Exactly. I'd guess that all parties have skeletons (and other things) in their closets.
Yes I wouldn't be surprised if they literally had skeletons in their closets. I thought my opinion of politicians couldn't get any lower a few years ago. I was wrong.
What post ? its the first one I've made on this thread ?None of the parties come out of this well , the allegation that MI5 helped the files disappear was when Labour were in power and he was being considered for a cabinet post in the Lib'Lab coalition
The post in which you gave a history of political party reigns, as you say, the first post of yours on this thread.
God know why this is a left wing cover up. Its a total failure of the political system. I know of at least three Tory MPs who have been linked to these allegations. For obvious reasons I'm not saying who.
Yes I wouldn't be surprised if they literally had skeletons in their closets. I thought my opinion of politicians couldn't get any lower a few years ago. I was wrong.
The links below allegedly involve a Tory politician. I think there was a ring involving politicians from differing parties and that's why they've been getting away with it. All protecting each other.
God know why this is a left wing cover up. Its a total failure of the political system. I know of at least three Tory MPs who have been linked to these allegations. For obvious reasons I'm not saying who.
The links below allegedly involve a Tory politician. I think there was a ring involving politicians from differing parties and that's why they've been getting away with it. All protecting each other.
He's be found NOT GUILTY if he was alive and it all went to court.
Be 'exposed' & tried in court before you die, and 30/40 years on, without ANY DNA, you'll be acquited....
Saville's only maligned because he is dead. If he was alive, he'd walk free. No doubt about it
Stuart Hall was sent down for 13 counts of indecent assault on minors. No DNA evidence, just lots of victims with very convincing testimony. In the end he admitted it.
Stuart Hall was sent down for 13 counts of indecent assault on minors. No DNA evidence, just lots of victims with very convincing testimony. In the end he admitted it.
Exactly. Considering the sheer weight of evidence against him from so many witnesses over so many years, I find it difficult to believe that Savile would have been found not guilty if tried.
As some of you may know The Mail has given extensive coverage in recent days of the disgraceful cover up of the child abuse that went on for so long and "The indelible shame of the Liberal Party."
Whilst I do not wish to cast doubt on anyone who has reported sexual abuse I also do not buy into this current trend of branding everyone guilty and their friends and employers complicit in cover-ups until I have actually seen credible evidence.
Now if its true its too late to do anything about him, however if people are still alive who assisted , took part or covered up then they can be prosecuted.
But before branding everyone disgraceful and guilty could we draw breath, take a step back and wait a bit ? its bad enough when the media whip up a frenzy let alone when everyone joins in , after all I am sure most of us still agree with the principal of innocent until proven guilty and I prefer to base that on findings as opposed to headlines.
Stuart Hall was sent down for 13 counts of indecent assault on minors. No DNA evidence, just lots of victims with very convincing testimony. In the end he admitted it.
I have a feeling he admitted it as they had found some evidence which would have made his not guilty plea untenable.
Cyril Smith - The Left's Involvement in the Monstrous Cover-Up
Only the criminally insane and mad dogs will be taken in by this pile of espoo from the Mail. As with the Labour/PIE thing and the Farage expenses thing, this matter is being hyped up so as to try to damage opponents of the Mail's beloved Conservative party in the run up to next month's elections.
Cyril Smith - The Left's Involvement in the Monstrous Cover-Up
Only the criminally insane and mad dogs will be taken in by this pile of espoo from the Mail. As with the Labour/PIE thing and the Farage expenses thing, this matter is being hyped up so as to try to damage opponents of the Mail's beloved Conservative party in the run up to next month's elections.
I am not saying I think all the allegations of abuse are lies , time will tell if they are true or not, but I agree the media in general is enjoying this .
I am not saying I think all the allegations of abuse are lies , time will tell if they are true or not, but I agree the media in general is enjoying this .
I have no doubt that the victims' lives were damaged by a vile paedo who's now deceased and can't be held to account. What the Mail is doing isn't an impartial and rational investigation but merely crude ideological point scoring. This is perhaps something for a judge-led inquiry to look at properly and not the Mail's rabid rantings (again).
Political point scoring is one thing. But these allegations about Cyril Smith have been going around for years and a full and thorough public enquiry is needed to get at the facts and find out who was involved in covering this up. I'm glad this new book is helping to expose the full shocking extent of what was going on.
Cyril Smith is dead and gone, but as in the Jimmy Saville case and Operation Yewtree, many other people were found to be involved. It is these people that need to be rooted out and brought to account.
I am glad someone is doing something to expose this issue...
HOWEVER: let's not forget the Daily Mail's attitude towards Cyril Smith in the 1980s.
They absolutely adored him - he was easily their favourite non-Tory MP.
Partly, because he was the only Liberal in favour of hanging, he was anti-abortion, fervently pro-nuclear weapons, and he rarely criticised Mrs Thatcher. Also, he was an "ardent Royalist" (a quote I vividly remember them writing of him when he made a speech about the Queen Mother).
His speeches, and publicity antics, used to get far more coverage than they deserved by the Mail and I don't think it was just because he was such a "character". (No other Liberal or Labour MP got the same treatment, except, perhaps David Owen.) It always seemed like he had very close friends behind the scenes at The Mail who were keen to paint him in a favourable light.
With their usual sick-making hypocrisy, The Mail now tries to make political gain out of this issue. But if rumours were so rife about this creature's behaviour back then, how come they gave him such positive coverage for most of his parliamentary career?
I should think Sir David English, Paul Dacre and Lord Rothermere were just as, if not more, likely to have known all about Cyril Smith's nasty carryings on as (the much younger and rather useless) Nick Clegg would have.
Is the Mail bravely trying to expose an establishment cover up?
Or are they trying to distract from their own collective involvement, perhaps?
THe ex-Co-op chief, Paul Flowers is to be questioned regarding school paedophile scandal, the school having ben started up by Cyril Smith who had close links with Flowers.
THe ex-Co-op chief, Paul Flowers is to be questioned regarding school paedophile scandal, the school having ben started up by Cyril Smith who had close links with Flowers.
Flowers was born and educated in the Southampton area and was at university in Bristol. For most of the 1970s he was in Hampshire again, working as a Methodist Minister and also in a senior role in the local Labour Party. It is said that after his arrest for a quite minor outdoors sexual offence around 1978, he left under a cloud for the North. However, he was allegedly active in Bradford Methodism as early as 1976 so it was always possible he'd go there.
Then, according to the BBC timeliine, he was in Rochdale. It's not a million miles from Bradford so it makes some sense. He was elected as a Labour councillor in Rochdale in 1988. But that does leave a lengthy gap of 12 years.
Actually, in the three years before 1988, he was in the Midlands. Specifically he was in Coventry where he first tried for a seat on the Council. Then rapidly - some might say inexplicably - he became a major contender to be the Labour candidate for Parliament in a Coventry seat . His challenge, which was from the right of the party during the Kinnock reforms, was headed off by Dave Nellist who secured the nomination. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, if there is one area of the country other than Rochdale, Barnes and Jersey about which there are serious allegations concerning childrens' homes, it is Coventry. Those allegations coincide with the years that Flowers was there.
Flowers was born and educated in the Southampton area and was at university in Bristol. For most of the 1970s he was in Hampshire again, working as a Methodist Minister and also in a senior role in the local Labour Party. It is said that after his arrest for a quite minor outdoors sexual offence around 1978, he left under a cloud for the North. However, he was allegedly active in Bradford Methodism as early as 1976 so it was always possible he'd go there.
Then, according to the BBC timeliine, he was in Rochdale. It's not a million miles from Bradford so it makes some sense. He was elected as a Labour councillor in Rochdale in 1988. But that does leave a lengthy gap of 12 years.
Actually, in the three years before 1988, he was in the Midlands. Specifically he was in Coventry where he first tried for a seat on the Council. Then rapidly - some might say inexplicably - he became a major contender to be the Labour candidate in a Coventry seat for Parliament. His challenge, which was from the right of the party during the Kinnock reforms, was headed off by Dave Nellist who secured the nomination. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, if there is one area of the country other than Rochdale, Barnes and Jersey about which there are serious allegations concerning childrens' homes, it is Coventry. Those allegations coincide with the years that Flowers was there.
It says at the bottom of the page linked below that Danczuk is considering using Parliamentary privilege to name the politician who was an alleged regular at Elm Guest House.
It says at the bottom of the page linked below that Danczuk is considering using Parliamentary privilege to name the politician who was an alleged regular at Elm Guest House.
Comments
Yes I wouldn't be surprised if they literally had skeletons in their closets. I thought my opinion of politicians couldn't get any lower a few years ago. I was wrong.
The post in which you gave a history of political party reigns, as you say, the first post of yours on this thread.
That wasn't my post
The links below allegedly involve a Tory politician. I think there was a ring involving politicians from differing parties and that's why they've been getting away with it. All protecting each other.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-tory-cabinet-minister-caught-2903907
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5225/customs-seized-video-of-child-sex-abuse-and-ex-cabinet-minister
Be 'exposed' & tried in court before you die, and 30/40 years on, without ANY DNA, you'll be acquited....
Saville's only maligned because he is dead. If he was alive, he'd walk free. No doubt about it
Well I know who this one is and have known for years.
Deepest apologies, lord knows how I connected it with you.
Thats OK but you can see why I was confused
Exactly. Considering the sheer weight of evidence against him from so many witnesses over so many years, I find it difficult to believe that Savile would have been found not guilty if tried.
Whilst I do not wish to cast doubt on anyone who has reported sexual abuse I also do not buy into this current trend of branding everyone guilty and their friends and employers complicit in cover-ups until I have actually seen credible evidence.
Now if its true its too late to do anything about him, however if people are still alive who assisted , took part or covered up then they can be prosecuted.
But before branding everyone disgraceful and guilty could we draw breath, take a step back and wait a bit ? its bad enough when the media whip up a frenzy let alone when everyone joins in , after all I am sure most of us still agree with the principal of innocent until proven guilty and I prefer to base that on findings as opposed to headlines.
I have a feeling he admitted it as they had found some evidence which would have made his not guilty plea untenable.
Only the criminally insane and mad dogs will be taken in by this pile of espoo from the Mail. As with the Labour/PIE thing and the Farage expenses thing, this matter is being hyped up so as to try to damage opponents of the Mail's beloved Conservative party in the run up to next month's elections.
I am not saying I think all the allegations of abuse are lies , time will tell if they are true or not, but I agree the media in general is enjoying this .
I have no doubt that the victims' lives were damaged by a vile paedo who's now deceased and can't be held to account. What the Mail is doing isn't an impartial and rational investigation but merely crude ideological point scoring. This is perhaps something for a judge-led inquiry to look at properly and not the Mail's rabid rantings (again).
Cyril Smith is dead and gone, but as in the Jimmy Saville case and Operation Yewtree, many other people were found to be involved. It is these people that need to be rooted out and brought to account.
HOWEVER: let's not forget the Daily Mail's attitude towards Cyril Smith in the 1980s.
They absolutely adored him - he was easily their favourite non-Tory MP.
Partly, because he was the only Liberal in favour of hanging, he was anti-abortion, fervently pro-nuclear weapons, and he rarely criticised Mrs Thatcher. Also, he was an "ardent Royalist" (a quote I vividly remember them writing of him when he made a speech about the Queen Mother).
His speeches, and publicity antics, used to get far more coverage than they deserved by the Mail and I don't think it was just because he was such a "character". (No other Liberal or Labour MP got the same treatment, except, perhaps David Owen.) It always seemed like he had very close friends behind the scenes at The Mail who were keen to paint him in a favourable light.
With their usual sick-making hypocrisy, The Mail now tries to make political gain out of this issue. But if rumours were so rife about this creature's behaviour back then, how come they gave him such positive coverage for most of his parliamentary career?
I should think Sir David English, Paul Dacre and Lord Rothermere were just as, if not more, likely to have known all about Cyril Smith's nasty carryings on as (the much younger and rather useless) Nick Clegg would have.
Is the Mail bravely trying to expose an establishment cover up?
Or are they trying to distract from their own collective involvement, perhaps?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608675/Shamed-Co-op-boss-quizzed-cover-child-sex-Cyril-Smith-school-Flowers-targeted-QC-suppressed-reports-exposing-horrific-sweet-shop-paedophiles.html
There ar othe articles available in today's Mail.
Flowers was born and educated in the Southampton area and was at university in Bristol. For most of the 1970s he was in Hampshire again, working as a Methodist Minister and also in a senior role in the local Labour Party. It is said that after his arrest for a quite minor outdoors sexual offence around 1978, he left under a cloud for the North. However, he was allegedly active in Bradford Methodism as early as 1976 so it was always possible he'd go there.
Then, according to the BBC timeliine, he was in Rochdale. It's not a million miles from Bradford so it makes some sense. He was elected as a Labour councillor in Rochdale in 1988. But that does leave a lengthy gap of 12 years.
Actually, in the three years before 1988, he was in the Midlands. Specifically he was in Coventry where he first tried for a seat on the Council. Then rapidly - some might say inexplicably - he became a major contender to be the Labour candidate for Parliament in a Coventry seat . His challenge, which was from the right of the party during the Kinnock reforms, was headed off by Dave Nellist who secured the nomination. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, if there is one area of the country other than Rochdale, Barnes and Jersey about which there are serious allegations concerning childrens' homes, it is Coventry. Those allegations coincide with the years that Flowers was there.
And your verdict is?
My verdict is that the police investigation into Flowers should not simply be considering his roles in Rochdale but also any roles he had in Coventry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608695/I-underage-sex-police-officers-guest-house-used-VIP-paedophile-ring-Astonishing-allegations-masseur-worked-16-year-old-notorious-party-venue-used-politicians-judges-pop-stars.html
From the link:
"the politician he is now considering naming is still sitting in Parliament."
Exactly
I bet there was actual physical evidence/pictures they found
All the others were he said she said