Scotland Yard investigating allegations senior politicians abused children in the 1980s and used 'c

i was talking to you.

you do realise this is all HISTORIC abuse don't you.

it hasn't all happened at once 6 days ago. if it did we would make some sort of positive change in order to stop it happening again.

are you really saying we can't have a voice on your mentally ill gun laws because of a few paedophile rings stretching over decades?

that is truly bizarre and pretty scary reasoning.

also, i'm not really sure this thread needs to have gun talk thrown into it.

reply to post by bates


I'm well aware that child sexual abuse has been going on for way too long. I'm simply stating that I find it disturbing how so many people want justice for the Sandy Hook children, but barely anyone wants to discuss paedo rings. They're all victims. Why is shooting children worse than molesting them? They're both disgusting crimes performed by disgusting people.

I've been on ATS for quite some time now and I was saddened by how many members simply ignored the threads about the paedo rings and its victims. Unlike the children of Sandy Hook, they are still suffering and waiting for their assailants to be brought to justice.

By the way, ATS needs to start cracking down on those, like you, who throw around the word "mentally ill". Simply because I'm a responsible gun owner does not make me mentally ill. You sound as though you have your priorities wrong and need to look deep inside yourself about who exactly is mentally ill in our world's societies.

I'm a small woman who lives alone. If my gun is taken away by the government and someone breaks into my home, then rapes me and slits my throat with a hunting knife, can my family sue this great government because they took actions to prevent me from protecting myself?

reply to post by bates

also, i'm not really sure this thread needs to have gun talk thrown into it.

Really?
So, we cannot talk about the same politicians who are taking people's guns away AND molesting these people's children?
You really don't see the irony here, do you?

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Afterthought


i'm struggling to link gun laws in the usa and historic child abuse in britain to be honest.

it has to be one of the most mental links i've seen on here.

i can only assume you're not too bothered about the welfare of children given your pro gun stance anyway.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by bates

 

I'm a small woman who lives alone. If my gun is taken away by the government and someone breaks into my home, then rapes me and slits my throat with a hunting knife, can my family sue this great government because they took actions to prevent me from protecting myself?

i'm a small man who lives with a family but i don't feel the need for a gun to protect them, just the fact we don't have guns all over the place is good enough for me.

Originally posted by bates
i was talking to you.

you do realise this is all HISTORIC abuse don't you.

it hasn't all happened at once 6 days ago. if it did we would make some sort of positive change in order to stop it happening again.

are you really saying we can't have a voice on your mentally ill gun laws because of a few paedophile rings stretching over decades?

that is truly bizarre and pretty scary reasoning.

also, i'm not really sure this thread needs to have gun talk thrown into it.

edit on 20-12-2012 by bates because: (no reason given)

We probably don't need gun talk here but the point about the scale of this abuse is valid. The majority of people in Britain don't want to talk about this subject because it's something that can be swept under the carpet. It doesn't happen to 'their' children it happens to council estate kids that have been put into care. Out of sight, out of mind.
The perpetrators have done an immense amount of damage but it's damage that seethes under the surface and is not immediately obvious like that of some violent act commited in a public place. That's why they get away with it. The damage mostly stays within the lower tier of society (from which the abused came) and can be blamed on that type of person.

We should view this institutional abuse not as 'Historic' but as certain people's Modus operandi. People like this will not stop what they are doing because one or two scandals are uncovered. The reason they don't get caught is because they are well connected and clever, the abuse is likely to be ongoing at this moment, they will find new ways. It's never just historic, that's what the British people should see but they haven't made the link.

It seems someone has been busy censoring corrspondance between paedophile Savile and the former British PM Margaret Thatcher.

Correspondence showing the depth of the friendship between Sir Jimmy Savile and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is unveiled today in a secret Downing Street file that has been heavily redacted by civil servants following revelations about sexual abuse by the late entertainer.

www.independent.co.uk...

someone who spent so much time with our PM and members of royalty would have been undoubtedly checked out by. Mi5 . They must have known, why was he allowed to continue unless his position was one that was more important to them than the kids he abused?

What was in the letters and calls that someone 'cleaned up' in October prior to public release?

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

Originally posted by Power_Semi
I think some of this is ridiculous to be fair.

As much as I think paedos should be hanged, to arrest and charge Stuart Hall because someone claims that he indecently assaulted them 30 to 40 years ago is madness.

The Police can't even find evidence to solve crimes that happened 5 minutes ago - look at the girl who'd disappeared in the summer, they searched the house 4 TIMES, with dogs, and the body was there the whole time.

I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that they have found enough evidence to charge someone because someone else claims something happened all that time ago.

I think it's turning into a witch hunt and all of the whackos and compensation seekers are crawling out of the woodwork now.

I don't think it's ridiculous if someone like Stuart Hall did assault children, no matter how long ago.

If you read the news reports the charges are from 3 seperate individuals, different years, who must have come forward independently. Testimony like that from different witnesses is enough evidence. There is a rape allegation that has not been charged. People were dismissive of the Savile claims at first saying the victims just wanted money.

Stuart Halls name had not been associated with Savile, so why would 3 or more women come forward about Hall and just be 'whackos'?

I know on this thread I have tried to point out that Savile and Yewtree are getting a disproportianate amount of press and that has been misunderstood by some - but I would never dismiss any potential victim of abuse as an attention seeker.
Any potential witness should be listened to first and not dismissed because it was 'years ago'.

I'm replying to this today because there's been some more stuff about Stuart Hall on the news today, he's going to court and is adamant he is innocent.

I think you misunderstood what I meant re charging people for things that happened years ago.

What I mean is that there can be NO physical evidence after all of this time, it comes down to person A claiming that person B did something, and person B saying it isn't true.

It's just a case of he said she said.

My grave concern is that someone can be taken to court on such serious charges and have their name and life destroyed on nothing more than the claim of some person that something happened 30 years ago.

To expand on this and how worrying it is, you would imagine to be accused and tried for abusing someone there would have to be something concrete to present in court.

And yet one of the charges brought by the crown prosecution service is that Stuart Hall "between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 1983 he indecently assaulted a girl then aged 8 or 9 years" -

surely you have to see the madness of that statement. If they had ANY evidence AT ALL they would have a date, but to say it allegedly happened some time in such a range of dates is ludicrous.

If they can't even give a date, or even the month during which the alleged crime occured, how on earth can we take seriously the allegation of the crime in the first place.

It is an important facet of law that you are innocent until proved guilty, how on earth can you prove allegations made against someone that are so vague?

They have basically thrown this guy to the wolves and he is going to have to prove his innocence rather than the way it should be.

What will he have to do, stand up in court and give an hour by hour account of everything he did on every day for a whole year?

I have as I said grave concerns over what is happening here, and this is my honest belief:

Jimmy Saville was probably a paedophile, and I believe that he was embroiled in those activities with senior politicians and other high profile figures.

I believe that to obfuscate the truth, what TPTB are doing is trying to paint a picture that this child abuse scandal is a problem based around TV celebrities (or rather ex TV celebrities - i.e. "it all happened in the past") rather than MPs and high profile people.

They are misdirecting the gaze of the public towards "pervert ex TV celebrities" so that questions about who was really involved with Jimmy Saville and his ilk are not asked.

I do not have any faith with regards to the "evidence" being used to prosecute Stuart Hall, or even Jim Davison for that matter, I think they are the sacrificial lambs being thrown to the wolves to protect politicians, civil servants, and possibly members of other high level institutions like for example the Royal family.

It is interesting that no current TV celebrities are being involved in this, like I said I think it's to give the impression it happened in the past, and also probably so as not to involve current politicians etc.

You have got to have a serious think about the implications, because who's to say it's not going to be me or you who is taken to court next time because someone says you touched them 30 years ago.