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!

Not sure about KF's and HWS's comments on gay MPs. At the end of the day, being gay and a paedophile are not mutually exclusive. If people are being rumoured as paedophiles they should still be investigated with rigour and not exempted because they are gay. Indeed, in the North Wales case the victims were boys, arguably making it more likely that the perpetrators were gay?

Quote ="Cibaman"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.'" A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Quote ="Cibaman"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.'" A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Oh how the rest of us laugh at someone pretending that a man who believes that the world is ruled by a secret group of giant lizards has a shred of credibility.



Unfortunately, some bigots will try to use the abuse of children and young people to suit their bigoted agenda.

Oh, how ridiculous.

Here ...

Again you're putting words in my mouth!! Show me where I said they should be exempted. I'm saying some people are assuming that because you are gay you are automatically a paedophile and I am saying thats not the case.

Nobody on this thread – from across a range of political opinions – has suggested that anyone should be 'exempted' from an investigation for any reason. Equally, nobody has suggested that homosexuals cannot be paedophiles, although in asserting that they can, Dally is effectively suggesting that people have said this – or he is at least attempting to make such a link.

As noted earlier, abuse and rape are essentially about power and that should be remembered when discussing them. Rape in prison does not occur because the rapists have suddenly become gay. Equally, rape as a weapon of war does not occur because soldiers are heterosexual.

Dally's on one of his trolling outings. As has been mentioned by various people over the years, trolls often simply exaggerate views that they do actually hold themselves for effect.

My view is quite straightforward. People's initial sexual experiences (good and bad) have an enormous psychological impact and often sub-consciously influence their actions in this area in later life. I posit that the Tory party has more openly gay MPs simply because a higher proportion of their party went to all male boarding schools, where they had their passive or actual initial sexual experiences. Those experiences would invariably with young teenage boys either consemsually or as bully / 'bullyee'. I contend it therefore makes it quite plausible (if not highly probable) that gay Tory MPs / ex-MPS may in some cases also have been abusers of teenage boys in their later life. That is not being a bigot that is thinking logically.

If you wish to mock my hypothesis, go away, conduct an experiment and provide empiral, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, suggest a more rational hypothesis.

There is no evidence that you are 'made' gay – or straight, for that matter – by some event or other. Any more than there is any evidence that you 'choose' your sexuality.

That is the reality in terms of the scientific thinking on the issue of what 'causes' sexuality these days.

And it is utter codswallop, and lacking in anything close to logical thinking, to pretend that negative early sexual experiences would only affect gay people. Unless you can find some sort of equal argument for why some heterosexuals abuse, your 'hypothesis' is simply balderdash.

No Dally, you appear to misunderstand how research works. It is up to the person proposing a theory to back it up with experiments or to provide empirical, peer-reviewed evidence in support of their theory.

Not for the rest of the world to provide evidence to disprove an unproven theory.
That's like dear old Kirkstaller saying that because no-one can prove God doesnt exist that is evidence of his existence.

If we run that theory then surely very few Tory MP's would ever procreate because they'd all be too busy having a jolly old game of Cum On The Biscuit.

Really? So the great theoretical physicists were a waste of space?

Wow,wow, wow, you don't have to be gay to be a paedophile, striaght people can be aswell. If you're gay or straight, who cares? the public only care if they're paedophiles. David Cameron's comments were cleverly spoken, straight on the backfoot, he retorts about outing homosexuals, straight away he dflected the argument away from the rumours. The rumours that I have read, have shown no regards to the sexuality of those named or rumoured. Saville was bisexual, as is Gary Glitter. Freddy Starr as far as I know is straight, some of the mps rumoured to be involved are married with children, so Cameron's comments are flawed.. all he has done, is another divide and conquoror (sic) episode.

As for david Icke website, it's certainly eye-opening. Most of it is crap, some of it believeable, but a lot on there seem to have mental problems, whilst some are extremely clever and know where to look for things. Most significant about david Icke, he has been saying/ accusing things for years, and yet, has not been arrested. To me, that says there is an element of truth in his accusations.


Suffer little children seems rather apt atm.

To be fair to Icke again, although I too scoff at his worldview that we are all being controlled by alien lizardmen, is it any more outlandish then a belief in God and the Devil? Yet the most prominent positions in our global society are occupied by people who still believe 5000 year old fairytales.

Great plan. This would presumably mean forcing hundreds or maybe thousands of male children to attend all male boarding schools; install total "big brother house" surveillance, and keep logs of each and every passive or actual initial sexual experiences for every child. Then wait until a statistically meaningful number of these children have become adults, been elected as Tory MPs and had a career. Make sure that they all agree to meticulously log and record for you whenever they abuse teenage boys in their later life, then once you've received enough reports, hey presto, job done!

Can anyone see any possible flaws or difficulties in the practicalities of conducting this experiment?




Dally, pretty much every hypothesis there's ever been, with the possible exception of David Icke and Todd Akin, is more rational than your effort, which aurally compares well to the sound of kennels, and is to rationality what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting.

Wonderful phraseology, mein Erdeschwein!