Wide range of child and adult abuse inquiries

Marky wrote:note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.

We`re allowed to disagree with each other Marky.

Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO

Marky wrote:okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose. 

An allegation to which more and more evidence is coming to light. Below is a post I made on Jill's forum regarding the new testimonies of men who were abused by leading figures in London as boys. This boy was taken from his care home in Yorkshire to London by a paedophile ring involving Savile's chauffeur:

Dee Coy wrote:A FORMER female MP was involved in a paedophile network at the heart of government, police have been told.

She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile”  sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.

Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express:  "I want justice.”

Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.

Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.

He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.

“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.

“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.

The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.

Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.

He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce.

Full article:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

According to this report, a young boy was taken from his care home in Yorkshire to sex parties in Westminster. A trip of over four hours - the article implies Savile's chauffeur was involved. Unbelievable.  Obviously highly organised and widespread.

The same sex parties as Elm House and Dolphin Square, or yet more depravity?

I wondered if this man could be the other person referred to in the articles naming 'Nick' that has come forward as well as 'Nick' recently.

I hope this is not this man's real name. One is always aware of the horrendous consequences for some of those who have also spoken out:

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/who-wants-to-silence-britains-child-abuse-victims-forever/

Mimi wrote:

Marky wrote:note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.

We`re allowed to disagree with each other Marky.

opinions vary.

You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some.

Just discovered this Mail article from 5 December.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2862849/Scotland-Yard-hid-MP-s-sex-abuse-inquiry-Police-buried-young-boy-s-testimony-Establishment-cover-says-author-book-Cyril-Smith-scandal.html

No fan of the Mail but I must admit they are the MSM flagbearer for the child abuse cover-up cesspit.

It's an interesting expose of the realities of the goings-on at Elm House and the characters involved. Was Carole Kasir merely just a murdered victim herself, for example, or a callous orchestrator?

According to Chris Fay, she was completely callous Dee Coy.

I'll post this here for anyone who hasn't seen it.

Maloney can be a bit irritating but Chris Fay is very credible

Thank you, Thomas. I need to watch that properly, and will do so later when I have more time.

I've just realised that the article makes no mention of Haroon Kasir, Carole's husband, who ran Elm house too. I always thought Carole secondary to him, but I could be wrong. Either way, the Mail is wrong when it says Elm House is the only gay joint run by a straight woman. Haroon was prominent too. A glaring omission, of similar scale to the Payne's CW omission. It's inconceivable to ignore him.

More research needed, I think.

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5043/operation-fernbridge-arrests-ex-manager-of-elm-guest-house

chirpyinsect wrote:Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO

Yes I accept that GM might well have been `dealt with` - it`s what they usually do isn`t it. But in this case wouldn`t it have looked rather too suspicious if GM and/or KM suddenly met with an accident? It could be that that was why CM was hastily sent to them, not as a spokesperson at all, but as a monitor. Plus if I was GM/KM and I had dirt on someone, I would make sure it came to light in the event of my death.

Marky wrote:

Freedom wrote:You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some.

I agree with you that opinions can be challenged Marky but not always - it`s no point challenging an opinion just for the sake of it. Most people are totally ok with their ideas being discussed (or `challenged` as you say) but there is only one reason it might not sit well with some and that is the language used - what`s the point in demeaning someone ?

Mimi wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO

Yes I accept that GM might well have been `dealt with` - it`s what they usually do isn`t it.  But in this case wouldn`t it have looked rather too suspicious if GM and/or KM suddenly met with an accident?  It could be that that was why CM was hastily sent to them, not as a spokesperson at all, but as a monitor.  Plus if I was GM/KM and I had dirt on someone, I would make sure it came to light in the event of my death.

Yes it would have looked suspicious after the event so maybe all the big fuss th Macs made was to make sure they became high profile in the world press therefore ensuring their survival.
IF GM does know something and did make sure others knew about it in the event of his death, I wonder who else that could be.

Mimi wrote:

Marky wrote:

Freedom wrote:You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some.

I agree with you that opinions can be challenged Marky but not always - it`s no point challenging an opinion just for the sake of it.  Most people are totally ok with their ideas being discussed (or `challenged` as you say) but there is only one reason it might not sit well with some and that is the language used - what`s the point in demeaning someone ?

since i'm not allowed to challenge anyone you can carry on.

Should anyone ever be suprised that a Royal prince can't keep his dick in his pants.Isn't he back with Fergie now ?
Girl was 17 and far too young to be a whore but thats what she would be labelled over here.

Prince mixing with crooks and leaving himself exposed to blackmail,a man in a position to pull lots of strings should the need arise.Thats how it works in those circles.Ask Tim Fortesque,now conveniently and thankfully dead.Saville clearly knew plenty about these freaks.

As for gerry mccann,a two bit doctor of really little brain and doubt many friends left now.If he knew anything important i doubt he'd get anywhere near flexing his inadequate body against the men in black,he'd be propping up the Hamersmith flyover with a poisoned brolly up his bum.

The only thing that has surprised me in all this..... is the fact it's in the news
If this can come out, then I don't think the mcs have any control over anything at all, no matter how big or small.
IMO

I've read through this thread a couple of times now, and I'm yet to find an example of Marky demeaning anybody.

     

 

Well fergie would say that wouldnt she ! £22k a week ski challet who's gonna pay for that.

Nick Ferrari on Good Morning Britain a few minutes ago when asked what Andrew should do:

"Pray for an earthquake or something to take it off the news" (paraphrased from memory)

A particular bombshell springs to mind, no divine intervention necessary.

Exactly, nows the perfect time for arrests in the Maddie case...
Then again, that might not be enough to drown out current headlines....

The way that this is being handled is strange.

I would have expected one single robust denial from Buckingham Palace then business as usual for the royal family. The scandal would do the rounds on the internet regardless but I do wonder why the UK mainstream media weren't muzzled.

That there have been multiple denials all very carefully worded, a cancelled skiing holiday and now Fergie being wheeled out to give her support convinces me that it's true and that we haven't heard the worst of it.

Poe wrote:The way that this is being handled is strange.

I would have expected one single robust denial from Buckingham Palace then business as usual for the royal family. The scandal would do the rounds on the internet regardless but I do wonder why the UK mainstream media weren't muzzled.

That there have been multiple denials all very carefully worded, a cancelled skiing holiday and now Fergie being wheeled out to give her support convinces me that it's true and that we haven't heard the worst of it.

Yep - agree with all that Poe.

To me something is not quite adding up.

Has A been made a 'fall guy' in some way. Take the heat from something else which is bubbling away. Which is a lot worse.

I don't mean anything McCann related either.

Although i'm certain the McCanns will be used very soon to 'divert' all and will be 'the scoop' news for every paper, news station etc for a very long period of time to come.

It appears everything is about timing. That timing has to be spot on like clockwork. For whatever reason.

Just my opinion.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Yes it would have looked suspicious after the event so maybe all the big fuss the Macs made was to make sure they became high profile in the world press therefore ensuring their survival.
IF GM does know something and did make sure others knew about it in the event of his death, I wonder who else that could be.

Yep, agree, spot on.