The political pedophile scandal in the UK.

Scroll to see replies

Other than the blackmail.

I agree. It seems entirely clear that Cyril Smith was well known to the police and security services, and they kept his file under lock and key.

That is disgraceful

Reply 21

MostUncivilised

Original post by n00

Other than the blackmail.

This article describes that programme, talks about "bullying and buggering boys at Eton", the Whips office, how they keep MPs in line

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-may-1995/11/westminsters-secret-service

Reply 22

Habsburg

Original post by Greenlaner

Is there something wrong with opposing white genocide? :curious:

Nothing per se, but most of the people that fancy such a thing is happening are paranoid, far-right loons.

Original post by MostUncivilised

I take your point entirely. The people making the most noise about this are conspiracy crackpots.

But, surprisingly, Scotland Yard's inquiry has only deepened as they investigate more. They went in with the intention of showing that the allegations were unsubstantiated, that all the rumours were baseless, but as they have investigated they have found much to go on. Since the investigation began (I'm told about a year ago), it has gone from two detectives investigating to a full-on Scotland Yard inquiry with over 20 investigators and detectives.

It will be interesting to see what they find

You are quite right, it will be very interesting what they will find, and of course, I don't deny that something's been going on.

The other thing that I thought was a little too sensational to be true was the claim by Mary Moss and Chris Fay that the owner of the guesthouse was assassinated.

Reply 23

MostUncivilised

Original post by Habsburg

You are quite right, it will be very interesting what they will find, and of course, I don't deny that something's been going on.

From my perspective, it seems quite clear there was a paedophile brothel operating at the guest house. The question of whether it was attended by establishment figures, and protected by corrupt police officers and civil servants, remains to be seen.

The other thing that I thought was a little too sensational to be true was the claim by Mary Moss and Chris Fay that the owner of the guesthouse was assassinated

I don't know who Moss and Fay are. From my fairly superficial knowledge of the case, there was a couple who ran it, and one of them died a little while back, the other more recently. I'm unsure whether it was in suspicious circumstances.

But again, Scotland Yard thought it would be a cinch to show the whole thing was absolutely baseless, and as they have investigated, have increased its resourcing from two detective partners, to a full team of investigators as there does seem to be something there

Reply 24

nulli tertius

Original post by MostUncivilised

I do not think anything good will come of this enquiry.

Firstly, Butler-Sloss is the wrong person to head it. She naturally belongs to the "behind closed doors" school of family law. You may recall she had to withdraw from the Diana inquest when her decision not to have a jury was overturned and she had no experience with jury trials. Here she will hit trouble because her brother was Attorney General at the time Elm Guest House was raided.

Secondly, all this is happening against a background of no present commonly agreed standard of what should then have been acceptable conduct, given that much that was then regarded as unacceptable or was illegal, is considered acceptable today. With whom should a homosexual man have then been morally entitled to have consensual intercourse? A ten year old? A twenty year old? At the time each would have been equally illegal. To pick the age of sixteen is simply reading the present law into a past where it had no relevance.

What illegal homosexual conduct was it legitimate to cover up bearing in mind that no only was the age of consent 21, but cottaging in public toilets and any homosexual conduct where more than two males were present was also illegal?

Reply 25

n00

Original post by nulli tertius

Secondly, all this is happening against a background of no present commonly agreed standard of what should then have been acceptable conduct, given that much that was then regarded as unacceptable or was illegal, is considered acceptable today. With whom should a homosexual man have then been morally entitled to have consensual intercourse? A ten year old? A twenty year old? At the time each would have been equally illegal. To pick the age of sixteen is simply reading the present law into a past where it had no relevance.

What illegal homosexual conduct was it legitimate to cover up bearing in mind that no only was the age of consent 21, but cottaging in public toilets and any homosexual conduct where more than two males were present was also illegal?

So, what, do nothing? Much of it doesn't sound like it was consensual however you look at it, for the rest I can't see a problem with picking the age of sixteen, its not going to be in anyones interest to prosecute those involved in consensual intercourse with those over the age of 16 anything else prosecute based on the law at the time.

Reply 26

nulli tertius

Original post by n00

The enquiry isn't a trial. It isn't going to look at offences. It is going to look at who knew what, when and what they did about it.

In a sense anything truly non-consensual (ie ignoring for the moment any cases where it is said that the participant/victim was not legally able to consent) is easy. That is a crime irrespective of the age or gender of the parties. I don't think there would be any sympathy for anyone who covered that up.

May I ask you a question? When you were 15 or 16 or so did you report to the police every suspicion you had that your friends and associates were engaging in under age intercourse? No? Then were you covering up their crimes?

Undoubtedly in the 1980s people looked away when young men were involved in unlawful sexual conduct. I was first a student in the 1980s, I knew that there were gay students in my college. I was friends with some of them. I knew they were not 21. I suspected they engaged in unlawful behaviour. Did I tell the police? No.

Was I wrong not to tell the police if the other boy was 18? What if the other boy was 16? What if he was 15? At what age would it have been wrong for me not to tell the police? If you think that it was wrong at one age and not at another, tell me why? And remember, both boys, not just the older one, would be criminals. In fact I was not aware that any of the participants was under 18 but I am not sure it would have made any difference to me if they were given that these appeared to be consensual relationships.

The reality will be that a awful lot of people from the highest in the land would have known that colleagues and associates were participating in illegal acts either because their partners were under 21 or because those acts were taking place in locations or with a number of persons present that made the behaviour criminal.

To say 30 years later that some people should be condemned and others not, because 20 years after these events occured some of these illegal acts ceased to be crimes is a very big ask.

Reply 27

n00

Original post by nulli tertius

The enquiry isn't a trial. It isn't going to look at offences. It is going to look at who knew what, when and what they did about it.

Ah yes sorry, totally forgot you were talking about the inquiry with all that talk of consensual intercourse and age of consent, I agree nothing good could come of that. Not sure what relevance that would have to the likes of Cyril Smith and how they managed to get away with what they did. With all this talk of police, judiciary, CPS, MI5 involvment and blackmail relating to Kincora and Elm guest house i was expecting something a little more interesting.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 28

democracyforum

Original post by MostUncivilised

About six months ago, I predicted on this website that a Conservative former Home Secretary from the Thatcher years would be arrested in relation to a sexual offence within about three months. Well, the timing was a bit off, but it has finally occurred

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/06/leon-brittan-denies-rape-allegation

The rumours have been around for years in respect of Leon Brittan and boys, Private Eye has been publishing in that vein since the 1980s. I suspect this is just the beginning of an embarassing series of allegations relating to quite a few prominent politicians.

Next up will be the Elm Guest House can of worms

He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty

So we are basically admitting out government is covering up paedophilia ??? what the hell ?/

Reply 29

nulli tertius

Original post by democracyforum

So we are basically admitting out government is covering up paedophilia ??? what the hell ?/

It is all going to turn out to be a lot more complex than that simplistic comment.

Different people may have believed that they were turning a blind eye to:-

legal consensual homosexual conduct between adults;

illegal consensual homosexual conduct between adults;

illegal consensual homosexual conduct between person who were sexually mature but under 21;

illegal allegedly consensual homosexual conduct between adults and children (however you might define children for these purposes);

and unquestionably coercive homosexual conduct against either children or adults.

People involved may also have applied different standards to "rent boys" than to others.

Reply 30

n00

Original post by democracyforum

So we are basically admitting out government is covering up paedophilia ??? what the hell ?/

Not just covering it up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-kincora-scandal-mi5-tried-to-blackmail-belfast-homosexual-says-whistleblower-9644610.html

Reply 31

n00

Original post by nulli tertius

It is all going to turn out to be a lot more complex than that simplistic comment.

You seem very keen to minimise/muddy this with something trivial surrounding the homophobic laws of the time?

Reply 32

nulli tertius

Original post by n00

You seem very keen to minimise/muddy this with something trivial surrounding the homophobic laws of the time?

If you read Matthew Paris in The Times, and he of course was a young gay man around Westminster at the time, he doesn't see these issues as trivial at all.

I have also read an alternative view that says that predatory paedophiles were deliberately exploiting the nervousness of the establishment (however you define that) to deal with the gap between the legal position and social expectation in relation to homosexual acts at that time.

Whether that is right or wrong, it means that anyone heading an enquiry into these issues has got to deal with waters which are indeed muddy.

Usually an enquiry about a cover up is trying to prove that there was a cover up. In this case, that something was being covered up, is a given. The questions are what was actually being covered up and what did the people doing the covering up think they were covering up. The answer to that question won't be the same for everybody involved.

Take the Elms Guest House raid. It is inconceivable that the police did not find evidence of criminal acts sufficient to sustain a prosecution. No prosectition was brought on the orders of the AG. What was actually going on there? What did the AG believe was going on there? How and from whom did the AG form that view? Was there some extraneous reason "in the public interest" that despite everything no prosecution was brought?

Elms Guest House has always been swept under the carpet. Kincora hasn't but the enquiries do not appear to have ever got to the bottom of what went on.