Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

High Ranking Paedophiles: shall we just forget about them now, and concentrate of Celebrity gropers.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 54 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 00:39:16 BDT
Spin says:
Hugo: I do not know. I really have no interest in defining the terms used to describe child abuse. I leave that to folk with an interest in such matters.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 00:28:48 BDT
Shouldn't the word be Pediarast rather than paedophile?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 00:24:36 BDT
Yes very true Phelan and whilst your phelan around to see if you've still got something to be proud of - by the time this government has finished with us, we'll all be Eunochs!

Posted on 15 May 2013 15:03:42 BDT
Spin says:
Anyone out there who had a dodgy sexual experience or indulged in a sexual indiscretion in their youth may expect a knock on the door soon...From now on, our youth are being taught; keep your hands to yourself...or when you are an old fogey, the person annoyed with your dumping of them will ensure you will be arrested for peadophilia... despite the fact you were more or less of the same age at the time...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2013 13:48:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 May 2013 14:21:30 BDT
Reply to Mrs Phelan,

When speaking of perverted politicians, D Groom is clearly: "so blinded by and in awe of his superiors" that he can think it sensible to say:-"Maybe it's because there are aren't any"?

Well I can state for a fact that I was once invited to a private 'introductory/initiation' party by a very senior 1980s national political leader. The 'bait' was a 'safe seat' for a mainstream Party in the coming election. I was collected and driven to the 'party' by a member of that politician's plainclothes police diplomatic protection team. Having met numerous high fliers whils't politically active in the early 1980s, I'd heard rumours of 'how personal contacts can get you through the glass ceiling' and (as a young man) thought I'd got the chance of a lifetime.

The location was at a large detached house set back from a country road/lane to the east of Plymouth. At least 15/20 people (some nationally recognisable) were there.

From the casual conversation, I rapidly realised these national media/political figures were ALL practicing homosexuals and that I was the evening's intended entertainment! Horrified at the prospect, I was fortunate to find an unlocked door and fled into the night at full speed.

Don't tell me there are no perverted politicians Mr Groom, because I've met a few of them that you would immediately recognise!

Furthermore, the 'difference' between homosexual rape and pedophilia is actually insignificant, due to the context in which these initiations are used/employed. Those prepared to participate in these unnatural activities to 'further their careers' are repeatedly photographed as they do so. These photos are then kept as a potential 'Doomsday Option' to ensure the compliance/obedience of those involved, no matter the influencial jobs they later hold; which is the very reason pedophile activities seem to have become more 'popular' since homosexuality has become more socially acceptable.

If you consider this mere fantasy, check out a few of these:-

www.newsnetscotland.com/.../6226-the-curious-case-of-newsnight-and-steven messham
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Newsnight-claims-leading-politician-Thatcher-years-centre-widespread-paedophile-ring.html#ixzz2TMi28zgA
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../news/.../Jimmy-Savile-victims-could-top-1350-the-cop-who-exposed-him-warned-yesterday.
Savile victim says police report 'a whitewash' 10 May 2013

Posted on 12 May 2013 06:37:29 BDT
Spin says:
In an age where sex, in all forms and perversions is freely available on the "Net-web", the commercialisation of sex, and the development of laws ensuring sexual freedoms, I find it astonishing that society is so morally concerned with sexual behaviour that occurred in the past. Talk about getting ones priorities mixed up...No doubt in 20 years the consequences of todays sex-mad society will be considered "Historic" crimes, yes?

Posted on 12 May 2013 06:05:25 BDT
Spin says:
I see Jim Davidson has been accused of sexual assault during his trip to the Falkland Islands. How they got the sheep to come forward is beyond me...=)

Posted on 11 May 2013 21:12:27 BDT
Bellatori says:
A man was jailed recently for rape because his alleged 'partner' was in no fit state to consent as she was drunk. Fair enough. But I did wonder what the situation would be if either, they were both drunk OR he was and she was not.

The worm in me says young lads on the pull should not only go out with a supply of condoms but also a ball point and type written consent form.

Still on the bright side they nailed the group that was coercing vulnerable girls. Interesting that they say it was not racial. However I suspect that it was cultural in the sense that some groups clearly value women, particulalry those outside their group, as of little value

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2013 17:27:24 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Bro,

Yes I saw it this week.... It is quite clear from all the things that keep surfacing that the Police are as corrupt as the next. (Why not? They are after all human) Look at their involvement in the Press debacle as exposed at the Leveson enquiry and Hillsborough.
What do we do about it?
I found this article very insightful -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9808924/MPs-and-police-at-bottom-of-ethics-league-table-standards-watchdog-finds.html

I was approached and invited to join a local organization which monitored police activity many years ago. There were several officers in the group, which didn't deter me, because I have no wish to make honest officers look like bigots or bad people and the 'good' guys are just as sick of it. I think it is imperative, if we are ever going to trust them again to see justice and prosecution of those who disgrace the Police Service.

Time to set up our own Police Watch Committee.....I can't see why we shouldn't.
I'll make enquiries again..

Here is another VERY INTERTESTING site....
I have caught some of it previously, but felt at the time that he was a bit of a ranter...and that some of what he said was a bit OTT and his language left a lot to be desired... However I settled down to quietly read and digest the Ben Fellows piece and realised that this is very disturbing story, and probably very close to the truth..
Fellows has been told to keep off the internet, and was informed that NO Politician will ever be prosecuted for Paedophilia, so there we have it..... He also says that a Leveson 'insider' has blown the whistle and revealed to him that 'they' are setting him up to take him to court and discredit him, to bring out a law to prevent salacious gossip on the internet??????
IMHO the only reason they are witch hunting the celebs...is to keep us satiated and prevent us from searching too closely.
http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=11688
Magsx

Posted on 11 May 2013 13:30:19 BDT
Jango says:
Hi Mags,

Have you seen the latest? W. Yorks. Police have exonerated themselves of any collusion or prior knowledge of J. Saviles sordid behaviour. They knew nothing???
When every man and his dog in the land knew. It was an open secret for years.
They clearly think we are all dumbed down idiots. Which just goes to show the level of contempt with which these Gov't agencies treat the public.
The whole thing reeks like a month old kipper.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2013 12:58:52 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hya Neo,
I think I also asked the question: Who tipped off the Press when the Police went to arrest Hall?
That was the first thing that set my antenna twitching.
All the best,
Mags.

Posted on 11 May 2013 12:07:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 May 2013 12:33:24 BDT
Jango says:
There is one glaringly obvious aspect to this case, (to me anyway) that no one else on here seems to have picked up on.
Why? was it deemed necessary for this case to be held in camera?
This is a practice normally reserved for safeguarding the national security of the nation, as in highly sensitive spy cases and the like.
Why was it employed in a case dealing with the "sexual assault" of minors 30/40 years ago?
And why would Hall freely admit to it, after all these years? To something which would, I imagine, be very difficult to prove after all these years.
As stated in "The Slog" ( the link is in M.E.Phelan's original post) there is a hint of "plea bargaining" and double dealing behind closed doors,
about this case.
Did Hall admit to a lesser charge of "sexual assault" in order to get a more lenient sentence?
And, was this deal presented to him by the Establishment in order to protect one of their own?
It has been previously stated that Hall mixed in social circles with Politicians and Royalty.
I wonder who's exalted @rse is being covered here?

This case reminds me of the story of Cathy O'Brien, in her book "Trance Formation of America." She claims that she tried to take out a private prosecution against George Bush Snr. for Statutory Rape when she was a child, and also years later against her 8yr. old Daughter Kelly. The case was in full swing, when suddenly, without warning, the Judge halted proceedings, then dismissed the case.
On the grounds of "National Security".
So! this is clearly an International problem, as per the Doutroux case in Belgium.
Why are these exalted perv' Politico's allowed to cock a snook at the Law of the land?
Does the Law only apply to us, the ignorant masses, and not these privileged nonces.

Posted on 11 May 2013 11:41:28 BDT
Defenceman says:
I'm slightly surpised that there aren't queues of complainants outside the doors of the pop groups of the swinging sixties, when sex drugs and rock and roll was all the rage (apparently and not from personal experience).

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2013 10:23:31 BDT
Pipkin says:
As you say Clive....... it has been defined as ''statutory rape'' now, because of the girl's age at the time, despite the fact that she consented to sex with a 38 year old man and found it such a pleasant experience that she went back for more on at least four occasions?

**Statutory Rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of Statutory Rape even if the complainant ''explicitly consented'' to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor.

By contrast, other rape generally occurs when a person overcomes another person by force and without the person's consent.

The actor's age is an important factor in Statutory Rape where the offense is based on the victim's age. Furthermore, a defendant may not argue that he was mistaken as to the minor's age or incapacity. Most rape statutes specify that a rape occurs when the complainant is under a certain age and the perpetrator is over a certain age.

Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is defined as sexual contact with a person under thirteen years of age by a person who is more than THIRTY-SIX MONTHS OLDER than the victim. The offense also is committed if the complainant is between thirteen and sixteen years old and the actor is more than FORTY-EIGHT MONTHS OLDER than the complainant **
I will repeat again, there must be millions of men now quaking in their shoes, who groped a girls breasts when he was 17/18 and she was only 15? Not to mention all those who had sex as soon as she was 16.
And a Paedophile is someone sexually abusing a pre pubescent child... that is one without breasts or body hair. Normally under the age of twelve.....
Hall was an opportunist, taking advantage of his celebrity status, and far too tactile for his own good, which he has learned to his cost.
(I'm in need of a bob or two, I think I'll sue .. because I had my bottom patted by numerous celebrities, and was kissed and had their arms around me....when I was a 14 year old roving teenage 'pop' reporter for our local newspaper's 'teenage page.' One of them a particularly revolting old reggae singer.....
But as I said in a previous post..... where were the parents of these unaccompanied ''underage'' children who are now shouting abuse? And why have they chosen now... 45 years later to speak about their experiences. They were not sexually abused.... In my opinion, one of them was a willing participant, and the others were hugged or kissed affectionately (not even sexually) which at the time was quite acceptable to them, but today, can be construed as assault if they didn't enjoy it!!!! And we all know there is lots of money to be had from allegations of that sort.
The world's gone mad......................................................
Regards,
Mx

Posted on 11 May 2013 09:38:31 BDT
C. A. Small says:
So to summarise. No link from Spin. A story that made no sense from a legal perspective. Still no link from Spin despite his assertion that the story had been in the news for six months ( in itself a rarity - the medias attention span being usually about the same as a goldfish).

So Spin- admit you made it up, admit you got the facts wrong, or post a a link.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2013 09:34:07 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Simon- go away. You may have been a smoker, but you are still an idiot.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 May 2013 09:32:46 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Well since what you have posted has to be incorrect , maybe the six months of stories in the news you have been following might have a link so we can all check it.

Posted on 11 May 2013 02:08:49 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 11 May 2013 09:40:39 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 19:02:43 BDT
Pipkin says:
I endorse this post. Absolutely spot on Clive.
M.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 16:06:38 BDT
C.A.Small...a question. You use the phrase "he is a rapist". Why do you phrase it in the present tense? I used to smoke. So I "was" a smoker. Your language creates a false-to-fact reality.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 16:06:12 BDT
Spin says:
Dan: unlike some on these threads, I am not obsessed with child abuse as a means to express a hatred for religion or celebrity and have no desire to research the precise details of these crimes simply to impress folk who I do not know and who make it clear that they do not want to know me.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 16:01:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 May 2013 16:04:49 BDT
Dan Fante says:
The reason I asked was because I'm finding it pretty hard to draw any conclusions given the sketchy and contradictory info you've provided regarding it. I can only conclude you've got the facts wrong or you've made the whole thing up in order to try and make a point. I suspect it's the latter and no link will be forthcoming.

Posted on 10 May 2013 15:54:50 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 15:23:58 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Ah the old spin trick, when caught out posting gibberish, go off at a tangent and post utter cobblers.

Now where is the link to the story? Or did you make it all up?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 May 2013 15:17:43 BDT
Spin says:
CA; Ok. All priests and media celebrities are "paedophiles"...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  54
Initial post:  7 May 2013
Latest post:  17 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions