get your point, i just don't think it's at all plausible. The reason the victims weren't considered was because they were unimportant. These people cared about national security the party and their careers, nothing else. The victims were vulnerable children, no one would believe them, so no need for them to be given a second thought.


We are not that far apart but I am saying they are not being given a first thought. There isn't a calculation about their importance, they are just invisible.
Reply 45
Avatar for n01
n01
Original post by nulli tertius
We are not that far apart but I am saying they are not being given a first thought. There isn't a calculation about their importance, they are just invisible.


If they weren't vulnerable children but people that would be believed do you not think they would have been given some consideration?
Original post by n01
If they weren't vulnerable children but people that would be believed do you not think they would have been given some consideration?


I think this is a circular question. It is inherent in the definition of abuse that a person is being exploited by someone more powerful. It is hard to conceive of someone who is both abused but with the influence to be taken into consideration.

The nearest I think you can get is a victim who had important family connections but the cases of school teachers and clergy do not suggest this makes much if any difference.

My personal knowledge of this world is non-existent but I remember walking of an evening, along with thousands of others, past the pretty-boys on the meat-rack at King's Cross and I didn't regard them as victims of abuse. They were just part of the scenery. That just wouldn't happen today.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
To prioritise, you must be making a choice,

The point I am making is they are not seeing an issue of child abuse at all any more than when Harman and her ilk were seeing an issue when NCCL was seeking "liberty" for middle aged men to abuse children.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.


I know what your point is. It's just that your point cannot possibly excuse anyone. If they just were unable to consider the fact that there might be victims, it just showed that they genuinely didn't care about the people, and/or believed that child abuse was perfectly fine as long as it happened in private.
Reply 48
Avatar for n01
n01
Original post by nulli tertius
I think this is a circular question. It is inherent in the definition of abuse that a person is being exploited by someone more powerful. It is hard to conceive of someone who is both abused but with the influence to be taken into consideration.

The nearest I think you can get is a victim who had important family connections but the cases of school teachers and clergy do not suggest this makes much if any difference.

My personal knowledge of this world is non-existent but I remember walking of an evening, along with thousands of others, past the pretty-boys on the meat-rack at King's Cross and I didn't regard them as victims of abuse. They were just part of the scenery. That just wouldn't happen today.



Alright nulli, have a nice evening, sounds like it's going to make a few headlines again tomorrow.

Can't say i remember much from back then myself, but i do remember this:


Original post by Little Toy Gun
I know what your point is. It's just that your point cannot possibly excuse anyone. If they just were unable to consider the fact that there might be victims, it just showed that they genuinely didn't care about the people, and/or believed that child abuse was perfectly fine as long as it happened in private.


I am not suggesting that it excuses anyone.
Original post by n01
Alright nulli, have a nice evening, sounds like it's going to make a few headlines again tomorrow.

Can't say i remember much from back then myself, but i do remember this:




That may have been part of problem. Strangers did not include vicars, scoutmasters or the local MP.
Original post by nulli tertius
She didn't have to tell anyone to kick it under the rug.

As the recent discussion between the cabinet secretary and head of MI5 shows, the existence of a paedophile MP raised security issues and PR issues but didn't raise any child protection issues at all.

No-one covered anything up. They didn't get to the stage of realising there was anything to cover up.

In some ways this is helpful to try and recapture the attitudes of the times. When the story broke about Harman and PIE there was a lot of "how could she?" but here are two intelligent men discussing discussing unlawful homosexua acts with minors and the thought that this was child abuse didn't enter their heads.


Tried to find a Thick of It gif where Stewart Pearson is asked to speak in plain English and failed
.
Are you saying that all these supposed victims and police officers are wrong and if so why

Additionally what security risk are you talking about

Rt4a9ie5MGk

lIbzYEsBmmk
Original post by a noble chance

.
Are you saying that all these supposed victims and police officers are wrong and if so why


What do you mean "wrong"?

There is an issue about whether some allegations of abuse in high places ever happened but that is a different question to the one discussed in this thread.

This thread is about whether abuse was "covered up". The point I am making is that in certain types of abuse, the victim is so far from the thoughts of policy makers that it is unrealistic to describe them as covering up the abuse. They don't even see anything to cover up. That is exemplified by the exchange between the civil servants. Neither of them acknowledge that there is abuse and a victim.

Additionally what security risk are you talking about


In theory, homosexuality, being initially illegal and later so disreputable to be career ending, presented a blackmail risk of exposure and so represented a security risk. However, it's not clear that the logic of this was always followed through. It very much looks that on occasion the view was "he's gay therefore he is a security risk"






Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
What do you mean "wrong"?

There is an issue about whether some allegations of abuse in high places ever happened but that is a different question to the one discussed in this thread.

This thread is about whether abuse was "covered up". The point I am making is that in certain types of abuse, the victim is so far from the thoughts of policy makers that it is unrealistic to describe them as covering up the abuse. They don't even see anything to cover up. That is exemplified by the exchange between the civil servants. Neither of them acknowledge that there is abuse and a victim.

About there having been a cover up. Victims police officers, intelligence officers, politicians...I posted two videos above giving a flavour of the consensus that has formed between them

I don't know which civil servants you're referring to but it seems quite in keeping with a cover up that they would not acknowledge that any crimes had taken place. Unless you're suggesting these events didn't take place I think it is rather pessimistic to think that people would not regard the gang rape of vulnerable out of care children as just not cricket.

In theory, homosexuality, being initially illegal and later so disreputable to be career ending, presented a blackmail risk of exposure and so represented a security risk. However, it's not clear that the logic of this was always followed through. It very much looks that on occasion the view was "he's gay therefore he is a security risk"

What does this have to do with the abuse or whether there was a cover up? You strike me as someone who rejects conspiracy theories on point of principle here
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by a noble chance
About there having been a cover up. Victims police officers, intelligence officers, politicians...I posted two videos above giving a flavour of the consensus that has formed between them

I don't know which civil servants you're referring to but it seems quite in keeping with a cover up that they would not acknowledge that any crimes had taken place. Unless you're suggesting these events didn't take place I think it is rather pessimistic to think that people would not regard the gang rape of vulnerable out of care children as just not cricket.



What does this have to do with the abuse or whether there was a cover up? You strike me as someone who rejects conspiracy theories on point of principle here


I think we are both talking across each other. I haven't been able to listen to the video to which you have referred me and you haven't appreciated the news agenda when the rest of this thread was written.

Please read this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-0/westminster-child-abuse-allegations-mp-with-a-penchant-for-small-boys-gave-his-word-he-was-not-a-10408985.html

The Wanless report considered contemporary correspondence at senior levels of government about rumours then circulating. The correspondents were bothered about security risks and PR risks but were oblivious that what was going on was child abuse. They are quite prepared to cover up but they are not covering up child abuse.They don't even see the child abuse. With hindsight it is remarkable that someone can in all seriousness write that an MP has a penchant for small boys and not see that child abuse is taking place but neither sender nor recipient did so.

The equivalent would be Nixon not realising the Watergate burglary was of the Democrat offices and being worried of the impact on the Washington tourist industry of a burglary at its leading hotel.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you