Philip Schofield hands list of paedophiles to British PM, page 3

reply to post by ObservingYou

---

Very true, asking people to report the instances to a an institution that was involved in the cover up is pointless. This has been going on for far too long and the individuals involved in covering it up and brushing it under the table need to be brought to justice, however deep it goes.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK

---

I would like to point out that there are ramifications for publishing such information in the UK. You should be aware that commenting on a forum is deemed to be publication, and that you - by posting this list - are publishing a list of people accused of crimes, and could be treated in the same way as a paper editor making a slanderous accusation.

I would recommend removing that list.

Also, I'm getting a little fed up with people making accusations against people with no evidence. Even the sources of these names seem to have zero evidence. These names are appearing in connection to alleged crimes, but where is the damned evidence!?

I wish people would look at these sources properly, trust ones that seem to actually have some basis in reality, and especially not trusting those who clearly have a political ambition and biased opinion (while there are plenty of Conservative names implicated, that last list is all about the Labour party).

I think people need to start really thinking about what they are reading and believing, and people need to be very cautious about what they are PUBLISHING.

news.sky.com...

i hope alot more brave souls come out and tell it as it is!

It is not just tory politicians involved, the problem spans both red and blue politicians, this is a list of convicted labour politicians and councillors.
The problem is widespread and massively under reported due to cronyism and protections put in place to prevent prosecutions of powerful members of parliament.

Many allegations have been made, many names have been mentioned, Names of sitting politicians were uncovered by "Operation Ore" but were assigned to secrecy under a 100 year rule by the government of the day, and the perpetrators were not prosecuted.

Labour25

reply to post by phrig

---

Not in the slightest. It is acting like any ongoing investigation does. At first, the focus was on Saville. As the investigation has expanded, other areas have been highlighted and come more into focus. Aside from usual procedure, this is to be expected anyway - for one thing, many others that have come into focus are still alive and therefore can be interviewed.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

---

I would like to point out that there are ramifications for publishing such information in the UK. You should be aware that commenting on a forum is deemed to be publication, and that you - by posting this list - are publishing a list of people accused of crimes, and could be treated in the same way as a paper editor making a slanderous accusation.

No, it would not. The names have been published on the internet for years. Referring to already published statements is NOT libelous. Only the ORIGINAL published claim can be.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I would recommend removing that list.

You are denying the right of people to comment on other people's work? Reporting other's people's claims without indicating that you approve of them is not libelous in itself.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Also, I'm getting a little fed up with people making accusations against people with no evidence. Even the sources of these names seem to have zero evidence. These names are appearing in connection to alleged crimes, but where is the damned evidence!?

The evidence was there originally. Only it was anecdotal, victims passing on their accusations based upon what happened to them to bloggers and alternative media journalists. Of course, the evidence posted on the internet is not conclusive. Because of the U.K.'s draconian libel laws, it had to remain anecdotal.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I wish people would look at these sources properly, trust ones that seem to actually have some basis in reality, and especially not trusting those who clearly have a political ambition and biased opinion (while there are plenty of Conservative names implicated, that last list is all about the Labour party).

I think people need to start really thinking about what they are reading and believing, and people need to be very cautious about what they are PUBLISHING.

Provided they are merely quoting and are not making fresh charges against people not previously suspected to be paedophiles, they need have no legal worries.

youtu.be...


That top mason who ran the waterhouse enquiry should face charges for perverting the course of justice!

www.bbc.co.uk...


In a statement on Friday evening, Mr Messham said: "After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine."

What???

reply to post by Whatsitallabout

---

Seems a little strange today is the first time he has seen a photograph of mcalpine seeing as this has been running all week? Still all very fishy.

Originally posted by Whatsitallabout
www.bbc.co.uk...


In a statement on Friday evening, Mr Messham said: "After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine."

What???

I know. The three main TV channels in the UK just covered this breaking story and NOT ONE - NOT ONE - journalist asked the obvious question: how on earth would the police show Messham the photo of someone and tell him wrongly that it was Lord McAlpine? Are we supposed to believe that the police made a mistake when they interviewed him? Are we supposed to believe that Messham has NEVER after all these years ever seen a picture of Lord McAlpine - either in the newspapers or on the internet - so that he never realized his error (or, rather, the police's mistake)? This is absurd.
The Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk...
is reporting that a local councillor in Wales believes that Messham confused Lord McAlpine for Jimmie McAlpine (now dead), another member of the McAlpine family on the grounds that he said in his statement to the police that his abuser had several cars and Jimmie McAlpine was one of the biggest car owners in Britain. But this proves nothing, for his abuser could have driven to the meeting place using different cars on different occasions to lessen the chance of his car being noticed and traced back to him should Messham go to the police, whilst it leaves the question why the police should have wrongly used the name of "LORD McAlpine" in referring to another member of his family, who certainly had no such title.

Coming straight after Lord McAlpine made a statement to the media denying Messham's accusation (well, he would hardly admit it, would he?), this retraction STINKS. His reason simply does not stack up. I can only conclude that Messham has been leaned on because McAlpine is regarded by some people as too big a fish to get caught. The coverup continues, it seems.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

---

I would like to point out that there are ramifications for publishing such information in the UK. You should be aware that commenting on a forum is deemed to be publication, and that you - by posting this list - are publishing a list of people accused of crimes, and could be treated in the same way as a paper editor making a slanderous accusation.

I would recommend removing that list.

Also, I'm getting a little fed up with people making accusations against people with no evidence. Even the sources of these names seem to have zero evidence. These names are appearing in connection to alleged crimes, but where is the damned evidence!?

I wish people would look at these sources properly, trust ones that seem to actually have some basis in reality, and especially not trusting those who clearly have a political ambition and biased opinion (while there are plenty of Conservative names implicated, that last list is all about the Labour party).

I think people need to start really thinking about what they are reading and believing, and people need to be very cautious about what they are PUBLISHING.

Detected individual

I hear what you say and understand the concerns but the list published from Siminanpress was a list of convicted individuals I believe.
By copying and pasting that list I have not said that I believe anyone is or isn't complicit but highlighted a list of convicted individuals whom command power and control the society I and you live in. Surely the public they govern or have governed deserve the right to know who they are....

I understand from previous posts you do posses left wing thinking and so to see 26+ of your Labour friends highlighted must be painful HOWEVER I do agree these current issues cross all political boundaries.

Do you have information to disprove any of the guilt of those on that list....?

Have a good weekend

Regards
PDUK

www.davidicke.com... -and-the-time-limit-on-legal-action-against-the-book-is-long-past

well David Icke seems to be right going back years! he had these people sussed, of course he is going to deny it as Christine Keeler said in the profumo affair "Well he would wouldn't he"

looks like they have silenced Mesham but they cannot silence every one! so why no legal action on this then going back 14 yrs?

Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags

The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags

Organic food hit piece to coincide with California proposition 37.
  Posted 2 days ago with 67 member flags

The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags

The catch all mental health disorder... Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
  Posted 15 days ago with 42 member flags

A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags

Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: