Paedophile allegations against conservative politicians

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,642
Media
62
Likes
5,043
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Are you arguing she is not capable of carrying out an investigation properly?

She's going to have difficulties. Maybe she can find someone who does have the necessary knowledge and employ him or her on a consultancy basis. There are possible solutions, but there are real problems. She's by far the weakest of the three.

We all presumably want the guilty prosecuted. I find it crazy that some game of point scoring has taken precedence over this. We've actually set up a situation where it is more likely than it would otherwise have been that the guilty will walk.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We all presumably want the guilty prosecuted.
There are many reasons why this might not be the case. Sheer embarrassment by all politicians is an obvious one.

We've actually set up a situation where it is more likely than it would otherwise have been that the guilty will walk.
it is quite plain the government did not want any investigation and has been forced to escalate the scale of the investigation after each failure to make their proposals stick. As I said, absolutely no politicians came out of the MPs expenses scandal with a better reputation than before, including those who had been totally up front, honest, and even complained about the system. This is a no-win scenario for every politician.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,642
Media
62
Likes
5,043
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
it is quite plain the government did not want any investigation and has been forced to escalate the scale of the investigation after each failure to make their proposals stick.

I don't think this is correct. We now have a super-heavy-duty enquiry which is almost inevitably going to fail precisely because more productive, smaller investigation that would have been quicker and given results have been prevented, in part by victim support groups.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well here we are again. Police are reporting now that they were ordered to discontinue investigation into activities by Cyril Smith, and threatened with prosecution under the official secrets act if they disclosed anything. The metropolitan police has referred itself to the official police complaints organisation to investigate the matter. ( and several public complaints related to activities by other politicians).
This related to matters in the early eighties.

The proposed public investigation into child abuse, including the involvement of senior politicians, had been stymied for some time until recently, perhaps coincidentally until after the recent death of conservative politicians Leon Brittan. He had already been named as someone who was in office as home secretary, 11 June 1983 – 2 September 1985, and as a more junior home office minister from May 79 to Jan 81, at a time when some of this was happening. Presumably the home secretary is exactly the person who would have to authorise ordering police to discontinue investigations. If that is what happened, then it would explain why the authorities made such a fuss over finding someone to run this enquiry and thus delayed it for years.

After this, brittan spent 5 months as trade secretary before having to resign over leaking documents to try to encourage the sale of westland helicopters to the US sikorski rather than a european concern. In 1986 he was accused of having issued illegal wire taps of CND leaders, but was cleared. The case turned on where the proper limits of grounds for such a tap might end.

In 1989 he resigned as an MP and made a career as a European commissioner for the next ten years. This is not usually considered a good career move by UK politicians. At the time it seemed odd, and right now looks to me more like he wanted out from westminster. This might go some way to explaining that career change.

Newsnight report that Cyril Smith was filmed visiting premises in Lambeth, just across the river from the houses of parliament, also visited by lots of boys and believed to be used for sex. In fact, the report says that child abuse was filmed. Smith seems to be named because of other information about him, and of course because he is dead. Other important people seem to have been involved.

It seems likely that other officers will still be alive who know about this, but then there is this problem of being arrested under the official secrets act if they tell anyone.

It would seem that these people are seeking public assurances from the government that they will not face prosecution if they now give evidence about what they know.

BBC iPlayer - Newsnight - 16/03/2015

But playback was remarkably slow. Maybe security services are blocking it?

Oh, and people are concerned the official investigation of the metropolitan police is in fact being done by their own investigation department.

You know, this story has come all the way round and returned to where it began. Conservatives overreacting to prevent public knowledge of paedophile allegations. Who knows why mcAlpine was so upset. It might have been because he was aware there was far more in this general area which could come out and he wished to prevent it. It might be he was personally incensed because he had in the past opposed coverup, and now was accused when he had tried to prevent it.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,642
Media
62
Likes
5,043
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
@Dandelion, I think you are crediting the Home Secretary with more power than he has. Additionally you point out that Brittan was Home Secretary from 1983 but a cover-up had to be earlier also which would have been when Whitelaw was Home Secretary, and I think it is inconceivable that a junior minister in his office could have master-minded a cover up.

* A cover-up of this nature by a Home Secretary would leak. Whitehall leaks! Some official would have made sure the newspapers got the appropriate, mislaid file.
* The police don't leak as much as the government, but this sort of story would leak.
* There are times when it is right to breach even the official secrets act. There are defences for such a breach. Senior police had both a legal and moral obligation to act.

The intervention which stopped the investigation had to come from a higher authority than the Home Secretary.

The title of this thread is wrong - the one named offender is a Liberal and I don't think anyone expects Conservative or Labour to escape the shame.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
well i seem to recall that willie whitelaw died some time ago, so maybe Brittan was the last left alive who had responsibility for this. That would explain why the inquiry has been allowed to go forwards now. I am not convinced a junior minister would have masterminded a coverup, but it would rather depend on the competences of the people available to do this. On the one hand, involving more people than necessary is not exactly sensible, but on the other hand, i can quite see how a select band of politicians might have conferred on how to handle this. If someone had approached Brittan, would he have referred it to his bosses if it was within his remit to take action? doing so would involve them in the coverup as well, and they might not thank him for that.

There are other possibilities. it seems clear home office files have been tampered with, as witness the recent debacle of the investigation into past reported cases, where someone has destroyed or hidden all the paperwork. It is absolutely clear now that there was an official coverup, and that would explain the missing files. Quite who arranged it is another matter. it would seem from the Newsnight report that at least one senior member of the intelligence services was seen at the premises, so it might be he was sufficiently senior to have arranged this, or got colleagues to do so. but that simply means the security services were running maverick divorced from government. Far more likely that the government was consulted, even if privately.

It would seem Brittan was also giving security services permission for phone taps they arguably should not have had, so he plainly did have dealings with them.

i'm afraid it does all fit and explain why he decided to leave westminster. Now we cant ask him. that must be a relief for David Cameron. Less of a relief that this has become public before rather than after the election.

This story is still running. It would seem two senior police officers were also present at these events. labour has started asking questions whether the government will guarantee potential witnesses will not be prosecuted for revealing what they know. teresa May has managed "I would hope that anybody who has any information that relates to acts of child abuse would be willing to take that information to the inquiry and/or the police"

Well they already did take their information to the police, they ARE the police. And then they were ordered not to tell anyone else. May's statement is not nearly good enough.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I see channel 4 has a witness who was an abused child at the time, who was ordered by police not to tell anyone about what had happened. The told him he was lying and would be in trouble if he continued. this seems to be exactly the tactic used by McAlpine at the start of this thread, who effectively silenced the witness who had named him. I repeat, i dont believe anyone has suggested McAlpine was involved personally and it was mistaken identity, but his action plainly had the effect of scaring off people from coming forward. The question is whether this was why McAlpine was so heavy handed in suing people right, left and centre. he should not have been able to do this.

In light of this, we perhaps need to reexamine the newly chosen head of the investigation. It remains outrageous that only 'establishment' types have been considered for this role. This cover up has started to involve the current government.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,642
Media
62
Likes
5,043
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
May's statement is not nearly good enough.

May cannot change the law - that needs an Act of Parliament. I fail to see what more she could possibly do.

The Official Secrets Act was used to silence the police investigators. Back in the early 80s this was essentially the 1911 OSA (a few revisions) which made it an offence to act in a way which damaged the safety or interest of the State. This did not mean a way which damaged the safety or interest of a politician or a minister. I cannot see that the OSA could have been used to safeguard a minister. It would have been straightforward for a policeman warned under the OSA to get advice from a solicitor and confirm this.

This whole area is shrouded in smoke. However I do not accept that a cabinet minister would have had the power to bring about a cover up.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
May cannot change the law - that needs an Act of Parliament. I fail to see what more she could possibly do.
at the very least she could state that her department will not instigate prosecutions.Cameron should state that his government will not do so. At the worst, she could promise a pardon for any related breeches of the official secrets act, but since releasing information is virtually by definition a crime the government defines to be a crime, she can bluntly state that no information of this nature will be deemed an official secret.

The point is, she declined to do this. She is still threatening any whistleblowers. What do you reckon there is still to come out!

It would have been straightforward for a policeman warned under the OSA to get advice from a solicitor and confirm this.
I am reminded of the clive pontin case, a civil servant who leaked information about the falkands war, so just about at that time. He was sacked and tried. must have cost him a fortune, even though he was found innocent by the jury, despite judges ruling that a secret was what the government said it was. As a result, the government changed the law to tighten up their control over what constitutes a secret and leave less leeway for someone to defy them.

So, defy your bosses. Spend a year fighting a very expensive case. Get sacked. lose your pension. Maybe go to jail anyway. Really?

However I do not accept that a cabinet minister would have had the power to bring about a cover up.
Of course he would. most of the state is now run by decrees signed by ministers.

It seems that Cyril Smith was heavily protected by someone. The investigation into this by this government has been dragging and dragging its feet to try not to investigate anything. The biggest evidence that there is something serious behind this is their refusal to investigate openly.
 
Last edited:
1

185248

Guest
Here we have in Aus, introduced to parliment by a conservative government a bill for Data Retention of the internet. It was first discussed on a platform that it was needed because of terrorism. Why? Because of the supposed lone madman who the police, federal police, and all intelligence agencies knew about, carried out his own threats at a Sydney cafe.

When public opinion pointed out the faliure of these organizations, the government swithched to the platform that this bill was neede to track paedophiles by using Data Retention.

It is quite obvious that the government has used this avenue to silence opposition, because no-one would want to be seen speaking out against this bill after their use of this reason.

I am disgusted that this argument is now being used in liew to push through this bill when it was not part of the original reasoning. If this was a reason for these extra powers, why was it not put before parliment years ago? Abuse of this reasoning and children has now reached to the highest level for leverage to pass an invasion of privacy bill.

It bellitles the truth and democracy.

It's like a government saying we are going to war because of weapons of mass destruction, then later saying we are there because of terrorism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,642
Media
62
Likes
5,043
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
at the very least she could state that her department will not instigate prosecutions.Cameron should state that his government will not do so. At the worst, she could promise a pardon for any related breeches of the official secrets act, but since releasing information is virtually by definition a crime the government defines to be a crime, she can bluntly state that no information of this nature will be deemed an official secret.

The point is, she declined to do this. She is still threatening any whistleblowers. What do you reckon there is still to come out!

May's Department has a duty to instigate prosecutions where a case can be made that someone has broken the law. May cannot over-ride this. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the government" but any part of government that is aware of what looks like a breach of the law has an obligation to instigate prosecution and Cameron cannot over-ride this. May cannot issue "pardons". She cannot unilaterally decide what is and is not a crime. The point remains that there is very little that May can do. Wanting her to do more is useless - we have a system which makes politicians act within the law. We could of course legislate to change the law in this particular case and this might well be something the next parliament should look at.

As for your final sentence, if you have hunted through the internet with sufficient energy you will know at whom many anonymous internet sources are pointing the finger. Let's all hope these ideas are completely wrong.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
May's Department has a duty to instigate prosecutions where a case can be made that someone has broken the law. May cannot over-ride this.
that is absolutely untrue. Every law has a get out clause that prosecution will only take place in the national interest. There is no reason for any prosecution to be brought on any charge if it is against the national interest, and the government can stop any prosecution on this basis. And as I mentioned, they can pardon anyone for anything.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the government"
In the Uk this generally means the prime minister, acting unilaterally. Of course, he might be ejected from office if he fails to carry the support of his senior ministers and ultimately a majority of MPs.

I am not certain, but probably Teresa May personally has the power to halt any prosecution without reference to anyone else at all.

Any part of government that is aware of what looks like a breach of the law has an obligation to instigate prosecution and Cameron cannot over-ride this.
That is patent nonsense. It doesnt have such a duty, where does it say that in law? These are ministers responsible to her majesty to carry out their offices according to her wishes. Doubt they often do that, either. What they do often do is temper their actions in light of possible voter reaction.

The official secrets act is even more an optional crime than most, because the government decides what constitutes an official secret. All they have to do is make a declaration that no information related to this matter will be considered an official secret, and no other action will be taken against anyone for disclosing such information. That is not a difficult step to take, but they have not.

What appears to be the case here is that the government is unwilling to allow anyon to come forward with information

we have a system which makes politicians act within the law.
Leaving aside the question that law is irerlevant if you never get caught breaking it, and never get punished if you do, and that established fact seems to be precisely the situation with Cyril Smith MP, the law generally gives ministers vast amounts of personal discretion in many many things. More than ever in the history of the UK. The historic balance of monarch/ministers/parliament had been completely trashed in recent years.

if you have hunted through the internet with sufficient energy you will know at whom many anonymous internet sources are pointing the finger
I have no idea what might be lurking on the internet. What I want is what I started this thread wanting. the right for such things to be openly and publicly debated. Exactly what Mr Smith plus his anonymous benefactors wanted to prevent. The solution to this class of problem is a balanced approach to guilt and innocence, but most particularly a right, in fact a duty, to speak publicly.
 

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
80,732
Media
1
Likes
45,997
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
SICK
of seeing Paedophile allegations , resurfacing all the time
havent you Poms sorted that out yet or are you going to take it into your May elections and beyond ..
3 years worth so far

get a grip, so to speak .. never going to end, like everything else
almost a pointless discussion ...

maybe it comes under the LPSG TOS

'discussion of minors' even if its Adult related?
 

Cobalt Blue

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Posts
2,264
Media
1
Likes
2,096
Points
433
Location
UK
SICK
of seeing Paedophile allegations , resurfacing all the time
havent you Poms sorted that out yet or are you going to take it into your May elections and beyond ..
3 years worth so far

get a grip, so to speak .. never going to end, like everything else
almost a pointless discussion ...

maybe it comes under the LPSG TOS

'discussion of minors' even if its Adult related?
"get a grip" you say?
Funny.
It should be obvious to anyone in the UK that this scandal involves so many names that any enquiry will:
1. Never be sanctioned until all those named are dead [see my posts above]
and
2. Whatever it may eventually reveal will be redacted out of existence like the Chilcot Inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq.