Wide range of child and adult abuse inquiries

Definitely via Jersey also:

http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/pm-ted-heath-and-young-boys.html

The irony of the last paragraph in light of recent revelations:

"....it was Liberal party Leader Jeremy Thorpes threat to bring down Edward Heath and a big bunch of other politicians, which got him off the Norman Scott attempted murder court case. The name 'Mr. Eddy' was well known on Hampstead Heath and the boys home nearby in the seventies."

Am sick to death of reading about their depravity only after their deaths. This is why I feel we will never see a just result from the current investigations into Elm House and the rest of the historic cases. It's just too big with too many Establishment figures involved. To say nothing of those weilding the cloak of protection. In my opinion.

In my opinion too Dee Coy.Unfortunately power corrupts and so evil will always prevail as we can see from this.....

I make no apologise for posting this again and again and again and when your friends and family tell you your mad and an internet nutter show them this...

Yep. That's at the root of it all, Lioned. Get them out of a sticky situation then there's the threat of blackmail forever. Compliant puppets in Parliament their stings pulled by the non-elected true people in power.

I sometimes wonder if political candidates are selected purely because of their propensity for weakness in this way. Entrapment follows and they're a pawn for life.

I believe the whole of the higher echelons of society are shored up in this way. If the investigation tugs the bottom queen from the house of cards, the whole lot will tumble.

So it won't happen. The investigation will founder one way or another.

What was the latest 'blow' to the investigation? The victims won't wait any longer and are refusing to testify? Whatever.

The latest blow was that around 24 of the alleged child abuse victims wrote to Theresa May threatening to withdraw from the investigation as they were not happy with the terms of reference.

I guess that will get sorted and eventually some suitable Chairperson will be found and the investigation will chug along for about seven years until a few more peados drop dead.

Don`t know whether this should have its own thread or not

The UK Child Sex Abuse People`s Tribunal - Michael Mansfield to be one of the judges.

http://www.thepeoplestribunal.org.uk/home

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wz633

There have been a lot of complaints about Radio 4 broadcasting this last Sunday.

Jeremy Thorpe, the former Liberal leader, led a life which combined major political achievements with persistent rumours of scandal, culminating in a trial for conspiracy to murder and his acquittal. But was there an establishment cover-up to protect him during his political career? Tom Mangold has been investigating, in a programme containing both new evidence and material from the 1970s that has never previously been broadcast.

Theres a piece in the Mail regarding this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2872344/From-Thorpe-paedophile-MPs-torture-ruling-elite-try-cover-sins-bids-constrain-media-insidious.html

Thanks Caricature - a more dramatic expression of how the establishment covered things up. To think, years ago I used to hold these people in high regard.

For anyone that`s interested, Feedback on Radio 4 interviewed Tom Mangold yesterday and he said that the fellow that was hired to kill Norman Scott actually came up to him when he was walking his dog in the park and gave him evidence for the programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04tlys1

starts about 1:46 mins

Seems the MET believe 'Nicks' testimony to be credible and 'true'.

Its the Wail but credit to them to keep this story going...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2879025/Westminster-paedophile-ring-linked-murders-THREE-young-boys-detectives.html

Interesting to see the reference to those involved in the Profumo affair as well. (See thread re Mandy Rice Davies).

The Screws are turning on BHH now ! Ex police officers claiming plenty of coverups.

Something has got to give on this and we have seen today maybe the start of it with Rightons 'PIE' mate going down.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5433/paedophile-operations-ex-police-to-submit-dossier-to-met-chief

Here is the article from above link.......


A woman who claims that an American investment banker loaned her to rich and powerful friends as an underage “sex slave” has alleged in a US court document that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew.
The accusation against the Duke of York is contained in a motion filed in a Florida court this week in connection with a long-running lawsuit brought by women who say they were exploited by Jeffrey Epstein, a multi-millionaire convicted of soliciting sex with an underage girl after a plea deal.

The woman, who filed the motion anonymously, alleges that between 1999 and 2002 she was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein who, she also alleges, loaned her out to rich and influential men around the world.
The document – a motion to expand an ongoing lawsuit relating to prosecutors’ handling of Epstein’s case with two new plaintiffs – alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein


The prince is not a named party to the legal claim, which is directed against federal prosecutors. He has not had any opportunity to respond to the allegations in the legal claim.
The woman is said to have been 17 at the time, considered to be a minor in Florida.
In a 2011 Vanity Fair article, Prince Andrew denied any sexual contact with young women associated with Epstein.
Contacted on Thursday, Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the allegations contained in the court document. A palace spokesperson said the royal household would “never comment on an ongoing legal matter”.
Another close associate of Epstein who is also accused in the lawsuit, Alan Dershowitz, told the Guardian that the woman’s accusations against himself were “totally false and made up”.
The Harvard law professor and esteemed criminal defence attorney who later advised Epstein on how to respond to the FBI’s investigation is accused in the court motion of having sexual relations with the woman when she was a minor and of witnessing the abuse of other minors.
On Thursday he told the Guardian: “There is no more strenuous denial than the one I am giving. I never met her. I don’t know her. I have never had sex with an underage person.”
He added: “This person has made this up out of cloth, maliciously and knowingly in order to extort money from Mr Epstein.”
Dershowitz, who has occasionally written op-ed articles for the Guardian, said he could not comment on the woman’s allegations against Prince Andrew or any other men, but he said her claims against him were demonstrably false and challenged her to file criminal charges against him.
“It is a totally fabricated charge in every possible way,” he said. “It just never happened.”
He said he was considering taking legal action to have Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, the lawyers who filed the motion, disbarred for “knowingly filing … a false, malicious and defamatory statement in a lawsuit”.
Edwards said: “We have been informed of Mr Dershowitz’s threats of legal action and bar proceedings … we carefully investigate all of the allegations in our pleadings before presenting them.”
In a statement to the Guardian through her lawyers, the woman behind the allegations said she was being “unjustly victimised again”.
“These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time,” she said. “That trend should change. I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.”
The Guardian is aware of the identity of the plaintiff behind the allegations, but is respecting her wish to bring the case anonymously.
Andrew’s close relationship with Epstein – he visited him in New York two years after the American’s release from prison in 2009 – has long been a source of controversy. The Daily Mail reported in 2011 that the prince had broken off contact with the banker.
The duke had previously been accused of meeting Epstein’s young victims and possibly being aware of their sexual exploitation. However, this is the first time he has been named in a court document as a participant in any sexual activity with one of the young women allegedly trafficked by Epstein.
As the claim has only just been lodged, and as the duke is not a named party to it, he has not had the opportunity to formally file a defence or denial to the claims.
In 2006, the FBI opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein had been paying for sex with underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion for years. By the following year federal prosecutors said they had identified 40 young women who may have been illegally procured by Epstein.
In 2008, however, the federal inquiry was dropped after Epstein negotiated a deal with prosecutors in which he agreed to plead guilty to a relatively minor state charge relating to soliciting paid sex with a minor – a 14-year-old girl. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence and is now a registered sex offender.
Many of his alleged victims have since reached out-of-court settlements with Epstein, who was once considered among the wealthiest investment bankers in the world.
However, two of Epstein’s alleged victims, referred to in court documents as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, have brought a lawsuit arguing that federal prosecutors violated a victims’ rights statute by failing to consult them over Epstein’s secret deal.
The pair won a significant legal victory in July last year entitling them to see previously confidential documents from the plea bargain discussions between Epstein’s lawyers and federal prosecutors.
The court document filed this week containing allegations against Andrew is a motion to allow two more alleged Epstein victims, referred to as Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, to join the action.
Jane Doe 3 – the woman who made the accusations against Andrew – claims her contact with Epstein began when she was approached at the age of 15 by Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late media mogul Robert Maxwell and a close friend of Epstein.
The motion alleges that Maxwell “was one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities”. With Maxwell’s assistance, the document alleges, Epstein converted the girl into a “sex slave”, repeatedly abusing her in his private jet or his lavish residences in New York, New Mexico, Florida and the US Virgin Islands.
“Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people,” the court document alleges. “Epstein’s purposes in ‘lending’ Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.”
The motion alleges that Maxwell was “a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme” and that she also participated in the abuse.
The document goes on to allege: “Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was a member of the British royal family, Prince Andrew (aka Duke of York).”
The document lists three locations where the woman alleges she was forced to have sexual relations with Andrew: Maxwell’s London apartment, Epstein’s private Caribbean island in what was allegedly “an orgy with numerous other under-aged girls”, and an undisclosed location in New York.
Requests made to representatives of Ghislaine Maxwell for comment had not been returned at the time of publication, but she has previously strenuously denied any involvement in procuring young girls for Epstein or any of his associates. In 2011 a spokesperson for Maxwell said she had never been contacted by any law enforcement agency in connection with the allegations.
The new motion alleges that Epstein instructed the girl “to give the prince whatever he demanded” and also instructed her to “report back on the details of the sexual abuse”.
The woman’s lawyers allege in their motion that, in addition to facilitating her alleged encounters with the prince and Dershowitz, Epstein trafficked her to “many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders”.
• After this article was published, Buckingham Palace issued a statement, saying: “This relates to long-running and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States to which the Duke of York is not a party. As such we would not comment in detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/02/prince-andrew-named-us-lawsuit-underage-sex-allegations

He strongly denies the allegations. Don't they all?

............ royalty ??? ................... what, surely not that esteemed and noble family that doth reign over us

[quote="Helenmeg"Deleted - libellous  [/quote]

IMO its been a right royal cover-up all along.

Mimi wrote:

Helenmeg wrote:I've just been reading all about this online at the Daily Mail (which although is a gossip monger often provides quite good info).

I would not be at all surprised if there is not some truth in this. In fact it has led me onto a theory..  

Something scandalous was going on at PdL in MAY 2007 involving someone whose presence had to be hidden at all costs from the media -IMO.  The political interference, involvement of
MI5 / 6 initially, all indicates that something was pretty big involving high-up people. The establishment rallied round to protect... that is clear.

 

IMO its been a right royal cover-up all along.

Agree Mimi.
I know it's only gossip but in all of this you hear the odd thing like.....' your jaw would drop to floor if you knew the truth'..or something similar. Also didn't someone at the OC ( owners wife?) say that she would like to 'tell the truth' one day?

I have always thought that the nannies were made to keep quiet by a higher power, probably the reason why they were sent well out of the way. Cat Baker was a very important witness as she 'alleges' she spent six hours with Madeleine that day. It's quite unbelievable that she was permitted to leave the country so quickly.

The Ocean Club was perhaps a meeting place for 'certain types of holidaymakers'. GM is a very ambitious individual, perhaps the McCann's were mixing business with pleasure if you know what I mean!

TBH it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.  Wasn't there some sort of correspondence sent to Charles at Highgrove over the Maddie case?  Was that just a little warning shot, maybe?

I quite like the look of the Chow Mein at the top of the page.

What is missing here,carter ruck do their utmost to silence any dissenters to the McCann version of events,but yet the third child born to the reigning monarch is named and shamed in the papers and on the news channels,is he a sacrificial lamb? just when I get it in my mind of what just did happen in Portugal something like this happens to think is there someone bigger, higher being protected,or is the McCann case that simple its too complicated.

Perhaps we all need to read again `Gerry`s Tunnel Vision`

http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/

What I`ve always found extremely odd is Charles & Camilla taking an interest in this case and sending their good wishes, or whatever, to the McCanns - since when have the royals ever done this to a subject who has lost a child? Did they do this for April Jones`s parents or Ben Needham`s parents ?

Wow, this strengthens my belief on OG not being a cover up, the mcs aren't that special imo

Mimi wrote:Perhaps we all need to read again `Gerry`s Tunnel Vision`

http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/

What I`ve always found extremely odd is Charles & Camilla taking an interest in this case and sending their good wishes, or whatever, to the McCanns - since when have the royals ever done this to a subject who has lost a child?  Did they do this for April Jones`s parents or Ben Needham`s parents ?

Is the new SY remit purely to get the remaining samples back to England? A fascinating read, Mimi, not seen before.

Is it Diana, or something else? If Diana, what was Gerry's implication, I wonder. If something else, then what?

There were, of course tenuous reports of a yacht with royal presence being present around that part of Portugal in May 07. Any references now being removed, naturally, so impossible to say whether or not this legend had any credibility.

I did find these two links. Both of which are not credible sources and are expressing speculation not fact. I guess both are the authors' own opinions. Take them as read or with huge pinches of salt


http://icenirising.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/maddy-missing-links/

http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.it/2013/07/prince-charles-meets-red-devils-2.html

Mimi wrote:Perhaps we all need to read again `Gerry`s Tunnel Vision`

http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/

What I`ve always found extremely odd is Charles & Camilla taking an interest in this case and sending their good wishes, or whatever, to the McCanns - since when have the royals ever done this to a subject who has lost a child?  Did they do this for April Jones`s parents or Ben Needham`s parents ?

"The gist of the bombshell information received here is this: Gerry McCann is privy to information implicating the Royal Family in the murder of Princess Diana. This was his leverage."

always good to start the day off by laughing your head off and this certainly tickled the tootsies. seriously, if little old gerry mccann had anything of the sort he'd have been retired a long time ago.