Saying that he did look quite portly for someone with supposedly terminal cancer in his more recent tv appearances? But maybe he had an unusual form of it?
Saying that he did look quite portly for someone with supposedly terminal cancer in his more recent tv appearances? But maybe he had an unusual form of it?
Cancer meds can bloat you, he would also have lots of heavy duty meds in his house, certainly I had a sackload of oxycontin to take back to the pharmacy after my uncle died.
Police tell me a post mortem will be carried out on #LeonBrittan. Amb & police called to his home yestrdy AM, see my report
it would not surprise me in the least if elevated, if not deadly, levels of medicines were to be found in the corpse. That report http://www.scribd.com/doc/253608364/After-Brittan-s-death-The-questions implies that they wanted to interview Brittan again (and perhaps even to formally charge him - who knows?). It does sound like the noose was tightening at last and that it was only a matter of time before he would have been put on trial.
it would not surprise me in the least if elevated, if not deadly, levels of medicines were to be found in the corpse. That report http://www.scribd.com/doc/253608364/After-Brittan-s-death-The-questions implies that they wanted to interview Brittan again (and perhaps even to formally charge him - who knows?). It does sound like the noose was tightening at last and that it was only a matter of time before he would have been put on trial.
I would be surprised if the results of the PM were made public.
Savile was protected by somebody high up in government during Thatchers reign as he come close to being charged by police at least twice before high ranking officers told them to drop charges.
They didn't come much higher than LB in the 80's.
I'd guess that some of them are still around and if they are then they should be prosecuted for the offences that they committed just like the elderly Rolf Harris was last year.
I imagine they were handed over/taken by the authorities. I would have wanted rid of them asap.
Indeed.
According to the Mirror article that sangreal linked in post 134, top judges as well as Brittan and Cyril Smith visited gay brothels to abuse boys.
Why so many men in positions of power in the UK had this proclivity towards raping young boys is difficult to comprehend.
A priest in my locality was jailed last year after he pleaded guilty to abusing two boys. He is under investigation for further crimes against children.
According to the Mirror article that sangreal linked in post 134, top judges as well as Brittan and Cyril Smith visited gay brothels to abuse boys.
Why so many men in positions of power in the UK had this proclivity towards raping young boys is difficult to comprehend.
A priest in my locality was jailed last year after he pleaded guilty to abusing two boys. He is under investigation for further crimes against children.
The following information is not in the above link but it was in the print edition:
He had an interest in the posterior since before he was ten years' old.
Could this be a factor in how paedophilia develops?
I don't know about what the individual trigger is but there always appears to have been paedophiles throughout history as far as I know - it's just that attitudes towards it have been different within different societies. I think it's fair to say that some environments make it easier for paedophiles to flourish.
The public school system (decades ago) and it's method of education, gender segregation, kids separated from their parents for long periods, no sex offenders register at the time.......all that is just perfect conditions.
I suppose jobs connected to children's homes and the priesthood are the same - access to kids and a chance to build a relationship separate from the parents - and I'm not surprised that there appear to be a higher percentage of paedophiles from these areas than others.
If it goes on at a higher level than that then you have the additional concern as a society that a person might by way of their influence be able to escape exposure and continue abusing, which is what differentiates your famous and powerful offender from your standard offender in my mind at least. I think that half the outrage is not that these crimes might happen but that they might be accepted - condoned even by a section of people - allowing them to keep happening.
Having said that, look at the numbers quoted in the Rotherham case. How can something like that go to that level? Or are we being fed duff figures by the media? It's mind-boggling really if that is the actual scale of abuse in just one council area.
As for the various children's homes that have came into the news over the years (there's been quite a few) and various names linked there - I don't know what to think. I suppose they are still really working through it all. Didn't the Welsh children's home owner only get charged last year?
My personal opinion is that quite a few powerful people did do a lot of abusing and were protected and now the establishment as a whole wants to sit on the whole matter for as long as they can and hope those involved die in the interim. But I don't know for sure so I wouldn't directly name individuals - it just seems the most likely scenario given all the pieces of the puzzle we've seen. I think there has to be something in it all or it would have been quashed already. I doubt we'll know the full story for decades, if at all.
Savile was protected by somebody high up in government during Thatchers reign as he come close to being charged by police at least twice before high ranking officers told them to drop charges.
They didn't come much higher than LB in the 80's.
Oh yes Savile had connections to the very top.
To the extent he used to spend christmas at chequers with the Thatchers its very surprising given the rumours flying around even then, they were not warned to keep well away .
LB did not seem that trustworthy to me in the 80s quite an "oily" character.
It's quite frightening how much power this guy had if he was using it to cover-up illegal activities.
Also, I think it was about a year ago that Lord McAlpine died. Does anyone know how he died, I don't remember that being reported?
There seems to be very little information on how Lord McAlpine died at his home in Italy.
When he appeared on TV to counter the allegations against him he appeared as a frail stooped old man on his last legs.
He did however write a book which explained amongst other things how to confuse your adversaries with such shows of appearing old and frail to gain an advantage.
LB shuffled around in slippers when he was questioned about the alleged rape of a 19 year old in the 60's.
Lord M, LB and Peter Morrison the former MP and personal aide to Margaret Thatcher all seem to have died as a coincidence no doubt when these allegations started to be followed up....
1. Leon Brittan's reputation, like that of Peter Morrison will be completely trashed;
2. Now that there's been so much media publicity, a new cover up is much less likely and any still living paedophiles closely associated with either the Dolphin Square or Elm Guest House abuse cases are likely to be raided and put on trial where there is sufficient evidence that's likely to result in a successful prosecution.
.
That's what they said after Saville yet plainly the inability to prosecute or report on prominent men accused of sex crimes continued as the flood of evidence is again only coming out after a death
And there seem an awful lot here. So far several witness statements, reports of photographic evidence and statements from ex-police, social worker etc that there was credible evidence that failed to be recorded if disappeared..
I'd guess that some of them are still around and if they are then they should be prosecuted for the offences that they committed just like the elderly Rolf Harris was last year.
Rolf Harris is not politically powerful. Nor was he part of a network that, apparently, used the home office and security services to compile files on other politicians and seize and destroy evidence against them.
I think Westminster is too wary of blowback to really want to tackle this robustly and quickly. They'll be hoping more die off and (at a minimum going) that more evidence disappears.
There seems to be very little information on how Lord McAlpine died at his home in Italy.
When he appeared on TV to counter the allegations against him he appeared as a frail stooped old man on his last legs.
He did however write a book which explained amongst other things how to confuse your adversaries with such shows of appearing old and frail to gain an advantage.
LB shuffled around in slippers when he was questioned about the alleged rape of a 19 year old in the 60's.
Lord M, LB and Peter Morrison the former MP and personal aide to Margaret Thatcher all seem to have died as a coincidence no doubt when these allegations started to be followed up....
Abuse victim Steve Messham admitted he was mistaken when he said that McAlpine abused him. The actual perpetrator was a cousin of McAlpine.
I don't know about what the individual trigger is but there always appears to have been paedophiles throughout history as far as I know - it's just that attitudes towards it have been different within different societies. I think it's fair to say that some environments make it easier for paedophiles to flourish.
The public school system (decades ago) and it's method of education, gender segregation, kids separated from their parents for long periods, no sex offenders register at the time.......all that is just perfect conditions.
That reminds me of baccha bazi, which is the perverse Afghan tradition in which men, because they are prohibited from having sex with women to whom they are not married, dress boys up as girls, make them dance and have sex with them.
Abuse victim Steve Messham admitted he was mistaken when he said that McAlpine abused him. The actual perpetrator was a cousin of McAlpine.
Yes that is the official line,
However Messham identified McAlpine years ago when police presented him with various photos, and didn't actually know who the man in the photo was till the police told him.
Then of course Messham retracted and said he was mistaken.....
Yes that is the official line,
However Messham identified McAlpine years ago when police presented him with various photos, and didn't actually know who the man in the photo was till the police told him.
Then of course Messham retracted and said he was mistaken.....
He told the Waterhouse inquiry in 1997 that he believed that the man who abused him was dead. Therefore, it couldn't have been Lord McAlpine.
No he identified McAlpine in a photograph by the police.
If Messham didn't know who the person was in the photograph at the time ( ie McAlpine ) until the police told him, how would he know that person was dead?
No he identified McAlpine in a photograph by the police.
If Messham didn't know who the person was in the photograph at the time ( ie McAlpine ) until the police told him, how would he know that person was dead?
Still staying slightly off topic - the information i read from a reasonable source (i.e. not David Icke website or other mad places!) was that the policeman showed Messham some pictures of people. Messham identified the man who abused him from a photo which the policeman told him was Lord McAlpine's picture. But it wasn't, the photo was that of Jimmy McAlpine (Lord McAlpines cousin)
Still staying slightly off topic - the information i read from a reasonable source (i.e. not David Icke website or other mad places!) was that the policeman showed Messham some pictures of people. Messham identified the man who abused him from a photo which the policeman told him was Lord McAlpine's picture. But it wasn't, the photo was that of Jimmy McAlpine (Lord McAlpines cousin)
To add to this, Jimmy McAlpine was known colloquially in the area as "Lord McAlpine".
I'm just amazed that no one is questioning how certain names of public figures, like singers, DJs, TV celebrities, etc. are made public so that other "victims" can come forward, but politicians seem unique in being investigated in secret.
Why weren't details of the Brittan police investigations made public? (or why aren't other investigations kept secret).
With regards to McAlpine, In the original Scallywag magazine article some of the North Wales abuse victims identified McAlpine through photographs shown to them by Simon Regan and his team. I don't think it's as clear cut as what's been claimed afterwards. It wouldn't be surprising if Messham had been persuaded to say otherwise, now knowing what these people are like. Also, if people think it's unfair on McAlpine, then the same could be said about his cousin who just might be being used as a scapegoat.
Still staying slightly off topic - the information i read from a reasonable source (i.e. not David Icke website or other mad places!) was that the policeman showed Messham some pictures of people. Messham identified the man who abused him from a photo which the policeman told him was Lord McAlpine's picture. But it wasn't, the photo was that of Jimmy McAlpine (Lord McAlpines cousin)
At the time of the Messham incident reliable sources were saying that Messham identified Lord McAlpine on the photos he was shown by the police.
I'm sure somewhere along the line Newsnight and the rest who staked their reputations on Messham being accurate would have realised that the photo he was originally shown was McAlpine's cousin if that was the case.
At the end of the day 'reasonable sources' might include the mainstream press which suddenly switched to the story of McAlpine's cousin when McAlpine himself started threatening court actions.
All of this has been extremely murky due to the Establishment covering up and it boils down to who you want to believe.
With regards to McAlpine, In the original Scallywag magazine article some of the North Wales abuse victims identified McAlpine through photographs shown to them by Simon Regan and his team. I don't think it's as clear cut as what's been claimed afterwards. It wouldn't be surprising if Messham had been persuaded to say otherwise, now knowing what these people are like. Also, if people think it's unfair on McAlpine, then the same could be said about his cousin who just might be being used as a scapegoat.
The fact that these scandals started to come into the public domain after Savile's death means that Messham was unlikely to cave in to pressure. It's possible that he didn't know what Lord McAlpine looked like until after the Newsnight report was broadcast.
I'm just amazed that no one is questioning how certain names of public figures, like singers, DJs, TV celebrities, etc. are made public so that other "victims" can come forward, but politicians seem unique in being investigated in secret.
He was named after arrest, but take Cliff Richard for example, he was named but never arrested (and never even questioned as far as I recall). While Brittan seems to have been questioned by police, possibly more than once, but not named. And why wasn't he arrested given the witness statements against him?
I'm not saying the accused should always be named, or never named, but trying to understand if the establishment is protecting its own or whether there is a real reason for this apparent different treatment.
Comments
Extraodinary!
Saying that he did look quite portly for someone with supposedly terminal cancer in his more recent tv appearances? But maybe he had an unusual form of it?
Cancer meds can bloat you, he would also have lots of heavy duty meds in his house, certainly I had a sackload of oxycontin to take back to the pharmacy after my uncle died.
it would not surprise me in the least if elevated, if not deadly, levels of medicines were to be found in the corpse. That report http://www.scribd.com/doc/253608364/After-Brittan-s-death-The-questions implies that they wanted to interview Brittan again (and perhaps even to formally charge him - who knows?). It does sound like the noose was tightening at last and that it was only a matter of time before he would have been put on trial.
I would be surprised if the results of the PM were made public.
They didn't come much higher than LB in the 80's.
Indeed.
According to the Mirror article that sangreal linked in post 134, top judges as well as Brittan and Cyril Smith visited gay brothels to abuse boys.
Why so many men in positions of power in the UK had this proclivity towards raping young boys is difficult to comprehend.
A priest in my locality was jailed last year after he pleaded guilty to abusing two boys. He is under investigation for further crimes against children.
http://www.anglocelt.ie/news/courtreports/articles/2014/03/20/4020335-cavan-priest-jailed-for-abuse-of-two-boys-aged-ten-years/
The following information is not in the above link but it was in the print edition:
He had an interest in the posterior since before he was ten years' old.
Could this be a factor in how paedophilia develops?
I don't know about what the individual trigger is but there always appears to have been paedophiles throughout history as far as I know - it's just that attitudes towards it have been different within different societies. I think it's fair to say that some environments make it easier for paedophiles to flourish.
The public school system (decades ago) and it's method of education, gender segregation, kids separated from their parents for long periods, no sex offenders register at the time.......all that is just perfect conditions.
I suppose jobs connected to children's homes and the priesthood are the same - access to kids and a chance to build a relationship separate from the parents - and I'm not surprised that there appear to be a higher percentage of paedophiles from these areas than others.
If it goes on at a higher level than that then you have the additional concern as a society that a person might by way of their influence be able to escape exposure and continue abusing, which is what differentiates your famous and powerful offender from your standard offender in my mind at least. I think that half the outrage is not that these crimes might happen but that they might be accepted - condoned even by a section of people - allowing them to keep happening.
Having said that, look at the numbers quoted in the Rotherham case. How can something like that go to that level? Or are we being fed duff figures by the media? It's mind-boggling really if that is the actual scale of abuse in just one council area.
As for the various children's homes that have came into the news over the years (there's been quite a few) and various names linked there - I don't know what to think. I suppose they are still really working through it all. Didn't the Welsh children's home owner only get charged last year?
My personal opinion is that quite a few powerful people did do a lot of abusing and were protected and now the establishment as a whole wants to sit on the whole matter for as long as they can and hope those involved die in the interim. But I don't know for sure so I wouldn't directly name individuals - it just seems the most likely scenario given all the pieces of the puzzle we've seen. I think there has to be something in it all or it would have been quashed already. I doubt we'll know the full story for decades, if at all.
Also, I think it was about a year ago that Lord McAlpine died. Does anyone know how he died, I don't remember that being reported?
Oh yes Savile had connections to the very top.
To the extent he used to spend christmas at chequers with the Thatchers its very surprising given the rumours flying around even then, they were not warned to keep well away .
LB did not seem that trustworthy to me in the 80s quite an "oily" character.
There seems to be very little information on how Lord McAlpine died at his home in Italy.
When he appeared on TV to counter the allegations against him he appeared as a frail stooped old man on his last legs.
He did however write a book which explained amongst other things how to confuse your adversaries with such shows of appearing old and frail to gain an advantage.
LB shuffled around in slippers when he was questioned about the alleged rape of a 19 year old in the 60's.
Lord M, LB and Peter Morrison the former MP and personal aide to Margaret Thatcher all seem to have died as a coincidence no doubt when these allegations started to be followed up....
That's what they said after Saville yet plainly the inability to prosecute or report on prominent men accused of sex crimes continued as the flood of evidence is again only coming out after a death
And there seem an awful lot here. So far several witness statements, reports of photographic evidence and statements from ex-police, social worker etc that there was credible evidence that failed to be recorded if disappeared..
Interesting article on background
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leon-brittan-ex-labour-mp-barbara-5038069
Rolf Harris is not politically powerful. Nor was he part of a network that, apparently, used the home office and security services to compile files on other politicians and seize and destroy evidence against them.
I think Westminster is too wary of blowback to really want to tackle this robustly and quickly. They'll be hoping more die off and (at a minimum going) that more evidence disappears.
Abuse victim Steve Messham admitted he was mistaken when he said that McAlpine abused him. The actual perpetrator was a cousin of McAlpine.
That reminds me of baccha bazi, which is the perverse Afghan tradition in which men, because they are prohibited from having sex with women to whom they are not married, dress boys up as girls, make them dance and have sex with them.
Yes that is the official line,
However Messham identified McAlpine years ago when police presented him with various photos, and didn't actually know who the man in the photo was till the police told him.
Then of course Messham retracted and said he was mistaken.....
He told the Waterhouse inquiry in 1997 that he believed that the man who abused him was dead. Therefore, it couldn't have been Lord McAlpine.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim
Here's another Tory who has been falsely accused (He wouldn't have issued a public denial if he was guilty).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683533/I-ll-sue-links-untrue-paedophile-claims-says-Tory-grandee-Peter-Bottomley.html
No he identified McAlpine in a photograph by the police.
If Messham didn't know who the person was in the photograph at the time ( ie McAlpine ) until the police told him, how would he know that person was dead?
Still staying slightly off topic - the information i read from a reasonable source (i.e. not David Icke website or other mad places!) was that the policeman showed Messham some pictures of people. Messham identified the man who abused him from a photo which the policeman told him was Lord McAlpine's picture. But it wasn't, the photo was that of Jimmy McAlpine (Lord McAlpines cousin)
To add to this, Jimmy McAlpine was known colloquially in the area as "Lord McAlpine".
Why weren't details of the Brittan police investigations made public? (or why aren't other investigations kept secret).
At the time of the Messham incident reliable sources were saying that Messham identified Lord McAlpine on the photos he was shown by the police.
I'm sure somewhere along the line Newsnight and the rest who staked their reputations on Messham being accurate would have realised that the photo he was originally shown was McAlpine's cousin if that was the case.
At the end of the day 'reasonable sources' might include the mainstream press which suddenly switched to the story of McAlpine's cousin when McAlpine himself started threatening court actions.
All of this has been extremely murky due to the Establishment covering up and it boils down to who you want to believe.
The fact that these scandals started to come into the public domain after Savile's death means that Messham was unlikely to cave in to pressure. It's possible that he didn't know what Lord McAlpine looked like until after the Newsnight report was broadcast.
They are not Mark Prichard was arrested and questioned over rape allegations - which later were found to have insufficient evidence to support.
He was named after arrest, but take Cliff Richard for example, he was named but never arrested (and never even questioned as far as I recall). While Brittan seems to have been questioned by police, possibly more than once, but not named. And why wasn't he arrested given the witness statements against him?
I'm not saying the accused should always be named, or never named, but trying to understand if the establishment is protecting its own or whether there is a real reason for this apparent different treatment.