Murdered TV presenter Jill Dando 'tried to get bosses to investigate alleged BBC paeodphile ring

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Its quite obvious that both the bbc and many within the police force have actively tried to cover up these stories. I think those involved in covering up should face the same charges as those who actually committed the abuse. The only way they should be able to avoid such charges is if they speak up right now!

There should be a public announcement made via all TV channels and newspapers. It should give all those who have information two weeks to speak up, if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse.

For your last sentence, so that is charged as guilty because..... because you think they should be. That's nice isn't it. I guess you like that kind of vigilante talk, that mob mentality talk, as long as you personally never become the victim of it?

Please don't say 'it's about the kids'. Yes it is, but only those found and proven guilty should be treated as such.

I was referring to those who've witnessed the abuse but choose to remain silent. Unless they've been threatened in some serious way they are indeed guilty!

Mob mentality!? Where did I mention mob or vigilante?
I DIDN'T DID I
I was saying that they should face the legal system, and our legal system allows for that!

Those who others have said witnessed abuse, if they have spoken up themselves and said it then your point is null, is it not. And if you want to use caps to make a point YES YOU DID! To quote you - " if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse." That is inducing mob mentality IMHO. Why? Because it's taking law in its own hands, there is no law saying someone who has been alleged to have said they witnessed abuse to be treated as though they had performed the abuse themselves.

There are many threads on ats where I am making the exact same point you are making about mob mentality. I even created a thread about it quite recently!
Lack of a decent education and an appalling grasp of language often get me misunderstood when I am trying to make a point, and I think that whats happening here so I'll try again.

There are ongoing investigations into the abuse of hundreds (maybe thousands) of children. During those investigations its highly likely that people who knew about it, but took no part in it may be discovered.
I hope you'll agree that such people, if not under some kind of threat to keep quiet, ought to have come forward long ago and reported what they knew? because by failing to do so they have allowed the abusers to continue their disgusting behavior.

If those people who knew were to come forward now and report what they know, then those who are guilty of these crimes will be caught more quickly, and maybe many more children will be spared. Hence why I said an announcement should be made that those who know should be given two weeks to come forward or be considered guilty themselves, because had they come forward earlier children would have been spared.

Does that make sense to you?

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Its quite obvious that both the bbc and many within the police force have actively tried to cover up these stories. I think those involved in covering up should face the same charges as those who actually committed the abuse. The only way they should be able to avoid such charges is if they speak up right now!

There should be a public announcement made via all TV channels and newspapers. It should give all those who have information two weeks to speak up, if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse.

For your last sentence, so that is charged as guilty because..... because you think they should be. That's nice isn't it. I guess you like that kind of vigilante talk, that mob mentality talk, as long as you personally never become the victim of it?

Please don't say 'it's about the kids'. Yes it is, but only those found and proven guilty should be treated as such.

I was referring to those who've witnessed the abuse but choose to remain silent. Unless they've been threatened in some serious way they are indeed guilty!

Mob mentality!? Where did I mention mob or vigilante?
I DIDN'T DID I
I was saying that they should face the legal system, and our legal system allows for that!

Those who others have said witnessed abuse, if they have spoken up themselves and said it then your point is null, is it not. And if you want to use caps to make a point YES YOU DID! To quote you - " if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse." That is inducing mob mentality IMHO. Why? Because it's taking law in its own hands, there is no law saying someone who has been alleged to have said they witnessed abuse to be treated as though they had performed the abuse themselves.

There are many threads on ats where I am making the exact same point you are making about mob mentality. I even created a thread about it quite recently!
Lack of a decent education and an appalling grasp of language often get me misunderstood when I am trying to make a point, and I think that whats happening here so I'll try again.

There are ongoing investigations into the abuse of hundreds (maybe thousands) of children. During those investigations its highly likely that people who knew about it, but took no part in it may be discovered.
I hope you'll agree that such people, if not under some kind of threat to keep quiet, ought to have come forward long ago and reported what they knew? because by failing to do so they have allowed the abusers to continue their disgusting behavior.

If those people who knew were to come forward now and report what they know, then those who are guilty of these crimes will be caught more quickly, and maybe many more children will be spared. Hence why I said an announcement should be made that those who know should be given two weeks to come forward or be considered guilty themselves, because had they come forward earlier children would have been spared.

Does that make sense to you?

Hi, I appreciate the clarification, and your point that it is easy to see where people aim to make others a scapegoat..... but that is why I cannot completely agree with what you suggest. If the people 'who knew' had not come forward by now, how can you challenge them and say that they knew? What would you be basing that on?

You see what I mean?

Here is an audio recording of an ex custom's official discussing Leon Brittan, it's about twenty minutes long:

Audio Recording

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: mirageman

This stuff is difficult to think about and to read, but if any of the witnesses are telling the truth it is so huge we will never reach it.

“I was there, I saw the whole thing. I was told they were kids from the juvenile detention centres in Brussels. They were let loose naked in the forest and hunted down and shot. The killers included Prince Friso of Holland and his wife’s friend, the billionaire George Soros, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and Prince Albert of Belgium. After they shot down the young ones they cut off the boys’ penises and held them up like trophies, cheering and applauding.”

While confirmed by other insiders, these grisly accounts can distract from the bigger story and motives behind the crime. The ‘Ndrangheta syndicate, for example, obtains its child fodder through its deep involvement with the child-snatching roman catholic church and top Vatican officials. According to Matteo Macceo, a Radical Party member of the Italian Parliament,

itccs.org...

This is something that cannot be unread once encountered. I knew i've read it before, although with different names except prince Albert of Belgium. Rutte was a nobody then, Friso a teenager not married etc etc..Your link therefore is not to be trusted again.

It is from a testimony by Regina Louf, witness X1 in the Belgian Dutroux affaire.

Her account about these kinds of hunting parties on human game, about which X2, X3, X4 and Nathalie W. later also speak, is by far the most controversial part of her testimony.

X3: PV 151.829, June 2, 1997:
"She recognized the regent Charles, King Baudouin and King Albert, and two others that she calls Charly [De Pauw] and Polo [Paul Vanden Boeynants]... A hunt is prepared by Charly and Polo... Gilles (12 years old??) was castrated by Polo.

This was all to be found on wikispooks until recently....google Beyond Dutroux Affair if you're interested

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Its quite obvious that both the bbc and many within the police force have actively tried to cover up these stories. I think those involved in covering up should face the same charges as those who actually committed the abuse. The only way they should be able to avoid such charges is if they speak up right now!

There should be a public announcement made via all TV channels and newspapers. It should give all those who have information two weeks to speak up, if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse.

For your last sentence, so that is charged as guilty because..... because you think they should be. That's nice isn't it. I guess you like that kind of vigilante talk, that mob mentality talk, as long as you personally never become the victim of it?

Please don't say 'it's about the kids'. Yes it is, but only those found and proven guilty should be treated as such.

I was referring to those who've witnessed the abuse but choose to remain silent. Unless they've been threatened in some serious way they are indeed guilty!

Mob mentality!? Where did I mention mob or vigilante?
I DIDN'T DID I
I was saying that they should face the legal system, and our legal system allows for that!

Those who others have said witnessed abuse, if they have spoken up themselves and said it then your point is null, is it not. And if you want to use caps to make a point YES YOU DID! To quote you - " if they fail to do so then they should be charged and treated as if they had committed the abuse." That is inducing mob mentality IMHO. Why? Because it's taking law in its own hands, there is no law saying someone who has been alleged to have said they witnessed abuse to be treated as though they had performed the abuse themselves.

There are many threads on ats where I am making the exact same point you are making about mob mentality. I even created a thread about it quite recently!
Lack of a decent education and an appalling grasp of language often get me misunderstood when I am trying to make a point, and I think that whats happening here so I'll try again.

There are ongoing investigations into the abuse of hundreds (maybe thousands) of children. During those investigations its highly likely that people who knew about it, but took no part in it may be discovered.
I hope you'll agree that such people, if not under some kind of threat to keep quiet, ought to have come forward long ago and reported what they knew? because by failing to do so they have allowed the abusers to continue their disgusting behavior.

If those people who knew were to come forward now and report what they know, then those who are guilty of these crimes will be caught more quickly, and maybe many more children will be spared. Hence why I said an announcement should be made that those who know should be given two weeks to come forward or be considered guilty themselves, because had they come forward earlier children would have been spared.

Does that make sense to you?

Hi, I appreciate the clarification, and your point that it is easy to see where people aim to make others a scapegoat..... but that is why I cannot completely agree with what you suggest. If the people 'who knew' had not come forward by now, how can you challenge them and say that they knew? What would you be basing that on?

You see what I mean?

Ah! I think I understand whats going on here.

There are investigations going on that will most likely unearth people who have known about crimes against the children.
Should these people be prosecuted for not coming forward? because had they done so; many children may have been spared.

My suggestion was that we force those who have knowledge of these atrocities to come forward immediately by telling them that if they don't then they can expect to be punished for it. UNLESS!! its proven they were under some kind of threat!
When I say they should be punished, I do not mean via the mob! I am saying they should be sent for trial in the same way as those who committed the abuse.

I still maintain thats what should be done. Make a public announcement stating that anyone with knowledge of the abuse crimes who fails to come forward; without good reason, and is then discovered at a later date, can expect to be standing beside the abusers in court.
Give them two weeks.

More damning testimonies against MI5 protecting paedophile friends, all in the name of 'national security' of course, this time regarding the Kincora Boys Home.

More than three decades on, Kincora still stinks. Last week, it was revealed that in the 1980s three former residents had received secret payments – with gagging clauses – in compensation from the local authority. Two books have been written, one even alleging that a murder was committed to discredit army information officer Colin Wallace, who had sought to expose publicly what was happening. A possibly game-changing testimony emerged on Friday when former intelligence officer Captain Brian Gemmell went public in saying that, in 1975, his boss in MI5 made him cut short attempts to investigate what was going on at the home.

Kincora Scandal - MI5 tried to blackmail Belfast homosexual

a reply to: Exitt

I have read tons and tons including books on this I simply grabbed the first link on search to show some info on the subject.

Another mysterious death, and alleged courtroom testimony of past Leicester MP Greville Janner's relationship with a 13 year old boy. It seems a few people involved in the case met convenient demises, and now Greville Janner has dementia he is deemed unfit to stand trial. They didn't have that excuse in 1991 though.

“ In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period. At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.

Immediately after this, Janner who just happens to be, ironically, a long time member of the boy scouts association, and Sir David Napley, his solicitor, went to Police headquarters in Leicester. Whereupon, the following statement was issued: “We have advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage”.

Shortly afterwards, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, let it be known that “for lack of evidence”, Janner would not be prosecuted, even though Paul Winston, who was just thirteen when he and Janner first met, was able to describe Janner‘s home, the hotel rooms they had shared, and Janner’s habits and person in detail.

On it's own it is more speculation. Considered alongside copious other reports however it serves as another example of the sinister practice of people with too much power.

Greville Janner and mysterious death of Frank Beck

Could Cliff Richard be next?

Police search Cliff Richard's home after sexual abuse claim.

Detectives investigating a claim of sexual abuse have searched a property belonging to Sir Cliff Richard. The home in Sunningdale in Berkshire is currently still being searched after police gained a warrant.

The allegations date back to the 1980s and involve a boy who was aged under 16 at the time. The search of the Berkshire property was confirmed by police when asked about BBC reports that the home belonged to Richard. The investigation is being carried out by South Yorkshire police.

In a statement South Yorkshire police said: "South Yorkshire police has gained entry to a property in the Sunningdale area of Berkshire. "Officers are currently searching the property. "A search warrant was granted after police received an allegation of a sexual nature dating back to the 1980s involving a boy who was under the age of 16 at the time.

"No one has been arrested and the owner of the property was not present."