Sir Clement Freud and links to the McCanns

Not easy at all.

Anyway some more Clement stuff:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1419349/government-hides-the-backer-of-paedophile-mp-clement-freuds-gong/

It's outrageous that his nominator has decided to remain anonymous.. What has he got to hide

Bloodhound wrote:It's outrageous that his nominator has decided to remain anonymous.. What has he got to hide

Snipped:

Labour MP Simon Danczuk said: “Keeping the identity of Freud’s knighthood recommender secret implies there is something to hide.”

.... exactly.

I'm beginning to believe that these knighthoods, sirs/lords etc, are full of likeminded individuals,

With a bitter divorce between M Freud and E Murdoch now over, is this Murdoch giving Freud a subtle, public warning?

Murdoch has dirt on on his ex son in law's father and has aired this to warn Matthew to continue to dance to Rupert's tune and remain silent on anything heard or seen during his time within the Murdoch family.

What was Jerry Hall thinking apart from the $$$$?

That carpet must be a good size with everything Clem swept under.

Why bring it out to then bury it...

What's the script on this saga then.....

As there will be one.

Probably Freud had Madeleine taken to satisfy his clientele, then befriended the parents to get information from them.
But we remember the dogs folks.

I understand that you can't libel someone who's dead so I won't remove your comment, Bloodhound, but personally I feel that there is no evidence to support that.

Freedom wrote:I understand that you can't libel someone who's dead so I won't remove your comment, Bloodhound, but personally I feel that there is no evidence to support that.

That could be said of every theory opined about the case.

Freedom wrote:I understand that you can't libel someone who's dead so I won't remove your comment, Bloodhound, but personally I feel that there is no evidence to support that.

Hi Freedom, I didn't mean that as a fact, I was responding to Andrew who asked what's the script on this was, as there will be one. I was just guessing that this might be the script we see next.

I don't think Freud had Madeleine kidnapped at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3717691/Paedophile-Clement-Freud-fathered-child-17-year-old-nanny.html#ixzz4G9qeGoqk

The Mail has now come up with this story of a pregnant nanny being thrown out. This girl - Barbara - was mentioned in the documentary in June but there was nothing about her being thrown out for that or any other reason so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt.

I'm hating how all these stories come out after the person is dead and is of no real help to anyone. Why was nothing published when he was alive when these stories may have helped other victims? He could have been punished and defended himself.
Are the press hell bent on protecting elite creeps until after their death? I think so. I'm sure Freuds antics weren't a big secret to these people.
I'd take most of it with a pinch of salt.

Because a dead paedo is a silent paedo.

I think he is just a punch ball to deflect from the truth. Its very interesting that David Steel was with the McCanns....would he be unaware of Freuds alledged behaviour. Would not the secret services have had a word with Steel? Surely as Liberal Mps they would have access to state documents and such.....there sexual preferences and perversions would be known ....yet Steel claims to know nowt and he says the same of Cyril........it smells....does it not!

I think Steel knew all at the very least, in my opinion.  Isn't he a baron or something?

Bampots wrote:I think he is just a punch ball to deflect from the truth. Its very interesting that David Steel was with the McCanns....would he be unaware of Freuds alledged behaviour. Would not the secret services have had a word with Steel? Surely as Liberal Mps they would have access to  state documents and such.....there sexual preferences and perversions would be known ....yet Steel claims to know nowt and he says the same of Cyril........it smells....does it not!

It certainly does Bampots. I can't believe David Steel wasn't in the loop, so to speak.There
really seems to be too many connections in this case, in my opinion.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647316/ex-lib-dem-leader-lord-steel-unmasked-as-backer-for-sex-fiend-sir-clement-freuds-knighthood/

In today's Sun.

Andrew wrote:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647316/ex-lib-dem-leader-lord-steel-unmasked-as-backer-for-sex-fiend-sir-clement-freuds-knighthood/

In today's Sun.

Oh my goodness, look at the way this title has been constructed, surely libel?


PAEDO PEER Ex Lib Dem leader Lord Steel unmasked as backer for sex fiend Sir Clement Freud’s knighthood

Paedophile Sir Clement Freud was nominated for a knighthood by ex-Lib Dem leader Lord Steel, The Sun on Sunday can reveal.[/color]
And Freud was the SECOND child sex abuser backed by the peer – who also pressed for fellow Liberal Sir Cyril Smith to get a gong.


The evil pair, who shared a Commons office, were both awarded knighthoods in the space of 12 months between 1987 and 1988 after Steel proposed them.

His support was given even after he was told of allegations that Smith had abused kids.

We revealed last month how the Cabinet Office had refused to tell us who had proposed Freud for a knighthood in 1987.

But after we appealed, Whitehall caved in and last week confirmed the mystery sponsor’s identity as Lord Steel.

Dad-of-five Freud, who died aged 84 in 2009, became a Sir in 1987 when he lost his Commons seat.

At the time Lord Steel wrote a glowing obituary, calling him “one of those rare characters who managed to excel in several spheres”.





More on link supplied by Andrew.

Yes, it certainly is written as if the words "paedo peer" refer to Lord Steel.

A big mention of Madeleine again (groan) and also a link to the story of the pregnant nanny which has never been proved, as far as I'm aware.

She was mentioned in the TV programme about CF but there was nothing about a baby or being thrown out.

It sure sounds like they are lumping DS in with the other two

Makes the Musselburgh trip seem that much more sinister......an update of how things are moving?.....the next step on the dreaded path?.......no coincidence about the attendees imo.....just a case of how the dots are joined!!

Link added.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1446-musselburgh-racecourse

Freedom wrote:Yes, it certainly is written as if the words "paedo peer" refer to Lord Steel.

A big mention of Madeleine again (groan)
 

Its not the usual spokesman's hands on this though,

I think the Sun have been following threads on this forum. !!! :

bluebell wrote:I think the Sun have been following threads on this forum.  !!!    :

Interesting couple of comments......leave the first to speak for itself

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1647316/ex-lib-dem-leader-lord-steel-unmasked-as-backer-for-sex-fiend-sir-clement-freuds-knighthood/
3 comments
Sign in


Post comment as...
Newest | Oldest | Top Comments
sherlock holmes
sherlock holmes 7 hours ago
The intrigue deepens if one pays any attention to the Sun's attempt at linking an 82 year old man who was not even in PDL on May 3rd recalls the parents, who lied about events surrounding their daughter's disappearance enjoying a day at Musselburgh races with Mr Steel earlier this year..Of course despite no evidence of abduction, despite the fact the parents lied about the events of their daughter's disappearance and despite the eleven cadaver alerts uniquely to the parents of the one missing child we are reminded by the superb reporting by the Sun and Antonella Lazzeri that Madeleine was abducted and who bases her reporting on two documented liars..

We then add in the fact that Freud's son was married to the daughter of the owner this newspaper and it becomes clear that the child was abducted from her bed while her parents claim they very responsibly and loving neglected her and her two siblings..

It began, as we said, with the parents failing to tell the police the truth in their very first interviews. As the case prosecutor, Mr. Menezes, stated in court, in Lisbon: "the couple lied to police about how long they had left Madeleine alone."
And it ended with the McCanns claiming through their spokesperson that the final report from that same Mr. Menezes concluding the case in August 2008, "cleared" them. That was also a lie, not a misunderstanding, one which they later embellished by claiming that "the courts" had cleared them. Nowhere does the report clear them. Conduct by the parents that amounts to a "suggestive pattern of behaviour", one consistent with a desire for the Portuguese investigation into their child’s death to "fail" clearly emerged to those who looked at the facts of what they said and the contradictions of their actions..

There could be many reasons why the parents felt and acted in such a claimed way, loss of confidence in the abilities of the Portuguese police, lack of belief in their objectivity and the fear that they might be unjustly accused obviously among them. But there is certainly a less charitable case that can be made and then it would be for the court to decide it on the  merits of the evidence, including skilled cross examination  where no comments are not a legal right..