General News Discussion

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

does anyone know who the alleged politician is who's allegedly been involved in the alleged paedophile ring..?

[LondonTom]

So... now, Cameron is worried that with the accusations of peadophilia in the (Thatchers) government that there'll be a witch hunt against gay people...?

why?

does he think people don't know the difference? or is it him that thinks there's no difference?

[eFestivals]

So... now, Cameron is worried that with the accusations of peadophilia in the (Thatchers) government that there'll be a witch hunt against gay people...?

why?

does he think people don't know the difference? or is it him that thinks there's no difference?

yeah, it's a strange one.

I was pleased to see the response on Question Time last night to an audience member saying (something like) "there's no link between gays and paedophilia". It was quite heartening. The explanation that the tory MP on the panel gave for Cameron's words didn't make much sense.

So what the fuck is Cameron up to? What you can be sure about is that his own name is on that list (googling a week or more back tells me that), so I can only guess that either he's got a gay past, that there's some substance to these allegations of paedophilia at the heart of the tory party and a massive cover-up ... Or maybe he's just trying to stop the likes of William Hague from getting outed?

Edited November 9, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Or maybe he is just concerned there is a massive unwarranted witch hunt going on. A list on the net means nothing really and stick it front of the prime minister like that was really out of order. To the extent it could of made future trails impossible if Cameron had handled it wrong.

I thought Cameron pretty much got it right, besides the confusing gay comment. I haven't seen this list but I am imaging it happens to contain a number of gay people and there is a chance its just someone being bastards towards them because of the fact they are gay. That was my best guess.

Philip Schofield embarrassed himself basically.

there's a witch-hunt going on. Whether it's warranted or not the investigation will hopefully uncover.

But that's got absolutely fuck all to do with gays. Why has Cameron mentioned - very specifically - gays??

Nothing of any list (fabricated or not) or what Scholfield did justifies Cameron's mention of gays.

[eFestivals]

apparently, for a moment, the names on the list were visible for all to see

according to one of the panelists on Question Time last night, you could see writing but it was impossible to make out what the writing says.

[eFestivals]

Right or wrong, this seem to be the reasoning.

It's WRONG!!!! The is *NOTHING* to link specifically gays to this.

Gay politicians perhaps being outed is a completely different thing. If someone chooses to live a lie - any lie - they always risk the chance of being exposed, particularly if they've chosen to put themselves in the public's eye. That doesn't mean that they should be exposed over this or anything else, but their hypocrisy can end up being exposed for a million different reasons.

Burt anyway, it's now a non-issue. While it might have been politically damaging in the past for a politician to be revealed as gay, it's now a non-issue for everything but their private circumstances - and if they've been lying to their nearest and dearest that's only their fault.

So I can't see this as anything but Cameron getting the defence in early for a real link between current tory politicians linked to the Welsh Children's Homes case and homosexuality ... and given that there's been rumours for 20 years about Hague being gay, and him having set the remit for the 1995 enquiry, I'm guessing that's the link - a real link, because Hague is gay.

What then comes from that then starts to get very complicated, because there's strong suspicions that remit of that enquiry was limited to allow a cover up.

Is Hague about to be toast? Is Cameron yet again going to be shown as a poor judge of character by accepting someone's word of not having done wrong despite a mound of evidence to the contrary? Is Cameron himself implicated by name?

I suspect that there's plenty of this that is going to impact on current politicians, and that the attempt at a cover-up is already in full swing.

[lost]

I think peter tatchell is on the list, so that maybe why he said what if did

[eFestivals]

I think peter tatchell is on the list, so that maybe why he said what if did

what's to be exposed about Peter Tatchell?

I'd guess nothing. There's probably no gay man in Britian who has had the tabloids on their case to to the same extent as Tatchell. And anyway, why would Cameron care about defending Tatchell? He wouldn't.

Cameron is trying to protect one or more tories - the question is which ones. The most likely is Hague by a long shot.

Edited November 9, 2012 by eFestivals

[Kowalski]

It doesn't look like Cameron looked at the list, so what he said (for whatever reason) had nothing to do with the list.

I'm glad Schofield has come in for some criticism. Pulling a list of names together from the internet without any proper research?! Very amateurish.

There are several newspapers this morning, and now the BBC, suggesting Lord McAlpine is the victim of mistaken identity! If that's true then it hasn't stopped his name being widely implicated.

[eFestivals]

It doesn't look like Cameron looked at the list, so what he said (for whatever reason) had nothing to do with the list.

Do you think he'd need to look at the list?

Or would he already know what gossip is going around about him, his current major party figures, as well as his Thatcher-era heroes?

I'd bank on the 2nd.

I'm glad Schofield has come in for some criticism. Pulling a list of names together from the internet without any proper research?! Very amateurish.

While it was poorly done and not wise, there's more than just twitters from the last couple of weeks that's naming the names .... there's stuff going back over ten years fingering all these top tories (and quite a few Labour peeps too).

It's worth doing the google to find it all. I find it hard to believe that all of it is bollocks, cos there's a fair amount of reporting from outside the UK (and so not covered by D-notices) that ties some of it all together,.

There are several newspapers this morning, and now the BBC, suggesting Lord McAlpine is the victim of mistaken identity! If that's true then it hasn't stopped his name being widely implicated.

McAlpine is one of the names with stuff going back for the best part of 20 years - but he's not the guy at the centre of the Welsh childrens homes stuff.

[rachbon]

To be fair, he was handed a list of names from the internet who were supposed paedophiles ...I think it was the wrong choice of words, but kind of got what he was trying to say. (That we may be indeed be on a bit of witch hunt and just accepting allegations without trial). Still interesting insight into his real mentality.

[eFestivals]

The comment about gay people was vile, the fact that he just automatically made the link between paedophiles and gay people is strange. I know gay men who are absolutely raging about it and want an apology from him.

yep. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

I just can't believe that it was a slip of the tongue, and neither do I think that it's about trying to stop the public getting muddled up between the two, but I also can't work out what he was getting at.

It's been suggested to me that it's about creating some distance between him and the current tories, and any tories who were carrying out abuse in the past - with those abusers not being normal because they're also gay, and so nothing to do with the current high profile tories.

But that doesn't make much sense to me either, unless Cameron already knows all of the details about the case - which he might do of course.

------

I've just seen on Sky News a long interview with one of the abuse victims from the Wrexham childs homes - note the plural, he says abuse happened to him in many of then homes he was in - and says that as "a priviledge", kids in the homes (him included) were taken to London for 'sightseeing trips' (and they got to do sightseeing) for weekends (often returning on the Monday) but at night they were accomodated in a posh flat where 'parties' happened, where the kis were given drink until they often couldn't stand, and those who were liked by the 'posh people' at the parties weere taken into other rooms and abused.

He said the kids came from children's homes all around the country, and that he went along with it (and presumes the same reasoning for the others) because those 'sightseeing trips' were about the only good thing which happened to them - they'd rather be on the bus and get abused than have to stay home.

I've got to say that because of his manner when talking that I believe him - at least, to the extent that he thinks it's true (rather than him knowingly making it up). It's sickening to think that children who the state was meant to be protecting were being abused by 'agents' of the state.

That guy was a different one to the guy called (I think?) Messham who was on Newsnight. The Sky reporter said that this new guy's evidence has already been used in court cases and given to the previous enquiries - tho it wasn't clear in what I saw (I missed the start) if he'd raised the subject of the trips to London on those previous occasions.

I can't see all of this going away quickly or easily.

Has anyone seen or heard anything from William Hague since this first kicked off? He seems to have disappeared.

[zahidf]

yep. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

I just can't believe that it was a slip of the tongue, and neither do I think that it's about trying to stop the public getting muddled up between the two, but I also can't work out what he was getting at.

It's been suggested to me that it's about creating some distance between him and the current tories, and any tories who were carrying out abuse in the past - with those abusers not being normal because they're also gay, and so nothing to do with the current high profile tories.

But that doesn't make much sense to me either, unless Cameron already knows all of the details about the case - which he might do of course.

------

I've just seen on Sky News a long interview with one of the abuse victims from the Wrexham childs homes - note the plural, he says abuse happened to him in many of then homes he was in - and says that as "a priviledge", kids in the homes (him included) were taken to London for 'sightseeing trips' (and they got to do sightseeing) for weekends (often returning on the Monday) but at night they were accomodated in a posh flat where 'parties' happened, where the kis were given drink until they often couldn't stand, and those who were liked by the 'posh people' at the parties weere taken into other rooms and abused.

He said the kids came from children's homes all around the country, and that he went along with it (and presumes the same reasoning for the others) because those 'sightseeing trips' were about the only good thing which happened to them - they'd rather be on the bus and get abused than have to stay home.

I've got to say that because of his manner when talking that I believe him - at least, to the extent that he thinks it's true (rather than him knowingly making it up). It's sickening to think that children who the state was meant to be protecting were being abused by 'agents' of the state.

That guy was a different one to the guy called (I think?) Messham who was on Newsnight. The Sky reporter said that this new guy's evidence has already been used in court cases and given to the previous enquiries - tho it wasn't clear in what I saw (I missed the start) if he'd raised the subject of the trips to London on those previous occasions.

I can't see all of this going away quickly or easily.

Has anyone seen or heard anything from William Hague since this first kicked off? He seems to have disappeared.

[eFestivals]

It's things like this which makes it oh-so-suspicious....

http://leahmcgrathgoodman.com/2012/09/11/celebrating-one-year-anniversary-of-my-uk-ban/

Teresa May has banned the US journalist who has been investigating high-level child abuse from entering the UK.

If you google around the child abuse subject with various politicians names, there's loads of references going back ten years and more in various overseas publications to D-notices being issued around child abuse in the UK. There's too many of them, and many from reputable publications, for there to not be something to some of them.

There's something really fucking weird around all of this. The obvious guess at what it is probably puts you in the right place.

[rachbon]

yep. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

I just can't believe that it was a slip of the tongue, and neither do I think that it's about trying to stop the public getting muddled up between the two, but I also can't work out what he was getting at.

[feral chile]

yep. There's absolutely no excuse for it.

I just can't believe that it was a slip of the tongue, and neither do I think that it's about trying to stop the public getting muddled up between the two, but I also can't work out what he was getting at.

It's been suggested to me that it's about creating some distance between him and the current tories, and any tories who were carrying out abuse in the past - with those abusers not being normal because they're also gay, and so nothing to do with the current high profile tories.

But that doesn't make much sense to me either, unless Cameron already knows all of the details about the case - which he might do of course.

------

I've just seen on Sky News a long interview with one of the abuse victims from the Wrexham childs homes - note the plural, he says abuse happened to him in many of then homes he was in - and says that as "a priviledge", kids in the homes (him included) were taken to London for 'sightseeing trips' (and they got to do sightseeing) for weekends (often returning on the Monday) but at night they were accomodated in a posh flat where 'parties' happened, where the kis were given drink until they often couldn't stand, and those who were liked by the 'posh people' at the parties weere taken into other rooms and abused.

He said the kids came from children's homes all around the country, and that he went along with it (and presumes the same reasoning for the others) because those 'sightseeing trips' were about the only good thing which happened to them - they'd rather be on the bus and get abused than have to stay home.

I've got to say that because of his manner when talking that I believe him - at least, to the extent that he thinks it's true (rather than him knowingly making it up). It's sickening to think that children who the state was meant to be protecting were being abused by 'agents' of the state.

That guy was a different one to the guy called (I think?) Messham who was on Newsnight. The Sky reporter said that this new guy's evidence has already been used in court cases and given to the previous enquiries - tho it wasn't clear in what I saw (I missed the start) if he'd raised the subject of the trips to London on those previous occasions.

I can't see all of this going away quickly or easily.

Has anyone seen or heard anything from William Hague since this first kicked off? He seems to have disappeared.

[eFestivals]

When did the legal age for gay sex change?

I happened to hear someone give the dates yesterday.

it changed from 21 to 18 in 1994. It changed to 16 in 2000.

Maybe some Tories had sex with someone who would be legal now at 19 say, but wouldn't have been legal at 19 then?

yeah, that's been suggested. I don't think anyone would much care about that now ... unless they were old men with young men. That would be somewhat suspicious in itself.

[zahidf]

I happened to hear someone give the dates yesterday.

it changed from 21 to 18 in 1994. It changed to 16 in 2000.

yeah, that's been suggested. I don't think anyone would much care about that now ... unless they were old men with young men. That would be somewhat suspicious in itself.

[5co77ie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20253569

Right or wrong, this seem to be the reasoning.

[TheGayTent]

I don't mind openly admitting, that my tiny brain can't comprehend why any 19 year old would find a 60 year old attractive unless it was for cash or lifestyle reasons.

That's whether it was a 19 year old man and 60 year old woman. T'other way around. Or gay/lesbian.

But then it's probably the same reason I don't believe in God or ghosts.

I mean, Sophia Loren is attractive enough, but I still wouldn't...

[TheGayTent]

DP

Edited November 9, 2012 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

I'm not sure that's ageist is it?

Abusing people for being in that type of relationship would be. Or not approving of it I guess.

I don't disapprove, and wouldn't abuse anyone - just wouldn't understand the attraction.

Perhaps I'm ageist

[5co77ie]

It's things like this which makes it oh-so-suspicious....

http://leahmcgrathgo...y-of-my-uk-ban/

Teresa May has banned the US journalist who has been investigating high-level child abuse from entering the UK.

If you google around the child abuse subject with various politicians names, there's loads of references going back ten years and more in various overseas publications to D-notices being issued around child abuse in the UK. There's too many of them, and many from reputable publications, for there to not be something to some of them.

There's something really fucking weird around all of this. The obvious guess at what it is probably puts you in the right place.

[zahidf]

maybe cameron has given the people involved a whisky and loaded revolver, so they can retire to their study and do the decent thing?...

[eFestivals]

When the poster above said it is not something I would applaud I took that as them being critical of that type of relationship beyond simple raw attraction. As in to suggest it was wrong,

I've no problem at all with raw attraction. But in most cases I don't think it's that.

Take for example Freddie Star and his fiance. It might be raw attraction in both directions, but I strongly suspect it's another attraction for one of them.

People are welcome to do what they want to do, but that doesn't mean that I have to look on it as being something different to what I think it might be.