The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

[parttime crackhead]

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



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.



He'll never recover from that.

Aye, fair enough. She most likely hasn't seen sense at all. But she is correct to stand down, even if she has done so for the wrong reasons.

 

[Ismene]

A butler-sloss sounds like a vile german sex act.

 

[Vurtual]

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

Just because someone doesn't trust the establishment/elite (and their owned media), it doesn't mean they automatically believe the wackiest of blogs - i sometimes read these things and see what evidence they've got, follow references etc.; just like i do (and everyone should) with the established media - actually a tough call which are less reliable to be honest. I certainly have no assumptions that one will be more reliable than the other oustide of said evidence. Sometimes the evidence is there, but the normal media collectively decide to not notice it, so you only see the evidence in the 'blogosphere' - if you rely on the previous reputation of the media/blogs, that evidence stays repressed (eg lockerbie). This doesn't (always) need to be done with D-notices, as the people that own the media already think the same way as the establishment (because they're part of it) - no baroque conspiracy is needed, just acknowledgement of class alleigance, conscious or otherwise.

Add to this the sophistication of the established media/elite which has long ago learned that the best way to supress something isn't to totally supress it, but just confine it to the edges (eg private eye, back of the guardian, at a push channel 4 news or newsnight, or 10 seconds on an item at 3.00am on news24) - that way most people still never come across it, but the elite can't be done for a cover up later (you must have seen this information management style in action). A current example is how dead semites are dealt with on the news depending on whether they're palestinian or israeli (i mean who knew about the two disabled people killed in an israeli airstrike the other day? If they were israeli jews they would probably have interrupted programming for it (well it would have certainly been a headline and we'd have know their names, sympathised with their families etc)).

The pressure for butler-sloss to stand down was probably building from the grass roots and the various online petitions and people getting in touch with their mps (another recent tacit acknowledgement of this type of pressure happened with the abandoned syria bombing). This type of pressure is part of the reason the government are currently trying to bring in more control over the internet/phones so they can preempt these types of issues with even more sophisticated micromanagement of information/opinion (via some of the odious NSA/GCHQ online subversion methods outlined in snowden's released documents).

As i said before i don't trust any judge to not ultimately be biased towards the establishment - this is probably not even concsious for the most part, and they think they're totally honest (as do all the other people in the establishment). There are certain 'realities' that they see and accept over their whole life which become unconscious assumptions that inform all their thinking - as they see it, the 'plebs' just don't understand these important realities, and so sometimes have to be kept in the dark for their own good and for the good of the human future (delusions of granduer come with all that superficial physical granduer). This convenient self-justificatory thinking (via cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias) is present in all groups of people, but if we have democracy, the plebs' assumptions should be the 'winners' - for this reason the media exists: to manage public assumptions to suit better the reality of the elite's assumptions and avoid actual democracy at all costs. [sorry for the patronising OT morning marxist rant - i feel better now ]

 

[Sammy G]

I'm pretty sure that Butler-Sloss' resignation had nothing to do with any 'grass roots' movement, and everything to with pressure from Keith Vaz, Vera Baird and several other figures whom you would lump in with 'the establishment'.

We saw just how far 'grass roots' movements get with the Iraq war, didn't we? And that was enough to bring a million people out onto the streets; something which isn't happening here.

Can we just stick to paedos rather than lizards, at least for a little while?

 

[Vurtual]

Well you brought up lizards (not the best argument - ad hominem) - are you denying the reality of elite power and all its influence? Or that this particular topic (ie elite paedos) is very much entangled with that power?

The terms establishment and elite are fuzzy definitions, like all class-type definitions; however as a model of the workings of society and why it ends up organised as it is (eg why laws/courts tend to favour wealthy people), there aren't many better than class-based ones (eg marxism) - if you disagree, show me some (though maybe in another thread ).

 

[Sammy G]

Can we not just discuss individual paedo-related news stories as and when they appear? That's kinda what this thread was intended for after all.

Why not make a separate Super-elite-soulsucker Paedogeddon Speculation Thread, and speculate all you like? I won't be joining.

 

[Vurtual]

Yeah fair enough (i added that at the end of my post) - just my habit of turning every topic into marxism/politics (which is sort of accurate imv, but annoying to other people no doubt). However, in my defence i do think that this subject is currently very much about the elite (but i'll shut up now). [still with the 'soulsucker' ad hominem/strawman though]

 

[Sammy G]

Hey - I don't have you down as that type. It's just this kind of discussion attracts that type, and they usually have boundless energy and determination on their side. Before you know it, you have 20 pages of paranoia and very little to draw in anybody who isn't already involved.

 

[Vurtual]

^pretty much the perfect cover - disinformation. And i agree that's how threads like that often go, but certainly not every post (even the members of the david icke forum have found some useful stuff out believe it or not (so i heard ).

To get back on the specific topic (not really): Peter Morrison - and thatch knowing about his activities (as hinted at in edwina curry's book); Also that bloke in the mirror coming forward (surely his details are easily corroborated (the advantage that you suggested 'established' media uses)). i think there's something there that we need to know about - i also think that the paedos in the elite and their power had a direct influence on how 'society' treated 'normal' paedophilia over the decades. These are things that are in danger of being covered up (again) - part of that cover up is to only read about them in sources that haven't got the authority's blessing (argument ad authoritas (or whatever it's called) works unfortunately).

 

[Vurtual]

From the above link:

There are six notes throughout the dossier stating that material has been "deleted and closed" for a further 40 years under exemptions granted by the FOI act. It is understood that the exemptions used by officials in the Cabinet Office cover an obligation to withhold personal information and information given in confidence.

This is a year or two old, but what possible reason is there to hide the details of letters between thatch and jimmel for another 40 years when maggie dennis and jimmel are all dead? This is not evidence but it looks very bad - who decided that the details should be hidden? Some sir humphrey who is part of the 'establishment' no doubt. This is not evidence, but what's under the redactions could well be. Would an inquiry judge (establishment or otherwise (good luck finding a non-establishment judge)) be able to look under the redactions, and could we trust what they said they saw if they did (eg look at hutton and the bush-blair letters)

 

[Sammy G]

Maybe they were looking for somebody to bump off Diana, and Jim offered to fix it for them?

 

[Ismene]

Reports of sexual abuse by Saville were made to the police back in the 70’s.

I didn't think so - or if they were the police were so fucking bent they brushed them under the carpet in return for a bung from Jimmy.

 

[Ismene]

Yeah I know scots but as I said Jimmy bunged the police and got away with it. When MI5 "investigated" him if they ever did, would the police really have said "Yes, he gave me a bung and I let him off". Doubtful.

 

[Sammy G]

That's an opinion piece in Comment Is Free, not a news story.

Forgive me, but I'm not sure quite how that relates to Jimmy's alleged role as a pawn of the 'establishment' Paedo-lizards?

Yeah I know scots but as I said Jimmy bunged the police and got away with it. When MI5 "investigated" him if they ever did, would the police really have said "Yes, he gave me a bung and I let him off". Doubtful.

This. Corruption at the lowest level, essentially. No lizards.

 

[Sammy G]

Okay. Just looked like you were using it to support whatever case you were making about Savile. Apologies for the confusion.

Obsessed with lizards? Me? Do I know something you don't? Of course not!

NSFW:

 

[masaz]

Can we not just discuss individual paedo-related news stories as and when they appear? That's kinda what this thread was intended for after all.

Why not make a separate Super-elite-soulsucker Paedogeddon Speculation Thread, and speculate all you like? I won't be joining.

Renaming this the paedo social speculation spectacular :D

 

[Vurtual]

"Did Maggie know her closest aide was preying on underage boys?" - sometimes i don't mind if it's the daily mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689462/Did-Maggie-know-closest-aide-preying-age-boys.html

In July 1990, one-time Health Secretary Edwina Currie wrote in her diary, which was published many years later: ‘One appointment in the recent reshuffle has attracted a lot of gossip and could be very dangerous.

‘Peter Morrison has become the Prime Minister’s PPS. Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast” with a liking for young boys. She either knows and is taking a chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move.’

This week, Mrs Currie said: ‘There was talk about Peter and boys, especially at the time Mrs Thatcher chose him as her PPS. His appointment was quite a surprise. We heard that he took young men to a lodge in Scotland that his family owned. There was a lot of gossip, but I don’t think anyone told the Prime Minister.’

 

[Sammy G]

What’s more, they said that, since the boy victims were under-age (the homosexual age of consent was then 21), Morrison should have been charged with the much more serious offence of sexual crimes against children.

Important detail in bold.

Don't you think the fact that the age of consent was as high as 21 in (very) recent memory is more of a crime than the fact that Morrison may have broken that (stupid and homophobic) law?

Fucking hell.

Admittedly, the 15-year-old boy rap (for which he did receive a caution, having merely been caught in the toilets - i.e. 'cottaging') is pretty sinister, but the rest just reads like homophobic sensationalism.

Here's what one of his esteemed former colleagues had to say:

Edwina Currie, the former Conservative minister, has claimed that a leading Tory MP during Margaret Thatcher’s era had sex with underage boys — and senior party members had covered up for him.

Currie, 66, said this weekend she had heard that Sir Peter Morrison, Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the party, had sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of consent was 21.

“Was he doing anything illegal? Almost certainly. Would it be illegal today? Hard to tell now the age of consent is down to 16,” she said.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1153409.ece

 

[Vurtual]

Well i take your point about how these things are often conflated on the blogs with just gay activity for homophobic reasons (or to help with coverups), but currie said a 'noted pederast' in the original diary, which doesn't imply 16 year olds to me (the age of adulthood wasn't 21). And while sex with a 16 year old is not the same as a 10 year old, there's still something dodgy about (talking generally) having rent boy parties with vulnerable 16 year olds picked up off the street or a children's home, all the while being part of a victorian-style government that brought in section 28 - it was still a cover up which would have had massive implications if it came out.

Lets find out the truth and worry about which bits were paedophilia and which were just exploitation (or indeed consensual but massively hypocritical and covered up sex) later.

...

Craig Murray names the labour peer-dophile (fnar) who went senile as Lord Greville Janner (just to show it's not only tories at the party (mostly though)):

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/07/hysteria-versus-impunity/

 

[Sammy G]

Surely you can't place much stock in the use of the term 'pederast' by Currie, especially in light of her acknowledgement of the age of consent issue? In fact, has that word been used anywhere outside the context of a queer-hating slur since the mid-fifties?

Though yes, it seems as though there was some unsavourily exploitative behaviour going on, perhaps beyond the 'normal' power imbalances that characterise a lot of human sexual relations, whether casual or otherwise (though that's a rant for another day).

As you say - let's try to establish the truth first.

Peer-dophile? Nice. :D