• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

I agree with earlier statements about there being a lot of gray-area in the whole paedo thing.

I will open by stating that I am NOT a nonce, nor have I ever been, nor ever will I be. I've almost KILLED a paedo before (an actual child-rapist brutal monster type paedophile, not just someone who squeezed an underage girl's arse, this guy was fucking verminous trash of the worst possible kind)

But again, even if theres a fair few years between a young person and an older one, it does not automatically mean paedo IMO.

When I was almost 20, my fiancee was just a while 14. When we met, I had no thought to ask her out on a date, but before she even told me her name, she literally, and forcefully, slammed me into a tree trunk, pinned me, at the point of the barrel of a paintball gun, and started sticking her tongue in my mouth, another paintballer tried to step in (a guy) and break it up, and she just turned round and fucking dropped him to the floor. He was a big guy, probably in his 20s to early 30s at a guess
And she must have struck him one hell of a vicious blow. It certainly looked like it from the expression on his face, which said 'If I could still breathe right now I'd be bellowing in agonized choking, sobbing screams', and the way that she only had to crack him once, and he just folded up round her boots and collapsed. She might have stamped his kneecap in sideways too, but what I saw clearly was the brutal stomp on his testicles.

Whilst some people might just 'blame' that (not that I apportion blame at all, to either of us for that) on her being classically autistic and POSSIBLY mildly MR, some kind of learning difficulties at any rate, I'm not having any of that though, she knew exactly what she wanted, and that she wasn't going to stop until she did get it. ('it' being 'me')

A very feisty girl, fiery, feisty and not at all afraid to go after and GET what she wanted.

I was 19 at the time, and whilst I am by no means attracted to/sexually oriented to little teenage girls, now or then, and not ever, ever, to children. There was never a question about it being a case of power hunger, or inequality in what we had. I saved and saved and saved and scraped, hauling every last pound I could get hold of, save only for enough that when two of my close longterm friends (including my one and only neurotypical friend) I could take my turn to contribute and bring the weed for us to smoke to our get togethers, which is only right, if some friends repeatedly invite you over to nice friendly cozy evenings out at their places, is it not?)

I'd saved as hard as I could manage, even trading in scraps of old copper wire, Cu/Pb pipework, lead from leaded glass windows, anything and everything I could get. Even tried to sell my TV, until I had enough to buy a lovely ring, 24ct gold, with a lovely big dark blue big sapphire as the centerpiece stone, surrounded by a halo of diamonds with which to ask for her soft, warm, beautiful and loving forever flapping hand in my own, as my wife.

No power imbalance, either of us could ask most anything remotely reasonable and have the other make it happen if the desired thing or action were something that the person asked was capable of so doing. Say the word to me, and it would be done. And not only would I sacrifice my own self to a battering in a fight if she were attacked, to give her time to make like a banana and split if it were somebody I couldn't take out, but after she introduced herself by way of giving my trachea a lick-polish, and told me that simply and inescapably, I was now HER'S, I gave myself to her completely and utterly, in terms of devotion, love and faith to her. As far as I was concerned, I was her sole property, and that was how it was. Not that I had any problem with that.

I've never looked at another just-about teenaged girl since, other than simply noting their approach on the street pavement in order to allow them free passage, but I'm 28 now, and in this one particular special (and speshUL too, gorgeously so :) ) girl's specific case, if I met her now at that same paintball game, and got introduced by just about the most pass and she gave me that same delicious larynx-luncheon introduction as she did when I met her in reality, I'd change nothing whatsoever, other than having the benefit of hindsight, worked on where we broke up and worked HARD to make everything succeed, even now I think of this girl very often, and every time i do, I cannot help but break out a huge smile, and cutting loose with a burst of the healthy, sustaining, warm joyful laughter, y'know what I mean? the sort of laugh that warms the laugher right the way from between his ears to the very tips of his pinky toes, restores a sore, tired, pained spirit and generally bubbles up like an overflowing oil well full of wholesomeness?

Power imbalance did not exist. I not only treated her as my equal, but as far as I was, and still am concerned, she was, and always will be equal in status to myself. If I had ever tried to abuse her, I am about 95% certain that she would not have needed family or friends to go and fuck me up, she would just do it herself, and chances are high that I'd be in the ER as a result, indeed, I believe her capable of killing, if she were ever crossed in the wrong way, psychologically speaking. And if somebody else had abused her, I wouldn't have given the chance to get into legal difficulties with cutting loose on the perp, I'd have gone and introduced the evildoer to the business end of my sledge hammer into their ribcage, nadgers, cock end and collarbones, and/or broken their back and left them living, to shit and piss themselves in their diapers,or just crap all over their wheelchair :P

We didn't hide our relationship either, which I believe might say something about how right or not that it was, and we were treating and respecting each other. First time I met her mother, we walked round to my fiancee's place, she opened the door and had me step inside, my lil' snugglemuffin hanging off my arm like a curvy, sexy as hell brunette (and very very very much beloved) fox-shaped bracelet, intertwined with..errr...a bit of a worn-around-the-edges bio/chem/physics hacker of a generally gothy metalhead type with piercings and almost never to be found outside a pair of comfy army surplus combat trousers and one or other of my trenchcoats and other leather jackets=D

Still, her mom, whilst I don't think she was actually thrilled about the idea of her special needs daughter going out and asking someone almost 20 to marry her, she did at least seem to be glad that her man was someone who takes his principles in a relationship extremely seriously, and who both treated her daughter as the equal she is, had a lot in common with her, and that the extent of the mutual love was long indeed, and that we had a lot in common. Tolerated my presence at her house enough to raise no questions when we disappeared off to the bedroom for the entire time, and she (her mom) was always perfectly civil, polite and well mannered towards me, she never once treated me anything but civilly, even if she did think I was too old/her lovely girl too young/both.

Have never before or after looked at a girl anywhere near that age, indeed my last GF (and stalker, lol) is just a hair short of 50 (and absolutely stunning to boot, a real mindblower of a lady, smart as hell, feistier than a mountain lion on meth and autistic as fuck, just the perfect way for a lady to be and no two ways about that)
Do I still think of cazzie, the younger girl? yes. Do I still think she was gorgeous? no I don't. I KNOW she was gorgeous :P, would I still say yes (assuming I had any say in the matter of course, I didn't much at the time) to her throat-tickling order to be hers? Absofuckinglutely. And yes, if I could go back in time, I would make damn sure that ring ended up on her finger, and that as soon as she turned 16, would have had a wedding ring on it too.

I still wish I had done, and I don't think its anything to be ashamed of. If I had a child that I had ever met and some paedo guy started making a move on that kid, then it would be the last move said nonce EVER made, short of when the body got wrapped in chicken wire fencing and thrown off the top of beachy head, severed knob between his teeth, or got nailed into a coffin full of hungry sewer rats and painted with meatpaste. One nightmarish end or another, one way or another, the end result would be the abuser of my child screaming and screaming and screaming for so long his vocal cords ruptured.

But if I knew for sure that the girl's older boyfriend (or fiancee) DID love and cherish her as a member of the family, and would, as I did in my own such relationship, as much or even more than he valued his own life, then I would just be glad for for the joy brought to my offspring. Sex is one thing, if it is mutually, and totally loving. Abuse however, would invite down such a grisly, agonizing, miserable and terrifying fate upon his head, that books would be written about the horrors visited upon the abuser the likes of which would not be forgotten for centuries.

I cannot, and will not, however, justify either the forcible breaking apart of a truly close and loving couple in the same circumstances that I myself had one of the two most precious and loving relationships I have EVER been in; and neither would I see fit to call down the flames of perdition upon the head of an equal, loving older partner, as long as it wasn't something obviously wrong, like a 50-something going gunning for my 10yo daughter. That would just result in some nasty old creep getting a couple of rounds in the lower spine and a whole lot of torture.


I figure its probable that some people here will empathize with my tale, knowing that my ex fiancee was held elevated higher than my own self, when I considered the pair of us, and another subset of posters are going to want me burnt at the stake or nailed to a tree by my scrotum and left to starve to death or expire from infection. But I posted it, for the purpose of illustrating that loving relationships in that age bracket CAN exist without a power vacuum. I've never had a controlling bone in my body. I'm not passive, and I am perfectly able to meet force with force if I must do so, but I prefer to avoid it, and I just have neither desire, nor the slightest USE for holding power over an individual in a relationship.

What I want, is the lovely, cozy times curled up in bed around each other watching star trek (caz is a MASSIVE trekker, used to write some really good, and absolutely frikkin' filthy trek porn fanfic, I was actually shocked to first read it, it was that dirty and kinky as hell), those first moments seeing her running up, shouting 'hHIIIiiiiiiii **** [my name redacted] and feeling the warmth of her arms as we got to see each other after term time, and on my breaks home from my distant boarding school, feeling her nails down my back, and that special ed-sounding sexy voice she had, to things like spending time in a park slugging down bottles of cider, or surprising her with a quarter of herb, while in the midst of a really powerful, driving torrential storm, her snuggling up around me to both help shield me enough to skin up for us and us both holding on tightly to each other to prevent being physically blown away. Those little moments, the ones that are really just simple things, that brought us closer together, the things like when I gave her a star trek encyclopedia asking nothing in return, but drinking in every wonderful attosecond of immediately after I did, guzzling down the light shining from her face, or the proposal being accepted, meaning we both got to wolf down the way our eyes lit up with pure, simple and utter delight, or cracking a joke she finds hilarious, and getting a massive case of the warm fuzzies from seeing her made joyful, knowing that *I* was the one to bring that little spark of happiness into her day, the entertainment making things go BOOM!

I'll never, EVER forget those sorts of things, or the way she introduced herself and staked her ownership claim upon me, and I really will treasure the memories until the day I finally breathe my last; and I still wish dearly that I could go back and have her back by my side, my best friend at the time in all the world, brightest light in my life then, my lover and dearest love. Kind, supportive, loving, good to animals, sharing interests, autistic as all fuckdom, smart, kinky minded, creative, gorgeously sexy and....just...well...special. Very, very, very special. The only time I have ever been lucky enough to be in a relationship that was with a partner that I 'clicked' with so strongly it was the opposite end of the age scale, my 48-49yo stalker (and massive sexpot of a stunner. She doesn't even think she is tolerable, let alone desirable, but in that case she couldn't be more wrong, that lady is nothing short of a walking miracle made flesh.

Since those two relatioships ended, I haven't been in another, with anybody, and don't know if I ever will, because between these two absolutely exceptional girls, the bar for a relationship has been set so high, that finding any woman at all who could b be of similar quality, similarly special, AND autistic as well, such a woman is not at all easy to find,
 
Up yours PTC :P

I think it relevant enough in this particular thread to state it, especially if someone is trying to share knowledge of and make a point
to counter something further up (the power imbalance things)
 
Why so defensive? I wasn't just alluding to age gaps when I made that fleeting reference to power dynamics within relationships, y'know? :)

I actually found many parts of your story pretty touching, the ever-present violent fantasies aside. Maybe that's because I'm on a break after a week-long run with opiates and trying to taper off etizolam, but the idealised-lost-love thing resonates with me, and gets me every time. Sentimental fool that I am. Hi, M. Still missing you. Sometimes. x

Perhaps there's an argument for you having taken advantage of what sounds for all the world like hypersexuality, which (I believe) can be an aspect of autism, and to an extent that could be considered very wrong due to the girl's lack of maturity, whether you share her condition or not. Without knowing the exact circumstances, however, I'm not really in any position to judge.
 
Their hair looks great and smells even better.

I'd like a modest entourage of 16-year-old girls to accompany me everywhere in public, just so I could sniff it occasionally. No sex-puppetry necessary.
 
BBC/Newsnight did Clive Driscoll (policeman who was dropped from lambeth investigation when he brought up politicians names):

A former senior Metropolitan Police officer says he was moved from his post when he revealed plans to investigate politicians over child abuse claims.

Clive Driscoll says his inquiry into 1980s London children's homes was "all too uncomfortable to a lot of people".

He also believes there were "disruption tactics" within the Met during his inquiry that led to the conviction of two of Stephen Lawrence's killers.

The Met defended its murder inquiry and said Lambeth investigations continued.


List of suspects

Mr Driscoll told BBC Newsnight that while conducting a 1998 inquiry into allegations of abuse in children's homes in Lambeth, south London, in the 1980s, he was passed a list of suspects' names, including politicians, that he wanted to investigate.

Speaking for the first time since retirement, he said: "Some of the names were people that were locally working, some people that were, if you like, working nationally.

"There was quite a mix really because it appeared that it was connected to other boroughs and other movement around the country."

He said after he had shared his suspicions at a meeting, he was taken off the investigation.

'Fear of reprisals'

"I certainly, in a case conference, disclosed suspects' names... but I was informed that was inappropriate and I would be removed from my post."

Mr Driscoll added: "Whenever people spoke to you... about what they had seen, it was almost on the proviso that they wouldn't make a statement and that they would be scared if you released who those people were that were talking, for fear of reprisals to both their selves and their families."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28316874

...

@Sammy - pederast isn't used much but it's got a specific meaning (pubescent, but still a 'boy') - and edwina actually said: "Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast” with a liking for young boys" - seems fairly clear to me that this would include pre 16.
 
Last edited:

As well as key members of both the Commons and Lords, she found that about 30 prominent businessmen, public school teachers, scoutmasters and police officers had links to PIE.

Well I'll be damned. =D

In all seriousness, it seems very fishy, but take into account the fact that Castle had passed the dossier to a journalist and the actions of the police start to make more a little more sense. I'm sure any politician found to be acting in such a fashion, even if the information they passed on was totally innocuous, would probably receive a similar visit from Special Branch.

Stupidity on her part? Very likely. Though Cyril's visit does seem to be a remarkably creepy coincidence at the very least.

@Sammy - pederast isn't used much but it's got a specific meaning (pubescent, but still a 'boy') - and edwina actually said: "Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast” with a liking for young boys" - seems fairly clear to me that this would include pre 16.

Many (if not most) definitions of 'pederast' include 'adolescent' males as well as 'pubescent' ones.

Bear in mind that there's very little consensus as to when 'adolescence' begins and ends, as well as the fact that average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has shifted significantly since the word was in any way current, and well... you get the picture.
 
...I'm sure any politician found to be acting in such a fashion, even if the information they passed on was totally innocuous, would probably receive a similar visit from Special Branch.

Stupidity on her part? Very likely. Though Cyril's visit does seem to be a remarkably creepy coincidence at the very least.

If you accept there is a conspiracy/collusion with politicians, security services, police etc, (as she did, it seems now with good reason), who else could you take that info to? You seem more willing to believe the innocence of the state as compared to the intelligence/reliability of someone like barbara castle (though you did say it's fishy to be fair)

Many (if not most) definitions of 'pederast' include 'adolescent' males as well as 'pubescent' ones...

Semantics, schmemantics ;) (the greek comes from boy/child, and the meaning of edwina's 'young boys' hasn't changed)
 
Last edited:
Sammy-I got defensive because somebody branded me a nonce. I take offense to being called a child shagging perverted piece of shite. Surprise, surprise, I don't much care to be labelled a paedophile, don't think very many people do, unless they are that disgusting outright rapist, power-freak like jimmy so-vile...err...I mean savile:P

And what I was trying to say about power dynamics when I related the tale of my lost, and really painfully missed fiancee, was that I am (and was then), aware of the possibility, and deliberately avoided such situations, or would have done if ever we had such come up between us. If Caz had GIVEN me power over her, complete power in a box, I'd have handed it back, however that would be done, well, talked with her first about the issue, but she would have been given a hard time trying to make me claim 'sovreignty' over her actions. Whats important to me in a relationship, love, the curling up together, those little, but amazing moments, not being able to influence the other, save by logical discourse, not talking to the person, but WITH the other person.

I've never wanted power over other people, and still don't, unless its the power to remove an aggressor, or someone otherwise scheming and trying to hurt us, preventing them from hurting me or mine. There I do make an exception but I don't see that as there being anything wrong with that. I have the right to stop other people treading on my toes, so to speak, during life, and the same, only far more important, to see off somebody that means harm, upset or disadvantage to someone I love and swear to back up until I have nothing left.

Sure, I could certainly be capable of manipulating her, or then at least, if I tried hard enough and persisted. What it boils down to though, is my not WANTING power over her, it was really important to me, for me to look at myself, as well as others, and assess, make sure I am not subjecting the lovely lady to pressure. I don't have the slightest desire, I really, really don't, and for that matter as far as I can remember through my childhood, never have, to crave and seek such a kind of interpersonal power.

What would I do with it? use that hypothetical pressure for what? I know other people do it plenty, manipulating people, lying, cheating (as in the unfaithfulness kind), even worse, being violent to their 'loved one'. I don't just lack that desire, but actively want sphincter all to do with it, its just not me, too far from who I really am, what I stand for when the rest of my principles go down the shitter, and I am a person who is about as malleable and bendable as a breeze block in what he stands for when it comes to things of that nature; I refuse outright to change the core of who I am for 'convenience's sake. I think having force held over someone, coercion and the like is the polar opposite of what a loving, caring, valuable relationship worth having is founded on, I'd be really uncomfortable if I did have it, and I know I would not like the Me that me then, or me now would be made into.

Fuck, the thought makes my skin crawl it really does. Uuggggghh.
Some lines, rules or laws I am willing to break, that is not amongst them.
 
Amnesty International call for Kincora abuse scandal to be included in the inquiry:

Three senior care staff at the east Belfast children’s home were jailed in 1981 for abusing 11 boys, but it is feared that there were many more victims and abusers during the period between 1960 and 1980. Allegations have persisted that paedophilia at Kincora was linked to British intelligence services, with claims that visitors to the home included members of the military, politicians and civil servants, and that police investigations into abuse at Kincora were blocked by the Ministry of Defence and MI5. (Amnesty, 7 July 2014).

This is from the excellent spinwatch. Also includes stuff from Colin Wallace, intelligence whistleblower in that case:

http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/item/5667-csainquiry-colinwallace

(these are definitely not dodgy blogs)
 
If you accept there is a conspiracy/collusion with politicians, security services, police etc, (as she did, it seems now with good reason), who else could you take that info to? You seem more willing to believe the innocence of the state as compared to the intelligence/reliability of someone like barbara castle (though you did say it's fishy to be fair)



Semantics, schmemantics ;) (the greek comes from boy/child, and the meaning of edwina's 'young boys' hasn't changed)

I'm certainly not taking the side of 'the state' here; where did you get that from? I'm just practising healthy scepticism.

Besides, is a former cabinet minister, then-MEP and now-Baroness not a central figure in the hierarchy of of 'the state'?

As for Castle's supposed belief in 'conspiracy/collusion with politicians, security services, police etc', I'm wondering exactly how you've inferred this? A dossier featuring the names of '30 prominent businessmen, public school teachers, scoutmasters and police officers' and '16 household name MPs' is hardly evidence of the kind of widespread conspiracy /collusion you imply, is it?

Besides, who did she expect would conduct an enquiry once the press furore had died down?

As for the semantic disagreement, I think 'boy' is similarly hazy, especially if you want to bring contemporary estimates of the average age until which ancient Greeks considered a young man to be a 'boy' (older than you think), but I feel we're getting nowhere with that one. :D
 
...As for Castle's supposed belief in 'conspiracy/collusion with politicians, security services, police etc', I'm wondering exactly how you've inferred this? A dossier featuring the names of '30 prominent businessmen, public school teachers, scoutmasters and police officers' and '16 household name MPs' is hardly evidence of the kind of widespread conspiracy /collusion you imply, is it? ...

She must have believed that to take it to the journalist (whoops circular logic) - it's long been known that this sort of collusion goes on (read Kincora above). And barbara castle was part of the wider state, but there's the state and then there's the state - people like castle (or wilson) never really got into the centre of real power and it's corrollary in intelligence (always firmly right wing, especially then). They even threatened wilson with a coup and helped drive him bonkers (cos they thought he was a soviet mole)

Read through that last link for some examples of this state within a state (especially where it touches on operation clockwork orange):

Former police officers have claimed that a dossier about Smith's paedophile activities was passed to MI5 in 1974. The Clockwork Orange material must raise the possibility that such material could have been suppressed not by paedophile networks, but by intelligence officers looking for dirt to exploit.

I think that first episode of utopia the other night on C4 is closer to reality than most people would realise (minus the actual sterilisation virus (i wouldn't put it past them though (i don't doubt they'd want to, but i doubt their competence)).

i appreciate your scepticism - it gives me the chance to refine my 'arguments' :). But i think the elite have earned the lion's share of the scepticism and there's quite a believability deficit now
 
Last edited:
She must have believed that to take it to the journalist (whoops circular logic) - it's long been known that this sort of collusion goes on (read Kincora above). And barbara castle was part of the wider state, but there's the state and then there's the state - people like castle (or wilson) never really got into the centre of real power and it's corrollary in intelligence (always firmly right wing, especially then). They even threatened wilson with a coup and helped drive him bonkers (cos they thought he was a soviet mole)

Read through that last link for some examples of this state within a state (especially where it touches on operation clockwork orange)

Interesting read, and again I don't disagree with you about the 'state within a state' business. I just fail to see how the information that Castle allegedly had was of similar value to MI5 as the Clockwork Orange material, which (Smith's unexplained appearance aside) concerned individuals who were already being targeted for other reasons.

I'm sure that scout masters aren't of interest to the 'state within a state', and I'd put public school teachers in the same bracket. Though the latter are obviously closer to being part of 'the Establishment' in some sense.

As for Smith wanting to suppress the information they had on him, and invoking 'National Secrets' in order to do so, I find that a far more plausible scenario.

Again, I could be wrong, but still the mind boggles as to why this was passed to a small-time local hack? And why did Castle take this information with her to the grave?

That's without asking how tenuous these 'links to PIE' were in the first place.

I guess we'll find out - or maybe not. ;)
 
Well, it's 'sexy news' now, so I suppose it'll end when the press / public gets bored of it.

As for it being 'somebody new or something new' each day, it's really just new scraps of evidence about the same stories - some more tenuous than others - that we've been hearing about for the past two years or so. Plus coverage of the celebrity trials.

That's the nature of the meeja though, I guess.
 
@sam - Clockwork orange expanded from the IRA to target any political figures (though mostly lefties) who could be manipulated through their personal life for the benefit of the state-within-a-state (see Paul Foot or Robin Ramsay on this); and 'targeted for other reasons' means nothing in the climate of the time (just being a threat to the state in the eyes of some very paranoid spooks (read spycatcher?)). (eg Like wally hope and the free festivals ffs?!)

This was happening at the same time as Kincora abuse was first being brought up (74) - Castle's putative dossier was seemingly dealing with similar paedophilia and had elements of power (eg pie 'infiltrating' the state (or vice versa)) - and there were 14 MPs included as well as the scoutmasters you keep mentioning. Even if the mps were bottom feeders who were being blackmailed by MI5 to vote the 'right' way, or they were the imagined super-elite-paedos covering up for themselves, i still see them as totally relevant. (Though i'd bet that the 14 mps involved weren't bottom feeders, but the same mix of important cunts peppering the other dossiers)

If the price of protecting the MPs (or protecting the inner state's power over them) is to protect some scoutmasters, that's what would happen (and another small way to get loyalty from the 'pillars of the community' these people were (like a nasty version of masonic lodges or chambers of commerce)

In both cases the intelligence services could have had the motivation to cover stuff up because they already knew about it and used it (and even set up the abuse in the first place as in kincora). Is there any difference between being a cabal of nasty elite paedophiles using power to set up and protect paedo networks, or setting up/protecting the networks purely to control people through blackmail? (the second's worse i reckon). The other option i suppose is 'intelligence' helping cover up random paedos within the elite for the good of the state - still pretty much as bad if it means the elite paedos carry on but with a slightly marked card (and all the scoutmasters with them).

As for why castle took this to a little hack - look at Paul Foot's many investigative pieces that turned up truths which were practically ignored by the main media, including his work on Kincora abuse - he only took these stories because he was a 'little' hack - if bound within a 'proper' paper he would have been spiked most of the time. For someone going against the elite, there aren't many allies to be had, especially in the 'meeja'. Add to that, people have been know to 'disappear', and you can't believe all those cases are bollocks? (eg david kelly's magical 'suicide') [ot warning ;)] Even when they don't disappear, we may suddenly hear about some sexual activity that would otherwise be covered up and they're discredited (see tommy sheridan)
 
Last edited:
It's paedogeddon :|

Lets hope any offishy investigation moves more effectively than it did for the Hillsborough families (and pigs fly drones).
 
@sam - Clockwork orange expanded from the IRA to target any political figures (though mostly lefties) who could be manipulated through their personal life for the benefit of the state-within-a-state (see Paul Foot or Robin Ramsay on this); and 'targeted for other reasons' means nothing in the climate of the time (just being a threat to the state in the eyes of some very paranoid spooks (read spycatcher?)).

I've not read Spycatcher actually, but I'm old enough to remember the controversy over it, and (for a short time) thinking my best mate's dad had written it. :D

I still believe that the simpler explanation for this (i.e. Smith covering his own sizeable arse) is far more plausible than anything on the scale of Clockwork Orange. It'd be entirely in keeping with the way he bullied the BBC and anybody else who attempted to draw attention to his sordid pastimes.

Does Occam's Razor only come out for the drug-related threads or something?

It's paedogeddon :|

Lets hope any offishy investigation moves more effectively than it did for the Hillsborough families (and pigs fly drones).

It really is paedogeddon.

And I'm not holding my breath for any real 'justice' either, despite my doubting some of the more grandiose assertions made in this thread.
 
...I still believe that the simpler explanation for this (i.e. Smith covering his own sizeable arse) is far more plausible than anything on the scale of Clockwork Orange. It'd be entirely in keeping with the way he bullied the BBC and anybody else who attempted to draw attention to his sordid pastimes...

Even with the massive piece of suggestive evidence of kincora and intelligence's involvment? (that was amnesty i quoted, not icke). And could Cyril smith of the titchy liberals really command special branch on his own?

Occams razor is only as reliable as the available data, and any evidence of cover ups (you must conceed this at least) throws the judgement out. When you can't rely on occams razor, the smell test is a good starting point for me, and this stinks (and has stunk since the 70s).
 
Top