Jump to content

No 10 aide arrested for child porn


pap
 Share

Recommended Posts

Its more likely the Conservative Central Office fed the Daily Mail the info.

 

You lefties make me laugh. When the Mail ran the Harman story lefties in the media were screaming how they wouldn't have run the story if it was a Tory, it was just a "smear". Now they break a story of a Tory, give it a high profile online and in the daily and they were fed the info, presumably for political reason. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lefties make me laugh. When the Mail ran the Harman story lefties in the media were screaming how they wouldn't have run the story if it was a Tory, it was just a "smear". Now they break a story of a Tory, give it a high profile online and in the daily and they were fed the info, presumably for political reason. Lol

 

Pity you've defaulted to the easy and unthinking 'you lefties' line again - you're capable of better. Get real, its politics with an election looming. Do you really think the NCCL info had just been discovered and immediately published? That the timing was total coincidence? It had lain in someone's drawer waiting for the need to arise, probably for years. Politics and the press are intertwined at the gutter level. The Tories are no better or worse than Labour (although the Mail is worse than anything else on the market).

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pity you've defaulted to the easy and unthinking 'you lefties' line again - you're capable of better. Get real, its politics with an election looming. Do you really think the NCCL info had just been discovered and immediately published? That the timing was total coincidence? It had lain in someone's drawer waiting for the need to arise, probably for years. Politics and the press are intertwined at the gutter level. The Tories are no better or worse than Labour (although the Mail is worse than anything else on the market).

 

The Harman stuff isn't even new. Telegraph article from 2009 which backs you up on your claims that it's politically motivated.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

 

I can understand those links being downplayed during the Labour government, but the Conservatives have had four years of government to go after Harman. They chose now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did actually kick the cat yesterday - mind you it had it coming.

 

What terrible punishment do I deserve for this heinous crime?

 

There are people around who would pat you on the back.

 

There are people around who would take no notice.

 

There are people around who would remonstrate with you.

 

There are people around who would give you a kick.

 

There are people around who would get quite nasty to you.

 

Pick the answer you're trolling for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lefties make me laugh. When the Mail ran the Harman story lefties in the media were screaming how they wouldn't have run the story if it was a Tory, it was just a "smear". Now they break a story of a Tory, give it a high profile online and in the daily and they were fed the info, presumably for political reason. Lol

 

You do realise how stupid you sound when you say "you lefties", don't you? Straight out of the Littlejohn Dictionary.. That's like attributing a characteristic to everyone with brown hair or a scar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise how stupid you sound when you say "you lefties", don't you? Straight out of the Littlejohn Dictionary.. That's like attributing a characteristic to everyone with brown hair or a scar.

 

People with left wing views - lefties

 

Arsenal fans -Gooners

 

Mods,

 

Rockers

 

Skates

 

Teenagers

 

:mcinnes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with left wing views - lefties

 

Arsenal fans -Gooners

 

Mods,

 

Rockers

 

Skates

 

Teenagers

 

:mcinnes:

 

Is the reaction to your input on this thread going as well as you'd hoped, Lord D? Still nowt to say about Cameron's deputy chief of staff being arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the rich and powerful are also more of a target for false claims and more of a story for the media.

 

Fact is, if you had touched someone up in a nightclub 30 years ago you probably wouldn't have much to worry about. If you were a world famous DJ however you would be sweating like a Ukranian tank driver.

 

Newsflash, but someone in government has a fair chance of being able to pull the levers of government, getting fairer the more important the person.

 

Someone with a lot of cash can escape charges by paying someone off.

 

I see you've bought the "it was all light entertainers and DJs" fiction hook, line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with left wing views - lefties

 

Arsenal fans -Gooners

 

Mods,

 

Rockers

 

Skates

 

Teenagers

 

:mcinnes:

 

No its just a lazy response -attempting to pigeon hole people as a way of dismissing them. Well they would say that they're unthinking lefties / commies / Russian spies / moonies (delete as appropriate) instead of engaging with the issue. If you really cant be arsed, why post?

 

Relatively few people of here have uniformly 'left' or 'right' views. I've voted for Thatcher in the past, when the alternative was Michael Foot. I also regularly vote differently in council / EU / Parliamentary elections depending on policies and candidate. Why not dismiss that as wishy washy? - its an easy angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newsflash, but someone in government has a fair chance of being able to pull the levers of government, getting fairer the more important the person.

 

Someone with a lot of cash can escape charges by paying someone off.

 

I see you've bought the "it was all light entertainers and DJs" fiction hook, line and sinker.

 

Of course it's not just entertainers and DJs but my point still stands. If you are famous or in the public eye for whatever reason you are more likely to be the target of malicious false claims, more likely to get pulled up on historical stuff and more in the attention of the media

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's not just entertainers and DJs but my point still stands. If you are famous or in the public eye for whatever reason you are more likely to be the target of malicious false claims, more likely to get pulled up on historical stuff and more in the attention of the media

 

I'm sure Savile's victims are 100% in agreement with you.

 

Veering away from the sarcasm, this was a man who was never caught during his lifetime. You can argue that his being in the public eye, his profile and the money he had was a factor in him escaping justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Savile's victims are 100% in agreement with you.

 

Veering away from the sarcasm, this was a man who was never caught during his lifetime. You can argue that his being in the public eye, his profile and the money he had was a factor in him escaping justice.

 

There's probably plenty of Jimmy Saville types around your local council estates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's probably plenty of Jimmy Saville types around your local council estates.

 

Protected by the police and the BBC, metaphorically in bed with royalty and put up for a KBE five times by Thatcher?

 

Possibly.

 

:mcinnes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protected by the police and the BBC, metaphorically in bed with royalty and put up for a KBE five times by Thatcher?

 

Possibly.

 

:mcinnes:

 

Saville used his power to get away with his crimes but that doesn't mean there is a higher proportion of nonces in "the establishment" or whatever you call it. It's a crime that transcends class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saville used his power to get away with his crimes but that doesn't mean there is a higher proportion of nonces in "the establishment" or whatever you call it. It's a crime that transcends class.

 

No-one is making that argument apart from you, as a counter-argument to one you think you've seen.

 

The thread opener talks of light entertainers being the tip of the iceberg when it comes to paedophilia within the establishment. Quite how you've equated that with "there are more paedophiles per capita in the establishment" is an investigation for you to conduct, I feel.

 

It would actually be interesting to see some demographics on registered sex offenders, to see which social groups they come from. My expectation is that the opposite of your argument would be true; that you'd probably have a greater proportion coming from the general populace, even if you weighted the proportions of each social class accordingly.

 

As you yourself have said, Savile was able to use his clout to escape charges, enjoying considerable protection from the authorities. Where did Savile's clout come from? Was he just a double-hard bastard from Yorkshire who put the fear of God into all he met, or did his power come from the complicity he was able to extract from the state? His interview with Theroux should be taken more at face value, especially the part where he claims he'll take them all down.

 

Paedophiles on council estates eventually get found out, caught, tried and are then monitored for the rest of their lives. Sarah's law allows parents to find out where they live.

 

Paedophiles within the establishment are rarely even charged, let alone brought to justice. The revelations normally surface after death, there is much shrugging of shoulders, and there really shouldn't be. Icke named Heath while he was alive. Heath never sued, largely on legal advice that he wouldn't win. McAlpine was named in Scallywag in the late '90s. He didn't sue at the time either. He was able to extract damages from Bercow and the BBC after the Steven Messham incident, but I dare say one damaged individual is easier to flip than two investigative journalists. The BBC's entire case rested on Messham's identification of McAlpine; it fell the moment he did.

 

So get over this notion that people are saying that there are more paedophiles in the establishment, that they are perhaps somehow inclined toward it. No-one is arguing that. However, people in a position of power can escape scrutiny for much longer, and as a consequence, can cause much more damage over their lifetimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one is making that argument apart from you, as a counter-argument to one you think you've seen.

 

The thread opener talks of light entertainers being the tip of the iceberg when it comes to paedophilia within the establishment. Quite how you've equated that with "there are more paedophiles per capita in the establishment" is an investigation for you to conduct, I feel.

 

It would actually be interesting to see some demographics on registered sex offenders, to see which social groups they come from. My expectation is that the opposite of your argument would be true; that you'd probably have a greater proportion coming from the general populace, even if you weighted the proportions of each social class accordingly.

 

As you yourself have said, Savile was able to use his clout to escape charges, enjoying considerable protection from the authorities. Where did Savile's clout come from? Was he just a double-hard bastard from Yorkshire who put the fear of God into all he met, or did his power come from the complicity he was able to extract from the state? His interview with Theroux should be taken more at face value, especially the part where he claims he'll take them all down.

 

Paedophiles on council estates eventually get found out, caught, tried and are then monitored for the rest of their lives. Sarah's law allows parents to find out where they live.

 

Paedophiles within the establishment are rarely even charged, let alone brought to justice. The revelations normally surface after death, there is much shrugging of shoulders, and there really shouldn't be. Icke named Heath while he was alive. Heath never sued, largely on legal advice that he wouldn't win. McAlpine was named in Scallywag in the late '90s. He didn't sue at the time either. He was able to extract damages from Bercow and the BBC after the Steven Messham incident, but I dare say one damaged individual is easier to flip than two investigative journalists. The BBC's entire case rested on Messham's identification of McAlpine; it fell the moment he did.

 

So get over this notion that people are saying that there are more paedophiles in the establishment, that they are perhaps somehow inclined toward it. No-one is arguing that. However, people in a position of power can escape scrutiny for much longer, and as a consequence, can cause much more damage over their lifetimes.

 

I disagree, whilst people obviously abuse their power I think being high-profile makes getting caught more likely. There have been plenty of famous people dragged through the courts recently for historical offences that would never have seen the light of day if it wasn't for their fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, whilst people obviously abuse their power I think being high-profile makes getting caught more likely. There have been plenty of famous people dragged through the courts recently for historical offences that would never have seen the light of day if it wasn't for their fame.

 

Light entertainers, soap actors and former DJs. The vast majority of them got off; Stuart Hall is only in jail because he plead guilty.

 

These people are chaff, noise-makers to placate the public and perpetuate the idea that it's a 70s problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light entertainers, soap actors and former DJs. The vast majority of them got off; Stuart Hall is only in jail because he plead guilty.

 

These people are chaff, noise-makers to placate the public and perpetuate the idea that it's a 70s problem.

 

Andrew Mitchell got hammered by the police for calling them plebs, the idea that politicians can freely go around doing what they want regardless of the law is nonsense. There is always people in the police, the media and the establishment out to get them whoever they are. If you are famous you are a target, politicians especially.

 

People will always abuse power, you will always get low life in high places but the idea that this is the tip of some massive idceberg is far fetched IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still nowt to say about Cameron's deputy chief of staff being arrested?

 

What is there to say? What do you want me to say, that it's ok to look at kiddie porn if you work for Call me Dave , but not Red Ed?

 

His arrest has about as much to do with Cameron as Dave Jones' had to do with Ruppey.

 

What are you trying to say, that there is a culture of kiddie fiddling in number 10. That Cameron covered it up, or was part of it, or turned a blind eye? Are you somehow trying to claim that Cameron's judgement is in question because he let a kiddie fiddler into number 10.

 

Is Roger Daltry's judgement in question because he sang with Pete Townsend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know he was arrested three weeks ago and hasn't yet been charged. What is more concerning at the moment is the way he resigned and was subsequently arrested, not by the Met who have a specialist unit but by the National Crime Agency who operate in secrecy, were contacted direct and will not confirm or deny that anybody has been arrested. This smacks of a political cover up. It has been reported that after the images were discovered and Cameron informed he was allowed to resign before the Police were informed. The leak apparently came from Parliament.

Edited by derry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Mitchell got hammered by the police for calling them plebs, the idea that politicians can freely go around doing what they want regardless of the law is nonsense. There is always people in the police, the media and the establishment out to get them whoever they are. If you are famous you are a target, politicians especially.

 

People will always abuse power, you will always get low life in high places but the idea that this is the tip of some massive idceberg is far fetched IMO.

 

He didn't call them plebs though did he? The narcs made it up as we know they often do. But the corrupt met is another story ( or is it?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there to say? What do you want me to say, that it's ok to look at kiddie porn if you work for Call me Dave , but not Red Ed?

 

His arrest has about as much to do with Cameron as Dave Jones' had to do with Ruppey.

 

What are you trying to say, that there is a culture of kiddie fiddling in number 10. That Cameron covered it up, or was part of it, or turned a blind eye? Are you somehow trying to claim that Cameron's judgement is in question because he let a kiddie fiddler into number 10.

 

Is Roger Daltry's judgement in question because he sang with Pete Townsend?

 

Certainly picks some odd company though doesn't he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there to say? What do you want me to say, that it's ok to look at kiddie porn if you work for Call me Dave , but not Red Ed?

 

That's the impression I'm getting.

 

Is that what you think?

 

 

His arrest has about as much to do with Cameron as Dave Jones' had to do with Ruppey.

 

His arrest provokes all kinds of questions, especially if found guilty. Is this another example of Cameron's poor judge of character? Why aren't the security services successfully vetting someone in frequent contact with the PM? Was the re-release of the 2009 NCCL story politically motivated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the impression I'm getting.

 

Is that what you think?

 

 

 

 

His arrest provokes all kinds of questions, especially if found guilty. Is this another example of Cameron's poor judge of character? Why aren't the security services successfully vetting someone in frequent contact with the PM? Was the re-release of the 2009 NCCL story politically motivated?

 

Do you see a conspiracy in everything?

 

These people don't go around telling people " I'm into looking at naked kids" . How on earth can this be an example of Cameron's judgement. They don't have a big stamp on their head with nonse writtern on it. Nobody would suggest that Dawltry's judgement is flawed by being in a band with Pete Townsend. Yet mention the Tory party and you get a hard on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm into looking at naked kids

 

oh i dunno duckhunter, soon as i see a picture of a pedo in the papers i always look at them + straight away i can tell that there is something dodgy bout them! I mean, just look at the guy in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572495/No-10-aide-arrested-child-porn-Police-quiz-man-advised-Cameron-web-filters.html! It's obvious!

 

article-2572495-1BE1808A00000578-167_634x424.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see a conspiracy in everything?

 

These people don't go around telling people " I'm into looking at naked kids" . How on earth can this be an example of Cameron's judgement. They don't have a big stamp on their head with nonse writtern on it. Nobody would suggest that Dawltry's judgement is flawed by being in a band with Pete Townsend. Yet mention the Tory party and you get a hard on.

 

Can we at least get you on record on one thing?

 

Do you care less about paedophilia if a right-winger is the perpetrator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...