The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

[One Thousand Words]

How is Jimmy Saville part of the elite?

 

[Ismene]

^^
Thatcher loved him, Edwina Currie placed Dr Saville at the head of a Broadmoor management team she said in her diaries "My word, Jimmy can really sort out union men, what an incredible man", Prince Charles regarded him as a "mentor", coffee mornings with coppers every friday for years.

Oh and he was Sir Jimmy Saville after all.

 

[HouseFever]

Him and Sutcliffe being bros didn't raise eyebrows, lol whats that about? Spose he done a lot for charity.

 

[Vurtual]

How is Jimmy Saville part of the elite?

Well he's just one of the useful plebs that get to join the coattails of the elite (you can't have one of the proper people actually doing the dirty business of picking up children) - he earned his 'sir jimmel' for services to the elite.

Surely most of the 'elite' (however you define it) aren't actually paedophiles, just a sick kernel; however, the rest of the elite have more empathy with their sickest members than they do with any actual pleb (even a sir jimmel when it comes to it) - they (mostly) genuinely think it's best for humanity to cover shit up if it threatens the status quo (conveniently enough)

 

[Chatative]

Surely Butler Sloss should step down now?

Baroness Butler-Sloss told a victim of alleged abuse that she did not want the claims to be in the public domain because “the press would love a bishop”.

Yeah we all know how much the press would love bashing the bishop. (Sorry...)

 

[parttime crackhead]

How is Jimmy Saville part of the elite?

No idea, he seemed just like an ordinary bloke to me...

Spoiler: Elite Jimmy

 

[Sammy G]

Surely Butler Sloss should step down now? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4145685.ece

Why?

Again, this is a non-story - she's not actually covered up anything. All she's done is refused to specifically name in her official report a bishop against whom allegations were made for fear of sparking press hysteria, but at the same time she did name him in her private correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury, i.e. his boss. Phil Johnson (the guy who made the allegations and who presumably sold this 'story' to the press) freely admits this.

This all occurred BEFORE the bishop in question (Peter Ball) was charged with anything. He's going to trial in November.

 

[Vurtual]

Why?

Well she's obviously got a conflict of interest with her family, and she's a card-carrying establishment-ite. She shouldn't be on any inquiry into any part of the establishment unless there's some 'normals' in there too. But i'd extend that logic to all judges personally (they all have to be a member of the specific law society branch in the city of london corporation - that's well fishy for a start - they've been shafting us from there since the middle ages).

Have you seen any british 'inquiries' that didn't turn into a whitewash and need to be redone a decade later when the important people are dead.

 

[Sammy G]

Vurtual, I'm aware of the conflict of interest claims, as you'll see from prior posts.

I was asking why the latest 'revelations', contained in the Times article, should be the tipping point.

 

[parttime crackhead]

She's stepped down. It appears she has a shred of sense in her heid, unlike the government who appointed her in the first place.

I was honoured to be invited by the Home Secretary to chair the wide-ranging inquiry about child sexual abuse and hoped I could make a useful contribution.

It has become apparent over the last few days, however, that there is a widespread perception, particularly among victim and survivor groups, that I am not the right person to chair the inquiry. It has also become clear to me that I did not sufficiently consider whether my background and the fact my brother had been Attorney General would cause difficulties.

This is a victim-orientated inquiry and those who wish to be heard must have confidence that the members of the panel will pay proper regard to their concerns and give appropriate advice to Government.

Nor should media attention be allowed to be diverted from the extremely important issues at stake, namely whether enough has been done to protect children from sexual abuse and hold to account those who commit these appalling crimes.

Having listened to the concerns of victim and survivor groups and the criticisms of MPs and the media, I have come to the conclusion that I should not chair this inquiry and have so informed the Home Secretary.

I should like to add that I have dedicated my life to public service, to the pursuit of justice and to protecting the rights of children and families and I wish the inquiry success in its important work.

 

[maxalfie]

Good,at last she has seen sense.

 

[Sammy G]

Seen sense? She's been shouted down, more like.

Though if this move silences the elite-lizard-paedo-conspiracy crew and allows the investigation to move forward, then it's a good thing.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Seen sense, yes.

It has become apparent over the last few days, however, that there is a widespread perception, particularly among victim and survivor groups, that I am not the right person to chair the inquiry. It has also become clear to me that I did not sufficiently consider whether my background and the fact my brother had been Attorney General would cause difficulties.

I can't fathom why you think she would have been an appropriate person to investigate, among other things, whether her brother played down/hushed up some of these paedo claims.

 

[maxalfie]

Sammy it doesn't matter what you think,surely it's what the victims of abuse think that counts.

 

[Sammy G]

Seen sense, yes.

It's an official statement. Do you think that actually reflects her actual thought processes?

I can't fathom why you think she would have been an appropriate person to investigate, among other things, whether her brother played down/hushed up some of these paedo claims.

Hold your horses, eh?

I've not once suggested that she's an appropriate appointment, I've just challenged certain sources which people have used in order to discredit her. Mostly that loopy 'Google Law' blog, which you must have seen and cringed at.

Are you on a comedown today?

Sammy it doesn't matter what you think,surely it's what the victims of abuse think that counts.

What utter horseshit.

I'm allowed to have an opinion, as is anybody.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Hold your horses, eh?

I've not once suggested that she's an appropriate appointment, I've just challenged certain sources which people have used in order to discredit her. Mostly that loopy 'Google Law' blog, which you must have seen and cringed at.

Apologies if you agree that she is far from an appropriate person to be dealing with this, it hasn't came across like that from your posts.

You say that she's been "shouted down by the press". The press aren't citing that google law blog, are they? Aren't they just pointing out that her brother had something to do with this, so she maybe shouldn't be the one to investigate? (So in that case, not shouted down at all but "seen sense", albeit after being forced to by the press). Again, apologies if I'm wrong - maybe they are linking to that blog and other dubious sources but I doubt it.

 

[Chatative]

Butler-Sloss steps down from child abuse inquiry

Enjoy the link, old news I see.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Butler-Sloss steps down from child abuse inquiry



Enjoy.

That's you just lost a mark. You were doing so well until now.

 

[Sammy G]

Apologies if you agree that she is far from an appropriate person to be dealing with this, it hasn't came across like that from your posts.

Mostly because the majority of my posts on the subject have been from the neutral perspective of an observer.

You say that she's been "shouted down by the press". The press aren't citing that google law blog, are they? Aren't they just pointing out that her brother had something to do with this, so she maybe shouldn't be the one to investigate? (So in that case, not shouted down at all but "seen sense", albeit after being forced to by the press).

The Times report from the other day (which appears to have prompted Vera Baird to appeal for her to step down) was in no way more damning than anything that was already in the public domain (and was completely unconnected with the conflict of interest re: her brother), yet the sole purpose of the article seems to have been to pile on more pressure for her to resign.

So I really don't think Butler-Sloss has 'seen sense', as much as she's seen a hefty payoff.

That's you just lost a mark. You were doing so well until now.

He'll never recover from that.

 

[Chatative]

Haha. :D