VIP paedophile ring

[drummonds 10]

Perhaps you need to go and do your research too.

 

i do. i even read the guardian which is not usually noted for criticism of the labour party. you should read it. indeed i will post it here.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/deserved-downfall-tom-watson-leon-brittan

 

 

 

 

 

It is just possible that Watson is not gorging himself on a paedophile witch-hunt, and will come out of it with his reputation intact. Possible, but looking less likely by the day. Watson never realised it, but a clock started ticking the moment he claimed there was a clique of high-level paedophiles who raped and murdered children.

 

In authentic paedophile cases, investigators rarely have trouble finding witnesses. Private Eye and the Rochdale Alternative Press had dozens of men coming forward in the late 1970s to say that Cyril Smith had abused them as boys. After ITV unmasked Jimmy Savile, scores of women described what he had done to them. It was the same story with Charles Napier, who was jailed for 13 years for molesting dozens of public-school boys in the 1970s and 1980s. (And to offer a fairness towards Tom Watson he rarely extends to others, I should add that he helped find the witnesses who sent Napier down.)

 

After Watson’s allies at Exaro-News “exposed” the murderous cabal of Westminster paedophiles led by Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Edward Heath, and operating from Dolphin Square, the hundreds of witnesses who make authentic accusations of historic child abuse stick have been conspicuous by their absence. Last week’s BBC documentary on the police inquiry was old school: very balanced, very British, very fair – and all the more devastating for that. Hardly any witnesses had gone to the police, it told us. The one checkable fact in the stories of the handful that did was that the politicians had organised the murder of a boy in a hit-and-run accident. It was false.

 

Even the police, who have behaved shockingly during this investigation, did not feel they had reasonable grounds to interview Brittan. Watson was undeterred. He showed no respect for the old rules that say men in his position shouldn’t politicise police inquiries or for the presumption of innocence.

 

As for sympathising with the underdog, Brittan was in the last stages of terminal cancer. Watson nevertheless pressured the director of public prosecutions into ordering the police to question Brittan on spurious allegations of rape. In the process, he let loose a hubbub of lurid press speculation.

 

When he hounded a dying man to his grave, Watson sank lower than the News of the World reporters he and Hacked Off once fought. However invasive and prurient their scoops, they were at least true. Unless convincing witnesses come forward, you will not be able to say the same about Watson’s “exposé”.

 

Soon, he may hear the hum I heard in Glasgow grow to a roar. “This man has no limits,” it says. “He rigs arguments, he doesn’t play fair. He only half apologises when he is forced to and even then he doesn’t mean it.” Public opinion in Britain, which tolerates so much, can still turn in an instant when it believes charges like these and destroy the careers of those who cross its red lines.

 

In all fairness, and on the balance of evidence before us, I would say that Tom Watson’s career deserves to be destroyed right now.

[sgtkate 10]

i do. i even read the guardian which is not usually noted for criticism of the labour party. you should read it. indeed i will post it here.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/deserved-downfall-tom-watson-leon-brittan

 

 

 

 

 

It is just possible that Watson is not gorging himself on a paedophile witch-hunt, and will come out of it with his reputation intact. Possible, but looking less likely by the day. Watson never realised it, but a clock started ticking the moment he claimed there was a clique of high-level paedophiles who raped and murdered children.

 

In authentic paedophile cases, investigators rarely have trouble finding witnesses. Private Eye and the Rochdale Alternative Press had dozens of men coming forward in the late 1970s to say that Cyril Smith had abused them as boys. After ITV unmasked Jimmy Savile, scores of women described what he had done to them. It was the same story with Charles Napier, who was jailed for 13 years for molesting dozens of public-school boys in the 1970s and 1980s. (And to offer a fairness towards Tom Watson he rarely extends to others, I should add that he helped find the witnesses who sent Napier down.)

 

After Watson’s allies at Exaro-News “exposed” the murderous cabal of Westminster paedophiles led by Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Edward Heath, and operating from Dolphin Square, the hundreds of witnesses who make authentic accusations of historic child abuse stick have been conspicuous by their absence. Last week’s BBC documentary on the police inquiry was old school: very balanced, very British, very fair – and all the more devastating for that. Hardly any witnesses had gone to the police, it told us. The one checkable fact in the stories of the handful that did was that the politicians had organised the murder of a boy in a hit-and-run accident. It was false.

 

Even the police, who have behaved shockingly during this investigation, did not feel they had reasonable grounds to interview Brittan. Watson was undeterred. He showed no respect for the old rules that say men in his position shouldn’t politicise police inquiries or for the presumption of innocence.

 

As for sympathising with the underdog, Brittan was in the last stages of terminal cancer. Watson nevertheless pressured the director of public prosecutions into ordering the police to question Brittan on spurious allegations of rape. In the process, he let loose a hubbub of lurid press speculation.

 

When he hounded a dying man to his grave, Watson sank lower than the News of the World reporters he and Hacked Off once fought. However invasive and prurient their scoops, they were at least true. Unless convincing witnesses come forward, you will not be able to say the same about Watson’s “exposé”.

 

Soon, he may hear the hum I heard in Glasgow grow to a roar. “This man has no limits,” it says. “He rigs arguments, he doesn’t play fair. He only half apologises when he is forced to and even then he doesn’t mean it.” Public opinion in Britain, which tolerates so much, can still turn in an instant when it believes charges like these and destroy the careers of those who cross its red lines.

 

In all fairness, and on the balance of evidence before us, I would say that Tom Watson’s career deserves to be destroyed right now.

 

Exactly. An article written by someone who appears to have an axe to grind.

[drummonds 10]

Exactly. An article written by someone who appears to have an axe to grind.

 

oh dear. you'll have to do better than that.

[sgtkate 10]

oh dear. you'll have to do better than that.

 

Really? Why? One line of evidence from that article please, other than conjecture.

[drummonds 10]

Really? Why? One line of evidence from that article please, other than conjecture.

 

i'll leave you to your fantasy. like all turds tw floated for a while and is in the process of sinking without trace. he won't be missed.

 

in the meantime i'll let those with an open mind read the facts and make their own decisions.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/12/tom-watson-faces-rising-pressure-over-leon-brittan-claims

Edited October 12, 2015 by drummonds

[harvey19 541]

Are you for real? Tom Watson was given evidence of Lord Britton having abused children. He passed this onto the police. Now he is being hung out to dry for it. Are you saying he should have suppressed possible evidence?

 

He passed on unsubstantiated allegations not evidence as I understand it.

The Panorama programme is well worth watching in a completely objective unbiased way with an open mind.

[drummonds 10]

He passed on unsubstantiated allegations not evidence as I understand it.

The Panorama programme is well worth watching in a completely objective unbiased way with an open mind.

 

i agree. it now seems like discussion has moved on from trumped up allegations to the motives of those who were pushing them.

[I1L2T3 10]

oh dear. you'll have to do better than that.

 

We can do a lot better than Nick Cohen. He's an idiot.

 

Now, ponder on this. Tom Watson has passed allegations to the police on many occasions. Some of the allegations resulted in the successful prosecution of paedophiles. Are you saying he should have kept them quiet? Or is he only not allowed to pass on allegations about political grandees?

 

---------- Post added 12-10-2015 at 18:13 ----------

 

i agree. it now seems like discussion has moved on from trumped up allegations to the motives of those who were pushing them.

 

Motives like protecting children and helping damaged adults gain justice?

[drummonds 10]

We can do a lot better than Nick Cohen. He's an idiot.

 

Now, ponder on this. Tom Watson has passed allegations to the police on many occasions. Some of the allegations resulted in the successful prosecution of paedophiles. Are you saying he should have kept them quiet? Or is he only not allowed to pass on allegations about political grandees?

 

---------- Post added 12-10-2015 at 18:13 ----------

 

 

Motives like protecting children and helping damaged adults gain justice?

 

 

none of it is evidence. he is a third party which makes every word heresay. he has used his political position to influence criminal investigations which is totally unacceptable. we will see how history judges him.

[I1L2T3 10]

none of it is evidence. he is a third party which makes every word heresay. he has used his political position to influence criminal investigations which is totally unacceptable. we will see how history judges him.

 

None of it is evidence?

 

Explain exactly what you mean by that.

[drummonds 10]

None of it is evidence?

 

Explain exactly what you mean by that.

 

perhaps you should explain what evidence you imagine tom watson brought to this investigation. it seems to me all he did was ensure the names of prominent people, who have subsequently been cleared, we splashed all over the media. ruining the lives of innocent people is a very interesting take on justice.

[I1L2T3 10]

perhaps you should explain what evidence you imagine tom watson brought to this investigation. it seems to me all he did was ensure the names of prominent people, who have subsequently been cleared, we splashed all over the media. ruining the lives of innocent people is a very interesting take on justice.

 

So everything Watson passed onto the police had no basis?