Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Elm Street Guest House Scandal


xerxes
 Share

Recommended Posts

This article is worth reading.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/who-does-the-100-year-ban-protect-1-545863

 

The claim that I think was published by The Herald that it was George Robertson who wrote a letter in support of Hamilton getting a gun license. He successfully sued them, but the 100 year D Notice makes it look like somebody in a high place was influential in getting him his gun license back after it had been revoked.

 

http://thescum.info/category/media/page/3/

 

The depth and breadth of this whole thing is huge, and that is why I believe they'll create a cut off point. Some people will fall, some people who have died will be blamed and everyone will think justice is done, but it won't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is worth reading.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/who-does-the-100-year-ban-protect-1-545863

 

The claim that I think was published by The Herald that it was George Robertson who wrote a letter in support of Hamilton getting a gun license. He successfully sued them, but the 100 year D Notice makes it look like somebody in a high place was influential in getting him his gun license back after it had been revoked.

 

http://thescum.info/category/media/page/3/

 

The depth and breadth of this whole thing is huge, and that is why I believe they'll create a cut off point. Some people will fall, some people who have died will be blamed and everyone will think justice is done, but it won't be.

 

Funny you posting this as I'd been typing something along similar lines and then deleted it. Nicholas Fairbairn would have been Robertson's constituency MP. Robertson lived next door to one of my best friends at school, 200m along the road from Dunblane Primary School

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see where this all goes, and it is multi-layered.

 

Homosexuality was only legalised for the over 21’s in 67, the age of consent only reduced to 18 in 1994, and to 16 in 2000. Some will have committed “crimes” which subsequently were not. But sexual offences against children (u16s) have always been abhorred and the idea that there was widespread tolerance is I think mistaken.

 

A culture also existed in both the intelligence services and Whips offices that knowing information and holding it to manipulate individuals was better than the Courts dealing with it.

 

A particularly distasteful sub-text to all of this is how children in general, and poor children in particular, were seen as worthless and entertainment, and how the rich, famous and powerful felt a sense of entitlement over them.

 

When you combine the repressed sexuality that recent law changes have changed, and lack of voice for children that existed until quite recently, you have a pretty potent cocktail for exploitation.

 

But although circumstances have changed for the better, the scheming and manipulating like Savile, Harris and Hall will always be searching for their chance to exploit. I wonder what some would do to get on the likes of X factor and Big Brother?

 

What will happen now? I think it will be open season on the dead. I don’t think that Leon Brittan will ever be seen in a public capacity again, nor that Cliff Richard will ever tour this country again, and may not even set foot here again ( although of course both have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any offence).

 

Much will depend upon witnesses prepared to testify , and many are in a position to offer out of court settlements that would match any sale to a tabloid. And proving sex cases in a court, when independent witnesses tend to be absent, is no easy task.

 

I do think that Butler Schloss is an unwise choice of judge when you consider that her brother has not simply been implicated in whitewashing potentially guilty individuals but also that he himself was involved in inappropriate activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On butler schloss : The Home Office has backed Baroness Butler-Sloss as the right person to lead an inquiry into allegations of historical child abuse, after claims about her over a previous review.

 

Phil Johnson, who was abused while a choirboy, claims she wanted to exclude some of his allegations in a bid to protect the Church of England.

 

He says she told him she "cared very much about the Church".

 

Baroness Butler-Sloss said she had never put institutions before victims. Mr Johnson, who suffered assaults by a number of clergymen when he was a choirboy in the Church of England Diocese in Chichester, said he felt during her review of Church abuse, Baroness Butler-Sloss had been "showing bias and wasn't being impartial".

 

At a meeting in her House of Lords office in 2011, Mr Johnson says: "She told me that she cared very much about the Church and seemed to be wanting to protect the Church's image."

 

'Negative publicity'

Mr Johnson alleges that Baroness Butler-Sloss had told him if she included the bishop's name in her report it would distract from the more serious abuse of two priests.

 

But he also said that she "didn't want to generate any excessive negative publicity for the Church".

 

"She expressed that by saying that 'the press would love a bishop' and she didn't want to give the press that trophy."

 

The problem with this kind of story is we only have someone's word, if they are lying the damage and mistrust created is already done. I do think there's enough links for her not to be the right person for the job,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There do seem to be some obvious conflicts of interest with Butler-Sloss but if the inquiry is intended to be investigating and reporting on a whole range of institutions, how many people are there unconnected to any public body with the authority to lead such a wide-ranging review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pity it took so long.

 

They had one of her chums on the radio earlier, didn't catch who it was, trying to defend the indefensible...a woman of the utmost integrity blah, I'm quite sure she wouldnt let any of that cloud her judgement,  blah. Another case of one rule for them, another for us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other countries must be looking in thinking wtf!?

 

A paedo ring operating within parliament for decades ... This is some fucked up shit. David Icke called this years and years ago. I just hope the other stuff that he's been calling out isn't true as we'll all be getting bummed by lizards within a year.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...