Sounds good, albeit risk: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ewers.html I didn't see the programme, did anyone else? Did anyone manage to see the two names? (If you did don't mention them!). Why did Cameron say that trying to out the paedophiles was a witch-hunt especially against people who are gay? Is that because he thinks paedophilia and homesexuality are the same, or does he know / have strong suspicions that the alleged perpetrators are 'also' gay, or what? Was it his way of deflecting the issue by pulling the bigotted homophobe card on Schofield? Seems to raise alot of questions does this 'ere ambush.

Sounds good, albeit risk: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ewers.html I didn't see the programme, did anyone else? Did anyone manage to see the two names? (If you did don't mention them!). Why did Cameron say that trying to out the paedophiles was a witch-hunt especially against people who are gay? Is that because he thinks paedophilia and homesexuality are the same, or does he know / have strong suspicions that the alleged perpetrators are 'also' gay, or what? Was it his way of deflecting the issue by pulling the bigotted homophobe card on Schofield? Seems to raise alot of questions does this 'ere ambush.

The whole paedo thing is like the salem witch trials.

No doubt some of it is true. But allegations are fuelling allegations. I suspect many of them are complete bull being pedalled by:

(1) Attention seekers.
(2) People after a quick buck.
(3) Lawyers.

Actually, looking at the above, (1) + (2) = (3). How ironic.

First up – the discussion is fine, but as mentioned elsewhere, let's not go down the route of naming names or hinting at the same.

Now, to the subject: in my opinion, I think David Cameron was caught off guard, so the comment should be taken in that light.

Since questions over abuse in North Wales are linked to the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile – if only in that they have re-emerged because of that case – then the sexuality issue is nonsense: Savile is alleged to have abused (almost exclusively) females.

It's worth noting that rape is not the same as sex. For instance, rape in prisons or as a weapon of war is about power and the exercise of power, and it would be wrong to see it as 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual'. These things are not about sex – or, therefore, sexuality.

It could be seen as a little surprising that Cameron didn't order an inquiry into the BBC after the Savile allegations were broadcast. It would have been enormously popular with some on the right.

But now, in terms of the allegations around North Wales and senior politicians, he has ordered an inquiry into the Waterhouse Inquiry, which reported in 2000.

Now just for clarity, nothing that I have heard or read suggests that Cameron is remotely involved himself, but I suspect that he's been told some of what could be revealed and is desperately trying to bail a ship with a leaky bucket.

This is a can of worms, but it isn't going to go away. It's also not unconnected to some of the issues raised by Leveson – not least in terms of police corruption.

If senior politicians (of any party) were engaged in such abuse, then the security forces and police cannot but have known. Similarly, in the Savile case, his autobiography quite clearly says that, if the police had gone for him, he'd have 'taken them with him', because they were 'doing the same thing'.

Given what we learned a few weeks ago about Hillsborough, I think we're witnessing a wider opening up of the question of corruption in this country.

And I have no idea where it will go.

Video Ref may well be correct in terms of opportunistic claims of abuse, but it is also classic behaviour that the abuser – who holds the power (see above) – is often not 'challengeable' (if you will) until their death breaks a sort of chain, a hold, on the victim.

In the North Wales situation, the victims who came forward and testified to the inquiry, have never had any form of justice. For whatever reason, no prosecutions followed and there was a bar on anyone named at the inquiry being named in public.

So, much as I loathe conspiracy theories, I can understand that such a situation will inevitably provoke exactly that, whether that was ever a deliberate intention or not.

Talking of can of worms and Savile, the DM today had an article linking him the Yorkshire Ripper case. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html EDIT: They seem to have edited that article from earlier today - unless there is another on their site. The first article was much stronger.

Talking of can of worms and Savile, the DM today had an article linking him the Yorkshire Ripper case. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html EDIT: They seem to have edited that article from earlier today - unless there is another on their site. The first article was much stronger.

Can anyone imagine what Savile's family must feel like?

There are so many victims here.

In fact this was the aricle I was looking for: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ctims.html There some pretty amazing things that come out of that (if true). Not least, what it implies the police may have known /suspected Savile of / capable of?

In fact this was the aricle I was looking for: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ctims.html There some pretty amazing things that come out of that (if true). Not least, what it implies the police may have known /suspected Savile of / capable of?

Well the comments in Savile's own autobiography say quite clearly that the police knew that he was an abuser.

And the mainstream media knew. That's equally clear.

And to an extent at least, that's why this case is so important.

Nothing has changed in my opinion. I know personally from two separate cases where child safeguarding concerns were reported to a local authority about the same institution at around the same time and the police that neither took any action. The authority in question was mentioned on TV recently as one that had swept these issues under the carpet in the past. So far as I can tell they still do to this day. The first reaction of local government, schools, etc seems to be to close their ears and eyes to any wrong-doing and simply ignore it or persucute the whilstle-blower. To give an example at a more mundane level, schools with the local authority imposition of tick-box culture produce and publish fancy anti-bullying policies. If any parent ever suggests bullying may have occured,the headteachers invariably say something like "we don't have any bullying at this school." What nonsense, every school everywhere has some degree of bullying in that well-known place the "real world."

Has anyone sent for the Paedofinder General yet?

I would post the link to a well known file-sharing site But last time I did it got edited out.

This goes an awful lot further than North Wales. From Dunblane to Haute de la Gaume to Mountbatten.

A few obvious questions arise;
1/ Why has'nt Max clifford been questioned when he has openly stated that x number of celebs have contacted him asking for advice?
2/ How high up does all of this go? Now knowing that Saville had links to prime ministers and the royal family?
3/ Why was operation Ore disbanded?
4/ How much info has Murdoch got on politicians,celebs, royalty? And for that matter, Robert Maxwell?

I've no doubt the outcome will be a cover-up, unless d notices and injunctions are lifted.

I would add that there is an issue with child protection/social services, in that – for pretty obvious reasons – only cases where things go wrong are going to get reported. If those services save a child, you will not hear about it.

Now perhaps that's an issue with the publications or with the consumers of such media – I don't know which. But anyone who believes that what is reported is the whole story is either naive at best, or prepared to use the abuse of children to make political points.

And before anyone asks, I have personal experience of child protection services and found them to be exemplary. And yes – they succeeded in their remit. And the work that they do is deeply difficult – you couldn't pay me enough to do what they do, and put themselves through what they do. And the attitude of some of the mainstream media, over 30 or so years, has not helped. But then again, given that the [iDaily Mail[/i, for instance, actually profits from promoting [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/this-isnt-just-journalism-this-is-daily.htmla Lolitaesque approach to sexualising underage girls (and the occasional boy)[/url, who could possibly be surprised?

So if someone starts telling you how moral the [iMail[/i is, you could perhaps point out to them that the [iMail[/i profits from sexualising children. Be gentle: obviously they won't know this, because otherwise they wouldn't be promoting the paper in question or linking to it or buying it.

I have read some, if true, pretty strange stuff these last few weeks. High ranking MPs, PM's, The Aristocracy, The Police, TV stars and many others. All involved in alleged systematic child abuse rings and the even more scary one about secret services using blackmail and murdering witnesses.
If these allegations are true does any body actually believe that this will be truly investigated?
Also how does someone get away with blogs and websites naming these alleged abusers?

Didn't seem like that to me. I think he was trying to make the point that people that spread rumours on the intent that certain people are paedophiles are more likely to that if those people are gay or rumoured to be gay.

It does seem that most of the Tories that are subject to the current internet allegations have also being subject to rumours in the past about their sexuality.

Maybe we should ban same sex boarding schools? One strongly suspects that the issue with these Establishment figures is that their first sexual experiences involved other boys / younger boys at their boarding schools. Read Stephen Fry's autobiography for an insight.

No, he was hit with the equivalent of a baseball bat across the face live on daytime TV and he spoke off the cuff, unscripted and needing to fill a gap in the way that all politicians seem to think they have to.

I have a little sympathy for him but not too much, I'd prefer a politician to be honest and not speak from a prepared sheet of stock answers and if Schofields editing team (he didn't really find that list himself did he) had informed the PM's office of what was going to happen then they'd either have refused to answer or prepared a short speech - Camerons reaction was pretty good for a live response although my first reaction was that he'd put his foot in his mouth by linked homosexuality with a paedophile question, albeit accidently - however a half a gold star to him for giving an answer at all.

Quite honestly it would have been acceptable for him to tell Schofield to f*** off with his question (yes literally) being that he was there to speak about dementia and I would have given a full gold star for that.

As Lord Grantham said in Downton Abbey just last Sunday, "Good god if I'd been given a shilling every time a boy tried to kiss me at Eton then I'd be a very wealthy man by now"

This is what is`wrong with our country. People thinking the PM should be given time to prepare a scripted response to every question. Surely our leaders should have their own convictions and have integrity and thus not be afraid to answer any candid question? Especially, when he himself has saw fit at every opporunity to make soundbite comments (a la Blair) that he thinks the public want to hear on Savile, etc. Schofield has just demonstated, in my opinion, the dichotomy between vacous comments for public consumption and an apparent lack of will to do anything about the matter.

Personally I'd love to see a much more open discussion on everything within politics, including profane language to make a point, would make PMQ's a lot more entertaining than the script led bawling that passes for debate these days, even the BBCs Question Time works to a script for which pre-prepared answers are handed out like crib notes that accompany a powerpoint presentation.

I am not sure this is quite right - just because you are not believed or you cannot provide evidence that is greater than your word against someone else's doesn't mean you haven't received justice. In many of the cases the alleged victims couldn't say when or where the abuse occured - if you were a defendant how do you deal with that?

We should be very careful when naming people without real evidence. Dave Jones the soccer manager is a classic example of high profile individual who will be forever blighted by a false accusation of this nature.

I have no idea and nor do any of us on here as to exactly what went on in Wrexham - if it can be proved correctly that abuse of minors did occur those responsible should have the full weight of the law thrown at them, regardless of their social status.

The nature of one's first sexual experience is not a synonym for abuse or becoming an abuser if it's a same-sex experience in a same-sex environment, any more than it is if it's a heterosexual experience in a non same-sex environment.

And let's remember: the abuse that has been alleged in recent weeks is not just abuse by adult males on juvenile males.

I would suggest that what might be more relevant is whether the situation where some children and adolescents are given (or take for themselves) the role of enforcing 'discipline' in some schools gives rise to bullying and abusive behaviour, which may (or may not) continue in adult life.

So for instance, Andrew Mitchell was apparently known as 'Thrasher' at Rugby because he was such a stern disciplinarian. Giving children or adolescents such authority/power seems a pretty much guaranteed way to cause problems.

I completely agree about not just naming people casually.

The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence.

There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.

On the Cameron/Schofield incident the problem is that a number of the internet rumours about senior Tories being paedophiles are pointing at people who are either known to be gay or are openly gay, and Cameron will know this like anyone else who has really been paying attention. It may surprise some people, but I read a quote from Stonewall fairly recently which pointed out that the Conservative Party has more openly gay MPs than all the other parties put together, and there are plenty of other high profile figures who are openly gay. So when Cameron says he’s worried about a witch hunt against gay people in particular, it’s not because he is linking gay people and paedophiles, it is because the rumours flying around, consciously or not, appear to be doing this. So I think some people today criticising him in the media for linking two separate issues probably haven’t worked this out and see it as an easy opportunity to put the boot in.

On the related subject of public inquiries It’s become something of a political fad to call for public inquiries into just about everything and anything, and the public is now buying into this rather hollow form of gesture politics as a serious response. It’s almost a stock call to every issue that arises now, and if authorities don’t do it immediately then critics claim they’re hiding something. What most people don’t understand is that public inquiries cost massive amounts of money, even small ones cost millions, with all the consultants, lawyers, researchers, professional quangocrats etc… and if you rush into them to show something is being done ( covering) then same critics who wanted a knee jerk inquiry will claim they’re flawed or a whitewash and demand yet another inquiry, all the while the consultants and lawyers rub their hands together. So having inquiries is fine if they are carefully considered once the initial heat dies down, but the knee-jerk “we must order an inquiry” line is an expensive token gesture.

I've mentioned exactly the same today elsewhere. I think everyone on here knows I'm not Camerons biggest fan

but I do think he's getting some unfair stick over this. Anyone with half a brain could understand what he was trying to get at. It would be quite easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and call him like some are as its been quite easy to do over the last 2 years, but in all fairness it wouldn't be right in this case. I can't believe I'm about to say this but ... cut him some slack people!

Quote ="Mintball"I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.'" The Regan report is shocking, but this www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.

Quote ="Mintball"I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.'" The Regan report is shocking, but this www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.

Conspiracy 'nutter' David Icke was quite openly stating that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile and necrophiliac over five years ago.

Oh how I laughed at Icke's claims of a countrywide paedophile ring consisting of high ranking members of our society, all protected from any prosecution by their masonic connections. Now I'm thinking WTF he might have been right all along!