Discussion:
Lib/Dems
Add Reply
Omega
2019-11-05 15:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.

Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.

What the fuck is going on up there?

I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!

omega
Norman Wells
2019-11-05 17:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
Exaggeration and wishful thinking.
Grikbassturdo®™
2019-11-05 17:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Peeler
2019-11-05 17:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 09:30:44 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
They can't be as completely fucked up as you are, though, pedophilic gay
Razovic!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-11-05 17:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
At least they kept their mouths shut, which prevented the scandal spreading
to all the other parties - although Jack Straw came close to falling into the
cess pit.
Pamela
2019-11-05 18:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has
attracted for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300
seats this coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in
parliament at the moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime
Minister she claims and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in
the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref
2 and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
At least they kept their mouths shut, which prevented the scandal
spreading to all the other parties - although Jack Straw came close to
falling into the cess pit.
Cyril Smith, another LibDem, too.
Grikbassturdo®™
2019-11-05 18:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:53:31 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
At least they kept their mouths shut, which prevented the scandal spreading
to all the other parties
Too bad they couldn't keep their other orifices shut.
Post by Keema's Nan
- although Jack Straw came close to falling into the
cess pit.
The jew Jack Straw (né Stravinsky) belongs in a cesspit.
Peeler
2019-11-05 18:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:38:12 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Too bad they couldn't keep their other orifices shut.
YOU don't even WANT to do that, gay pedophilic Razovic! <G>
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Keema's Nan
- although Jack Straw came close to falling into the
cess pit.
The jew Jack Straw (né Stravinsky) belongs in a cesspit.
You are projecting, yet again!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-11-05 19:53:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
--
Col
Grikbassturdo®™
2019-11-05 20:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
As Liberals, they did. Same thing, same delusions, different name.
Peeler
2019-11-05 20:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:29:00 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Col
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
As Liberals, they did. Same thing, same delusions, different name.
Same deranged idiot as always, eh, idiot Razovic? <VBG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-11-05 21:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
As Liberals, they did. Same thing, same delusions, different name.
The Liberals were down to just a handful of MPs long before Jeremy
Thorpe came along. The running joke at the time was that they could all
travel to the HoC together in one taxi...
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg
Peeler
2019-11-05 21:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:26:12 +0000, Col, another brain dead, troll-feeding,
Post by Col
The Liberals were down to just a handful of MPs long before Jeremy
Thorpe came along. The running joke at the time
The running joke at this moment is that you are retarded enough to keep
feeding the most perverted, filthy and abnormal trolling psychopath around!
<tsk>
Grikbassturdo®™
2019-11-05 21:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
As Liberals, they did. Same thing, same delusions, different name.
The Liberals were down to just a handful of MPs long before Jeremy
Thorpe came along. The running joke at the time was that they could all
travel to the HoC together in one taxi...
And the Liberal Democrats have continued the tradition as today's
running joke.
Peeler
2019-11-05 22:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:54:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
And the Liberal Democrats have continued the tradition as today's
running joke.
And you CONTINUE trying to find ANY senile old fool here who will feed you
at least a LITTLE bit, you running joke of uk.legal! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Vidcapper
2019-11-06 06:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P

And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2019-11-06 07:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
what about shooting a dog?
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-11-07 12:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
what about shooting a dog?
And, for that matter, the previous conspiracy to shoot and murder a human?
The Todal
2019-11-06 11:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
That, of course, wasn't the scandal. I'm sure lots of people knew that
Thorpe was gay. The scandal was conspiracy to murder, a deliberate plot
instigated by Thorpe with the connivance of loyal friends and the help
of an incompetent, badly chosen hit man. Culminating in a not guilty
verdict which most people knew to be wrong.

And then of course there was the Cyril Smith scandal. Big fat Cyril
enjoyed spanking little boys, and David Steel responded "oh, so what? It
doesn't matter". He naively assumed, or pretended to assume, that Cyril
would only be administering reasonable chastisement to misbehaving boys.

And now, once again, we hear the same sort of refrain. Go back to your
constituencies and prepare for government! This time it's the big
breakthrough we've been waiting for! All the Remain votes are in the bag!

Deluded simpletons.
Pancho
2019-11-06 11:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
That, of course, wasn't the scandal. I'm sure lots of people knew that
Thorpe was gay.  The scandal was conspiracy to murder, a deliberate plot
instigated by Thorpe with the connivance of loyal friends and the help
of an incompetent, badly chosen hit man. Culminating in a not guilty
verdict which most people knew to be wrong.
"knew"?, why bother with trials when people just "know".
Post by The Todal
And then of course there was the Cyril Smith scandal. Big fat Cyril
enjoyed spanking little boys, and David Steel responded "oh, so what? It
doesn't matter". He naively assumed, or pretended to assume, that Cyril
would only be administering reasonable chastisement to misbehaving boys.
This is a misrepresentation.

Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.

Personally I prefer this approach to the current witch hunts.
Post by The Todal
And now, once again, we hear the same sort of refrain. Go back to your
constituencies and prepare for government! This time it's the big
breakthrough we've been waiting for! All the Remain votes are in the bag!
Deluded simpletons.
Who knows. Perhaps they will succeed to the point that they are invited
into a coalition with Boris.
The Todal
2019-11-06 12:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.

He has a lot to be ashamed of.

But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?

It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
Pancho
2019-11-06 13:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
It is the responsibility of the justice system to establish guilt and
administer punishment. The social services and education services, of 10
years before, were the people who owed a duty to the victims, not Steel.

Steel had a duty to advocate policies to protect children in future, not
investigate historic cases.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
I guess the concept of proof and due process is anathema to a witch
hunter, such as yourself.

My view is that disrespecting the legal process, presumption of
innocent, for some perceived minor political gain is what brings a party
into disrepute.

In a similar way it is the witch hunt against Ken Livingstone, Jackie
Walker, Chris Williamson that brings Labour into disrepute. They may be
antisemites, I don't know, but the evidence I have seen doesn't support it.
The Todal
2019-11-06 16:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
It is  the responsibility of the justice system to establish guilt and
administer punishment. The social services and education services, of 10
years before, were the people who owed a duty to the victims, not Steel.
But if the victims don't come forward because they are scared into
silence, any responsible adults who know what's going on should
encourage them to speak to the police. Cyril liked to assault children,
not adults.
Steel had a duty to advocate policies to protect children in future, not
investigate historic cases.
That's your opinion.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
I guess the concept of proof and due process is anathema to a witch
hunter, such as yourself.
A witch hunter? Nonsense. Maybe you think anyone who argues for higher
standards in public life is a witch hunter. Boris the witch, who tells
lies and is a serial adulterer, should not have his witchcraft held up
to public scorn.
My view is that disrespecting the legal process, presumption of
innocent, for some perceived minor political gain is what brings a party
into disrepute.
In a similar way it is the witch hunt against Ken Livingstone, Jackie
Walker, Chris Williamson that brings Labour into disrepute. They may be
antisemites, I don't know, but the evidence I have seen doesn't support it.
On that we are in agreement. The important thing about a witch hunt is
that witches don't exist and people are wrongly accused of being
witches. The three you mention are not antisemitic. They have been
treated disgracefully by the press and abandoned by the party simply to
protect the Labour brand.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-06 16:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
It is the responsibility of the justice system to establish guilt and
administer punishment. The social services and education services, of 10
years before, were the people who owed a duty to the victims, not Steel.
But if the victims don't come forward because they are scared into
silence, any responsible adults who know what's going on should
encourage them to speak to the police. Cyril liked to assault children,
not adults.
Sadly, only in your small immature world are things as simple as you
describe.

It helps if you have ‘friends’ in high places -

"MI5 and Special Branch 'covered up Cyril Smith's abuse of boys': Police
dossier handed to prosecutors in 1970 'went missing for four decades’ "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418254/MI5-Special-Branch-covered-
Cyril-Smiths-abuse-boys-Police-dossier-handed-prosecutors-1970-went-missing-
decades.html
Post by The Todal
Steel had a duty to advocate policies to protect children in future, not
investigate historic cases.
That's your opinion.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
I guess the concept of proof and due process is anathema to a witch
hunter, such as yourself.
A witch hunter? Nonsense. Maybe you think anyone who argues for higher
standards in public life is a witch hunter. Boris the witch, who tells
lies and is a serial adulterer, should not have his witchcraft held up
to public scorn.
My view is that disrespecting the legal process, presumption of
innocent, for some perceived minor political gain is what brings a party
into disrepute.
In a similar way it is the witch hunt against Ken Livingstone, Jackie
Walker, Chris Williamson that brings Labour into disrepute. They may be
antisemites, I don't know, but the evidence I have seen doesn't support it.
On that we are in agreement. The important thing about a witch hunt is
that witches don't exist and people are wrongly accused of being
witches. The three you mention are not antisemitic. They have been
treated disgracefully by the press and abandoned by the party simply to
protect the Labour brand.
Pancho
2019-11-08 11:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
It is  the responsibility of the justice system to establish guilt and
administer punishment. The social services and education services, of
10 years before, were the people who owed a duty to the victims, not
Steel.
But if the victims don't come forward because they are scared into
silence, any responsible adults who know what's going on should
encourage them to speak to the police. Cyril liked to assault children,
not adults.
Steel was not involved with these children. He was not responsible for
them. He did not "know" what was going on. He was not empowered to
investigate. He did not have the resources to investigate.

There had already been an investigation by people who were empowered to
investigate. If you feel these people who were empowered to deal with
the matter had failed, the correct thing to do would be to look at why
they failed and how it could be prevented in future. Instead you are
advocating vigilante action.

Most intelligent people understand why vigilante actions are problematic.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-08 11:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
It is the responsibility of the justice system to establish guilt and
administer punishment. The social services and education services, of
10 years before, were the people who owed a duty to the victims, not
Steel.
But if the victims don't come forward because they are scared into
silence, any responsible adults who know what's going on should
encourage them to speak to the police. Cyril liked to assault children,
not adults.
Steel was not involved with these children. He was not responsible for
them. He did not "know" what was going on. He was not empowered to
investigate. He did not have the resources to investigate.
There had already been an investigation by people who were empowered to
investigate. If you feel these people who were empowered to deal with
the matter had failed, the correct thing to do would be to look at why
they failed and how it could be prevented in future. Instead you are
advocating vigilante action.
Most intelligent people understand why vigilante actions are problematic.
How can anyone take vigilante action against a dead person?

JNugent
2019-11-07 12:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
mean that they:

(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or

(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?

I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
Grikbusstardo®™
2019-11-07 13:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
JNugent
2019-11-07 13:06:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.

The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.

The correct logic is that the fact that false accusations had not, at
one stage, been proven to be false does not mean that they were not
false. They were always false and Brittan and the rest of the victims
were always innocent.
Grikbusstardo®™
2019-11-07 13:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
Post by JNugent
The correct logic is that the fact that false accusations had not, at
one stage, been proven to be false does not mean that they were not
false. They were always false and Brittan and the rest of the victims
were always innocent.
Nonsense. Proving a negative is tricky at the best of times...much
more so in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct.

But keep driving on the wrong side of the road...you know the law is
on your side.
JNugent
2019-11-07 14:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
The correct logic is that the fact that false accusations had not, at
one stage, been proven to be false does not mean that they were not
false. They were always false and Brittan and the rest of the victims
were always innocent.
Nonsense. Proving a negative is tricky at the best of times...much
more so in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct.
But keep driving on the wrong side of the road...you know the law is
on your side.
Peeler
2019-11-07 16:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 07:53:55 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by JNugent
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
In other words, you have no way of knowing what the jew Leon Brittan
got up to in private.
He certainly knows what's the matter with you, "Grikbassturde®™" <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2019-11-08 02:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
In other words, you have no way of knowing what the jew Leon Brittan
got up to in private.
I also have no way of knowing what you get up to in private.

So clearly, you must be as guilty as Brittan.

Or something.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-08 10:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him
innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to
be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its
own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of
the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
In other words, you have no way of knowing what the jew Leon Brittan
got up to in private.
I also have no way of knowing what you get up to in private.
So clearly, you must be as guilty as Brittan.
At least you are admitting Brittan was guilty.
Post by JNugent
Or something.
Vidcapper
2019-11-08 06:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
In other words, you have no way of knowing what the jew Leon Brittan
got up to in private.
Yet you claim that you do?

If you have actual evidence then present it to the authorities, else
drop it!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Keema's Nan
2019-11-08 10:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
rec.tinfoil.hats.uk is somewhere else.
In other words, you have no way of knowing what the jew Leon Brittan
got up to in private.
Yet you claim that you do?
If you have actual evidence then present it to the authorities, else
drop it!
Aha. So the loud voice of authoritarianism has burst through the attempted
veneer of decency?

Another white supremacist is hoist by her own petard.
Peeler
2019-11-07 14:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 05:30:41 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
CERTAINLY so, just like ALL your sick, incorrect and illogical shit, which
was *FLUSHED* therefore unread again!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any "meaningful" debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
Grikbassturde®™
2019-11-07 15:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
BY 12 randomly selected jurors??
It would hardly be the first miscarriage of justice, would it?
Vidcapper
2019-11-08 07:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbassturde®™
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
BY 12 randomly selected jurors??
It would hardly be the first miscarriage of justice, would it?
It would hardly *be* a miscarriage of justice - period.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 20:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him
innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Incorrect, and illogical.
Not so.
Post by JNugent
The accusations against Leon Brittan have been proven to be false. The
criminal accuser, Carl Beech, was sent to prison for 18 years for his
actions.
Which smells to high heaven of a cover up.
Post by JNugent
The correct logic is that the fact that false accusations had not, at
one stage, been proven to be false does not mean that they were not
false. They were always false and Brittan and the rest of the victims
were always innocent.
Nonsense. Proving a negative is tricky at the best of times...much
more so in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct.
But keep driving on the wrong side of the road...you know the law is
on your side.
LOL
Peeler
2019-11-07 20:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:34:53 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Nonsense. Proving a negative is tricky at the best of times...much
more so in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct.
But keep driving on the wrong side of the road...you know the law is
on your side.
LOL
Looks like the two idiots found each other again! <G>
Peeler
2019-11-07 14:57:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 05:01:04 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Just HOW idiotic & psychotic are you, pedophilic gay dreckserb?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 20:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to be
none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing the
scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences and
went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member is
a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party disciplinary
machine under any obligation to suspend the member and carry out its own
investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents and to victims of the
assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until someone
else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Don’t upset the carefully planned news management exercise.
Peeler
2019-11-07 20:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:23:47 +0000, Keema's Nan, an especially retarded,
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
Don’t upset the carefully planned news management exercise.
You two clinically insane assholes know something again that no one else
knows? LMAO!
Vidcapper
2019-11-08 07:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
That's not how the law works though - you seem to want to reverse the
principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The Todal
2019-11-08 10:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Grikbusstardo®™
Post by JNugent
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
The fact that these accusations were never proven does not equate to
them being false.
That's not how the law works though - you seem to want to reverse the
principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
And you demonstrate the classic misunderstanding of that principle. The
principle is that *in a court of law* it is for the prosecution to prove
its case and that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

It doesn't mean that everyone, everywhere, is innocent until proven
guilty. Fred West never stood trial, nor did Adolf Hitler. Should they
be regarded as innocent men? Obviously not.
The Todal
2019-11-07 18:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to
be none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing
the scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences
and went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Consider the case of Lord Rennard. Accused of sexual harassment. The
LibDems attempted to conduct an investigation quite irrespective of any
police investigation.

But that's a more tricky case than Cyril Smith. With Lord Rennard, there
may well have been gray areas about whether his clumsy attempts at
seduction were harassment. If the LibDems had bothered to interview any
of Cyril Smith's victims it would have been a very clear case of
criminal activity.
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
If Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson have been
*falsely* accused of antisemitism, have they brought their party into
disrepute? Apparently yes.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 21:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police and
justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not been
proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to
be none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing
the scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences
and went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Consider the case of Lord Rennard. Accused of sexual harassment. The
LibDems attempted to conduct an investigation quite irrespective of any
police investigation.
But that's a more tricky case than Cyril Smith. With Lord Rennard, there
may well have been gray areas about whether his clumsy attempts at
seduction were harassment. If the LibDems had bothered to interview any
of Cyril Smith's victims it would have been a very clear case of
criminal activity.
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting sexual
perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
If Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson have been
*falsely* accused of antisemitism, have they brought their party into
disrepute? Apparently yes.
Rules are different for the Tory party.

All accusations against their members will not only be shouted down as
‘false’ or threatened with severe legal action; but the accusations will
become impossible to bring to court because vital evidence is always
‘lost’ along the way.

However they will throw accusations around like confetti if they are about
opposition members.
JNugent
2019-11-08 02:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Pancho
Steel took the attitude that this sexual abuse was an unproven
allegation. He quite reasonably felt it was the job of the police
and justice system to deal with the matter. Given that Smith had not
been proven guilty, Steel took the traditional step of presuming him
innocent.
He took the traditional step of ignoring the problem believing it to
be none of the party's business, and thereby assisted in suppressing
the scandal. As a result, Cyril wasn't even charged with any offences
and went to his grave an "innocent" man. Like Jimmy Savile.
He has a lot to be ashamed of.
But it certainly does raise an important question. If a party member
is a disgusting sexual pervert, is the party leader or party
disciplinary machine under any obligation to suspend the member and
carry out its own investigation? Is that a duty owed to constituents
and to victims of the assault?
When you say "a party member is a disgusting sexual pervert", do you
(a) have been alleged to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, or
(b) have been proven to have committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion?
I'm sure you see the distinction and the difficulties that a party's
leadership would have.
Consider the case of Lord Rennard. Accused of sexual harassment. The
LibDems attempted to conduct an investigation quite irrespective of any
police investigation.
But that's a more tricky case than Cyril Smith. With Lord Rennard, there
may well have been gray areas about whether his clumsy attempts at
seduction were harassment. If the LibDems had bothered to interview any
of Cyril Smith's victims it would have been a very clear case of
criminal activity.
Is it the proper function of a political party which aspires to
government to hide allegations of serious criminal offences from the
police and try to "investigate" them itself?
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
It probably depends on whether the rulebook uses words like "bringing
the party into disrepute". It might be permissible to wait until
someone else has exposed the scandal and meanwhile, to turn a blind eye.
If someone (let's use the late Leon Brittan as an example) has been
*falsely* accused of having committed some crime(s) of disgusting
sexual perversion, has that person brought their party into disrepute?
If Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson have been
*falsely* accused of antisemitism, have they brought their party into
disrepute? Apparently yes.
"falsely"?

How much evidence do you want? What about those prominent jewish
journalists and fellow Labour MPs?

Are they lying?

As it happens, Livingstone et al benefit from the fact that
anti-semitism is not a criminal offence.
The Todal
2019-11-08 10:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
If Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson have been
*falsely* accused of antisemitism, have they brought their party into
disrepute? Apparently yes.
"falsely"?
How much evidence do you want? What about those prominent jewish
journalists and fellow Labour MPs?
Humbugs, hypocrites and liars, all of them. Actually, I'd like any
evidence at all, rather than "opinions" based on anecdotal or spurious
evidence. There was an investigation and report by Shami Chakrabarti.
The loony anti-Corbyn zealots dismiss it as a whitewash. They haven't
managed to produce any report of their own.

It's all carefully resurrected now, to coincide with the election.
Post by JNugent
Are they lying?
Well, they are either liars or they are very stupid. It has to be one or
the other.
Post by JNugent
As it happens, Livingstone et al benefit from the fact that
anti-semitism is not a criminal offence.
As does the Jewish Chronicle, instructing everyone to vote Tory because
allegedly 87% of British jews regard Corbyn as antisemitic.

That's based on a poll, of course, because it is quite impossible to
seek the views of all British jews.

But if antisemitism were a criminal offence, Corbyn would have no
alternative but to sue them.
The Todal
2019-11-08 10:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
If Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson have been
*falsely* accused of antisemitism, have they brought their party into
disrepute? Apparently yes.
"falsely"?
How much evidence do you want? What about those prominent jewish
journalists and fellow Labour MPs?
Humbugs, hypocrites and liars, all of them.  Actually, I'd like any
evidence at all, rather than "opinions" based on anecdotal or spurious
evidence.  There was an investigation and report by Shami Chakrabarti.
The loony anti-Corbyn zealots dismiss it as a whitewash. They haven't
managed to produce any report of their own.
It's all carefully resurrected now, to coincide with the election.
Post by JNugent
Are they lying?
Well, they are either liars or they are very stupid. It has to be one or
the other.
Post by JNugent
As it happens, Livingstone et al benefit from the fact that
anti-semitism is not a criminal offence.
As does the Jewish Chronicle, instructing everyone to vote Tory because
allegedly 87% of British jews regard Corbyn as antisemitic.
That's based on a poll, of course, because it is quite impossible to
seek the views of all British jews.
But if antisemitism were a criminal offence, Corbyn would have no
alternative but to sue them.
There was probably a time, before "Nick" was discredited, when 87% of
those willing to respond to a poll would have said that Edward Heath and
Leon Brittan were predatory paedophiles. Based, of course, on dud
information and the work of rumour-mongers.

The Jewish Chronicle is contemptible. It's certainly legitimate to say
that Corbyn hasn't done enough to combat the antisemitism in the Labour
Party (even though that's bullshit as well) but to accuse Corbyn of
being an antisemite is both dishonest and disgraceful.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-06 14:54:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
That, of course, wasn't the scandal. I'm sure lots of people knew that
Thorpe was gay. The scandal was conspiracy to murder, a deliberate plot
instigated by Thorpe with the connivance of loyal friends and the help
of an incompetent, badly chosen hit man. Culminating in a not guilty
verdict which most people knew to be wrong.
And then of course there was the Cyril Smith scandal. Big fat Cyril
enjoyed spanking little boys, and David Steel responded "oh, so what? It
doesn't matter". He naively assumed, or pretended to assume, that Cyril
would only be administering reasonable chastisement to misbehaving boys.
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).

Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.

Some people have difficulty reconciling the grocer’s daughter and the
compulsive paedophile; but the association fits perfectly in this scenario.

I’m afraid that the Lib Dems are light years behind the Tories when it
comes to under age considerations.
Norman Wells
2019-11-06 18:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation? Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Post by Keema's Nan
Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.
Whom have you in mind?
Keema's Nan
2019-11-06 18:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation?
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s
top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in
Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in
the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and
murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for
decades.

Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to
him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his
office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the
documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting
in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a
raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”

Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the
papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home
Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top
politicians.

The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers
from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst
into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale
arrested if he ever reported what had been found.

In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of
incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He
handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan;
publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution
would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.

Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his
subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was
forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to
Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing”
by investigators.

It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness
Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper,
the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in
overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was
mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything,
he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the
pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d
back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”

Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted
to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside
over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus
since Winston Churchill before the First World War.

Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European
parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the
allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was
just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to
go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale
explained.

Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had
tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she
turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve
been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it
with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a
journalist of course I was interested.”
Post by Norman Wells
Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Nice try, but you are deliberately missing the point - as usual.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.
Whom have you in mind?
The mental images are too shocking to contemplate. If you wish to fantasise
in your mind, that is your problem.
Norman Wells
2019-11-06 20:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation?
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s
top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in
Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in
the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and
murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for
decades.
Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to
him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his
office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the
documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting
in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a
raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”
Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the
papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home
Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top
politicians.
The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers
from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst
into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale
arrested if he ever reported what had been found.
In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of
incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He
handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan;
publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution
would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.
Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his
subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was
forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to
Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing”
by investigators.
It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness
Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper,
the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in
overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was
mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything,
he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the
pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d
back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”
Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted
to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside
over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus
since Winston Churchill before the First World War.
Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European
parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the
allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was
just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to
go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale
explained.
Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had
tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she
turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve
been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it
with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a
journalist of course I was interested.”
Post by Norman Wells
Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Nice try, but you are deliberately missing the point - as usual.
No, you're missing the point. Anyone can make scurrilous accusations,
but without substantiation they are simply libellous.

And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.
Whom have you in mind?
The mental images are too shocking to contemplate. If you wish to fantasise
in your mind, that is your problem.
Any mental images are in your head, no-one else's.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-06 21:08:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation?
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s
top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in
Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in
the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and
murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for
decades.
Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to
him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his
office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the
documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting
in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a
raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”
Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the
papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home
Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top
politicians.
The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers
from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst
into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale
arrested if he ever reported what had been found.
In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of
incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He
handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan;
publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution
would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.
Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his
subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was
forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to
Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing”
by investigators.
It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness
Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper,
the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in
overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was
mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything,
he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the
pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d
back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”
Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted
to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside
over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus
since Winston Churchill before the First World War.
Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European
parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the
allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was
just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to
go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale
explained.
Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had
tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she
turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve
been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it
with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a
journalist of course I was interested.”
Post by Norman Wells
Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Nice try, but you are deliberately missing the point - as usual.
No, you're missing the point. Anyone can make scurrilous accusations,
but without substantiation
Try this then -

‘Groper’ Alfred Roberts and his favourite daughter, who became Margaret
Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher’s father may have been like Jimmy Savile.

There are reports that Thatcher’s father sexually abused young girls.

In 1997 the magazine Punch published an article by Professor Bernard Crick
featuring allegations, including one from an alleged victim, that Alfred
Roberts had been involved in several sexual assaults on young women.

The article claimed that Roberts was the inspiration for a lecherous
character who was a local councillor and grocer in the 1937 satire of
Grantham, Rotten Borough. [12]

Alfred Roberts sexually abused young female assistants working in his
grocer’s shop, according to the distinguished political biographer
Professor Bernard Crick.

Margaret Thatcher’s dad “was a notorious toucher-up”.

The sexual assaults reportedly took place behind the counter of the shop.

“Older teachers,” Professor Crick was told by a Grantham friend, “all
remembered … trying …to steer girls away from taking jobs at his shop.

“They were frightened to hint at the real reason: for he was a figure of
real power in the town.”

According to Peter Hadlow, 76, who lived almost next door to Alf Roberts:

“Quite a broad spectrum of people said it. It was all over Grantham
virtually…

“But he was an Alderman and so that sort of thing got hushed up. It was a
question of who do you believe – a teenage girl, or Mr Roberts?”

A 74-year-old woman from Grantham told the Independent on Sunday that she had
been sexually abused on frequent occasions by Alderman Roberts, when she
worked in his shop, aged just 15.

She said:

“He was a bad one. He came round and put his arms around me, feeling my
breasts. He used to put his tongue in my mouth.

“I got quite frightened. I didn’t like it and I’d push him away. He’d
say nothing and go, but then he would come back again. He used to chase other
girls round the counter.”

The woman was then a chorister at the Methodist chapel where Alderman Roberts
was a lay preacher.

Punch sent a reporter to Grantham and found pensioners willing to recount
tales about the child-abusing Alf Roberts.

One said:

“He was forever pinching their bums when they bent over – and looking up
their skirts.”

In Grantham, Rotten Borough, by local journalist Oliver Anderson, published
in 1937, a councillor who has a corner grocery shop has fun with his female
assistants.

At one point he is caught in flagrante “when a faulty light is switched on
and passers-by see him, trousers down, through the shop window.”
they are simply libellous.
Like father like daughter?
And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Libellous? You are having a laugh. All of this is in the public domain.

You seem to be trying to adopt the “silence by legal action” defence of
your pro-establishment position.

Isn’t that what guilty people do?

I wonder why Jimmy Savile used to spend Christmas with Thatcher at Chequers?
Perhaps you would like to give the official version of why a PM would want
invite a paedophile to Christmas dinner?

Or are you frit?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.
Whom have you in mind?
The mental images are too shocking to contemplate. If you wish to fantasise
in your mind, that is your problem.
Any mental images are in your head, no-one else's.
If there are no mental images in your head - have you ever thought you might
be the odd one out?

It explains your persistent trolling, though.
Norman Wells
2019-11-06 22:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation?
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s
top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in
Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in
the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and
murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for
decades.
Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to
him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his
office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the
documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting
in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a
raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”
Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the
papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home
Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top
politicians.
The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers
from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst
into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale
arrested if he ever reported what had been found.
In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of
incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He
handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan;
publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution
would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.
Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his
subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was
forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to
Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing”
by investigators.
It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness
Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper,
the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in
overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was
mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything,
he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the
pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d
back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”
Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted
to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside
over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus
since Winston Churchill before the First World War.
Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European
parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the
allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was
just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to
go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale
explained.
Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had
tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she
turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve
been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it
with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a
journalist of course I was interested.”
Post by Norman Wells
Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Nice try, but you are deliberately missing the point - as usual.
No, you're missing the point. Anyone can make scurrilous accusations,
but without substantiation
Try this then -
‘Groper’ Alfred Roberts and his favourite daughter, who became Margaret
Thatcher.
Margaret Thatcher’s father may have been like Jimmy Savile.
There are reports that Thatcher’s father sexually abused young girls.
In 1997 the magazine Punch published an article by Professor Bernard Crick
featuring allegations, including one from an alleged victim, that Alfred
Roberts had been involved in several sexual assaults on young women.
The article claimed that Roberts was the inspiration for a lecherous
character who was a local councillor and grocer in the 1937 satire of
Grantham, Rotten Borough. [12]
Alfred Roberts sexually abused young female assistants working in his
grocer’s shop, according to the distinguished political biographer
Professor Bernard Crick.
Margaret Thatcher’s dad “was a notorious toucher-up”.
The sexual assaults reportedly took place behind the counter of the shop.
“Older teachers,” Professor Crick was told by a Grantham friend, “all
remembered … trying …to steer girls away from taking jobs at his shop.
“They were frightened to hint at the real reason: for he was a figure of
real power in the town.”
“Quite a broad spectrum of people said it. It was all over Grantham
virtually…
“But he was an Alderman and so that sort of thing got hushed up. It was a
question of who do you believe – a teenage girl, or Mr Roberts?”
A 74-year-old woman from Grantham told the Independent on Sunday that she had
been sexually abused on frequent occasions by Alderman Roberts, when she
worked in his shop, aged just 15.
“He was a bad one. He came round and put his arms around me, feeling my
breasts. He used to put his tongue in my mouth.
“I got quite frightened. I didn’t like it and I’d push him away. He’d
say nothing and go, but then he would come back again. He used to chase other
girls round the counter.”
The woman was then a chorister at the Methodist chapel where Alderman Roberts
was a lay preacher.
Punch sent a reporter to Grantham and found pensioners willing to recount
tales about the child-abusing Alf Roberts.
“He was forever pinching their bums when they bent over – and looking up
their skirts.”
In Grantham, Rotten Borough, by local journalist Oliver Anderson, published
in 1937, a councillor who has a corner grocery shop has fun with his female
assistants.
At one point he is caught in flagrante “when a faulty light is switched on
and passers-by see him, trousers down, through the shop window.”
And that's your evidence of Maggie 'stuffing her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse', is it?

Care to tell us when her father was a member of her cabinet?
Post by Keema's Nan
they are simply libellous.
Like father like daughter?
I can't say. I don't know anything about your father.

Where do you say your libellous tendencies come from?
Post by Keema's Nan
And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Libellous? You are having a laugh. All of this is in the public domain.
They are unfounded, unproven allegations, maybe invented, maybe just
malicious. Where are the *facts*? Where is the *evidence*? If you
don't have any, and you don't seem to, you have no defence for your
libellous comments.
Post by Keema's Nan
You seem to be trying to adopt the “silence by legal action” defence of
your pro-establishment position.
Isn’t that what guilty people do?
I've asked you to justify your claims, that's all. If you can't,
they're libellous, pure and simple.
Post by Keema's Nan
I wonder why Jimmy Savile used to spend Christmas with Thatcher at Chequers?
Perhaps you would like to give the official version of why a PM would want
invite a paedophile to Christmas dinner?
Or are you frit?
I wasn't aware she did. I don't normally concern myself with who spends
Christmas with whom, nor do I read anything into it.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Then blackmail them all into towing her party line or be exposed for the
perverts they really were and thrown to the tabloid hyena pack. The only
pressure on herself was finding a decent supplier of underage kids for sexual
use; but that was easily done once she discovered the Jimmy Savile supply
service.
Whom have you in mind?
The mental images are too shocking to contemplate. If you wish to fantasise
in your mind, that is your problem.
Any mental images are in your head, no-one else's.
If there are no mental images in your head - have you ever thought you might
be the odd one out?
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.
Vidcapper
2019-11-07 07:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.
Keema's Nan always quotes 'articles' but never provides sources, so it's
no wonder he's always accused of bullshitting!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 09:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.
Keema's Nan always quotes 'articles' but never provides sources, so it's
no wonder he's always accused of bullshitting!
That is about as pathetic, weak and hypocritical a response as I have seen
for weeks.

You accuse me of not providing sources, and then fail to provide any links to
where you say I have always been accused of bullshitting.

TV host Noel Edmonds believes the Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher were as
much to blame as the BBC for failing to stop Jimmy Savile’s
“unspeakable” crimes.

Edmonds, who worked with Savile at the Corporation, said the whole
establishment was implicated for allowing the paedophile DJ to flourish.

Edmonds never liked Savile, he said, describing him as “the absolute depths
of depravation” (http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/jimmy-savile) and
recalling how he used to wonder why he even had a job.

But responsibility for the prolific sex offending he committed during his
decades-long career could not all be laid at the door of the broadcaster, he
argued.

He said: “What transpired was unspeakable. But it’s wrong to entirely
blame the culture of the BBC.

“Savile was in deep with the Royals, with Mrs Thatcher, with the hospitals
and with Broadmoor.

“There’s a whole establishment that let him into its heart. Not just the
BBC.”

He argued Dave Lee Travis, the former DJ who received a three-month suspended
sentence for indecent assault, was not in the same league.

He said: “He’s not a nasty guy. There was no bad vibe about him. I was
never aware of anything remotely sleazy about Dave.”

At worst he was “possibly misguided,” he said.

Sentencing Travis in September, a judge described his offence as “an
intentional and unpleasant sexual assault” on a researcher working on the
TV programme The Mrs Merton Show.

Edmonds, who has previously spoken of his desire to buy the BBC, described it
as a “total mess,” and warned it would be “lost” if it carried on the
way it was.

The presenter of Channel 4’s Deal or No Deal
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/noel-edmonds) said: “There are too many
chiefs, they throw money around, but they don’t know what they are throwing
money at.”

In a wide-ranging magazine interview, Edmonds said Jeremy Paxman and the
Dimblebys were hypocrites who “take the money and then attack the people
who pay them.”

Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.

Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to more
than 200.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher-
4641034
Norman Wells
2019-11-07 09:42:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.
Keema's Nan always quotes 'articles' but never provides sources, so it's
no wonder he's always accused of bullshitting!
That is about as pathetic, weak and hypocritical a response as I have seen
for weeks.
You accuse me of not providing sources, and then fail to provide any links to
where you say I have always been accused of bullshitting.
TV host Noel Edmonds believes the Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher were as
much to blame as the BBC for failing to stop Jimmy Savile’s
“unspeakable” crimes.
Edmonds, who worked with Savile at the Corporation, said the whole
establishment was implicated for allowing the paedophile DJ to flourish.
Edmonds never liked Savile, he said, describing him as “the absolute depths
of depravation” (http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/jimmy-savile) and
recalling how he used to wonder why he even had a job.
But responsibility for the prolific sex offending he committed during his
decades-long career could not all be laid at the door of the broadcaster, he
argued.
He said: “What transpired was unspeakable. But it’s wrong to entirely
blame the culture of the BBC.
“Savile was in deep with the Royals, with Mrs Thatcher, with the hospitals
and with Broadmoor.
“There’s a whole establishment that let him into its heart. Not just the
BBC.”
He argued Dave Lee Travis, the former DJ who received a three-month suspended
sentence for indecent assault, was not in the same league.
He said: “He’s not a nasty guy. There was no bad vibe about him. I was
never aware of anything remotely sleazy about Dave.”
At worst he was “possibly misguided,” he said.
Sentencing Travis in September, a judge described his offence as “an
intentional and unpleasant sexual assault” on a researcher working on the
TV programme The Mrs Merton Show.
Edmonds, who has previously spoken of his desire to buy the BBC, described it
as a “total mess,” and warned it would be “lost” if it carried on the
way it was.
The presenter of Channel 4’s Deal or No Deal
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/noel-edmonds) said: “There are too many
chiefs, they throw money around, but they don’t know what they are throwing
money at.”
In a wide-ranging magazine interview, Edmonds said Jeremy Paxman and the
Dimblebys were hypocrites who “take the money and then attack the people
who pay them.”
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to more
than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that

"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"

I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 09:58:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
You're becoming increasingly incoherent.
Keema's Nan always quotes 'articles' but never provides sources, so it's
no wonder he's always accused of bullshitting!
That is about as pathetic, weak and hypocritical a response as I have seen
for weeks.
You accuse me of not providing sources, and then fail to provide any links to
where you say I have always been accused of bullshitting.
TV host Noel Edmonds believes the Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher were as
much to blame as the BBC for failing to stop Jimmy Savile’s
“unspeakable” crimes.
Edmonds, who worked with Savile at the Corporation, said the whole
establishment was implicated for allowing the paedophile DJ to flourish.
Edmonds never liked Savile, he said, describing him as “the absolute depths
of depravation” (http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/jimmy-savile) and
recalling how he used to wonder why he even had a job.
But responsibility for the prolific sex offending he committed during his
decades-long career could not all be laid at the door of the broadcaster, he
argued.
He said: “What transpired was unspeakable. But it’s wrong to entirely
blame the culture of the BBC.
“Savile was in deep with the Royals, with Mrs Thatcher, with the hospitals
and with Broadmoor.
“There’s a whole establishment that let him into its heart. Not just the
BBC.”
He argued Dave Lee Travis, the former DJ who received a three-month suspended
sentence for indecent assault, was not in the same league.
He said: “He’s not a nasty guy. There was no bad vibe about him. I was
never aware of anything remotely sleazy about Dave.”
At worst he was “possibly misguided,” he said.
Sentencing Travis in September, a judge described his offence as “an
intentional and unpleasant sexual assault” on a researcher working on the
TV programme The Mrs Merton Show.
Edmonds, who has previously spoken of his desire to buy the BBC, described it
as a “total mess,” and warned it would be “lost” if it carried on the
way it was.
The presenter of Channel 4’s Deal or No Deal
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/noel-edmonds) said: “There are too many
chiefs, they throw money around, but they don’t know what they are throwing
money at.”
In a wide-ranging magazine interview, Edmonds said Jeremy Paxman and the
Dimblebys were hypocrites who “take the money and then attack the people
who pay them.”
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to more
than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that
"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"
I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
It’s all in the files of the Westminster Child Abuse Inquiry, which was set
up by Theresa May and David Cameron in order to kick the subject into the
long grass.You can look it all up if you are really that worried.

I was just checking to see if any trolls could be triggered into auto-defence
by my carefully chosen code words, and you have worked a treat - even better
than I could have expected; to be perfectly honest.

Well done - and here’s to the next time I need to fire up a response from
an automaton.
Norman Wells
2019-11-07 12:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to
more than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that
"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"
I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
It’s all in the files of the Westminster Child Abuse Inquiry, which was set
up by Theresa May and David Cameron in order to kick the subject into the
long grass.You can look it all up if you are really that worried.
I was just checking to see if any trolls could be triggered into auto-defence
by my carefully chosen code words, and you have worked a treat - even better
than I could have expected; to be perfectly honest.
Well done - and here’s to the next time I need to fire up a response from
an automaton.
Has something scrambled your brain? All we're receiving here is random
noise.
Norman Wells
2019-11-07 21:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to
more than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that
"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"
I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
It’s all in the files of the Westminster Child Abuse Inquiry, which was set
up by Theresa May and David Cameron in order to kick the subject into the
long grass.You can look it all up if you are really that worried.
I was just checking to see if any trolls could be triggered into auto-defence
by my carefully chosen code words, and you have worked a treat - even better
than I could have expected; to be perfectly honest.
Well done - and here’s to the next time I need to fire up a response from
an automaton.
Has something scrambled your brain? All we're receiving here is random
noise.
No problem. I have all the information I needed from you thanks.
Bye bye.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 21:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS
hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending
to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to
more than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher
-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that
"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"
I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
It’s all in the files of the Westminster Child Abuse Inquiry, which was set
up by Theresa May and David Cameron in order to kick the subject into the
long grass.You can look it all up if you are really that worried.
I was just checking to see if any trolls could be triggered into auto-defence
by my carefully chosen code words, and you have worked a treat - even better
than I could have expected; to be perfectly honest.
Well done - and here’s to the next time I need to fire up a response from
an automaton.
Has something scrambled your brain? All we're receiving here is random
noise.
No problem. I have all the information I needed from you thanks.
Bye bye.
Are you leaving?

Oh well - drive safely, especially if you are on the wrong side of the road
while racing the trains between St Albans and Norwich.
Norman Wells
2019-11-07 22:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Savile is accused of perpetrating sexual abuse on a string of NHS hospital
premises, as well as elsewhere.
Earlier this month the High Court heard the number of people intending to
make claims after being sexually abused by the disgraced DJ had risen to
more than 200.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-royal-family-margaret-thatcher
-
4641034
Can you tell us please how this supports your allegation that
"Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse"
I thought that was the point you were arguing. Now you're off rambling
again.
It’s all in the files of the Westminster Child Abuse Inquiry, which was set
up by Theresa May and David Cameron in order to kick the subject into the
long grass.You can look it all up if you are really that worried.
I was just checking to see if any trolls could be triggered into auto-defence
by my carefully chosen code words, and you have worked a treat - even better
than I could have expected; to be perfectly honest.
Well done - and here’s to the next time I need to fire up a response from
an automaton.
Has something scrambled your brain? All we're receiving here is random
noise.
No problem. I have all the information I needed from you thanks.
Bye bye.
Are you leaving?
Oh well - drive safely, especially if you are on the wrong side of the road
while racing the trains between St Albans and Norwich.
Me?

You sure?
Keema's Nan
2019-11-08 10:50:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:10:56 +0000
Post by Norman Wells
No problem. I have all the information I needed from you thanks.
Bye bye.
Now you must know that's a waste of a post, he *has* to have the last
word *every* time.
Of course, if you want to wind him up, you keep adding one-word posts
after his replies, and he cannot help responding again.
It’s amazing how little it takes to get under some peoples’ thin skin,
especially online.

All I have to do is make a note of their regular behaviour and repeat it back
to them.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 09:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants
and
mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse (all except Heath of
course -
her sworn enemy and where she got the idea from in the first place).
Do you have any evidence for that scurrilous accusation?
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s
top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in
Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in
the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and
murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for
decades.
Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to
him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his
office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the
documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting
in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me
like
a
raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”
Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the
papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home
Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top
politicians.
The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers
from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst
into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale
arrested if he ever reported what had been found.
In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of
incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He
handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan;
publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution
would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.
Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his
subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was
forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to
Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing”
by investigators.
It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness
Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper,
the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in
overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was
mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything,
he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the
pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d
back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”
Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted
to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside
over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus
since Winston Churchill before the First World War.
Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European
parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the
allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was
just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to
go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale
explained.
Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had
tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she
turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve
been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it
with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a
journalist of course I was interested.”
Post by Norman Wells
Can you tell
us, for example, who in her cabinet was ever convicted of any sexual
offence?
Nice try, but you are deliberately missing the point - as usual.
No, you're missing the point. Anyone can make scurrilous accusations,
but without substantiation
Try this then -
‘Groper’ Alfred Roberts and his favourite daughter, who became Margaret
Thatcher.
Margaret Thatcher’s father may have been like Jimmy Savile.
There are reports that Thatcher’s father sexually abused young girls.
In 1997 the magazine Punch published an article by Professor Bernard Crick
featuring allegations, including one from an alleged victim, that Alfred
Roberts had been involved in several sexual assaults on young women.
The article claimed that Roberts was the inspiration for a lecherous
character who was a local councillor and grocer in the 1937 satire of
Grantham, Rotten Borough. [12]
Alfred Roberts sexually abused young female assistants working in his
grocer’s shop, according to the distinguished political biographer
Professor Bernard Crick.
Margaret Thatcher’s dad “was a notorious toucher-up”.
The sexual assaults reportedly took place behind the counter of the shop.
“Older teachers,” Professor Crick was told by a Grantham friend, “all
remembered … trying …to steer girls away from taking jobs at his shop.
“They were frightened to hint at the real reason: for he was a figure of
real power in the town.”
“Quite a broad spectrum of people said it. It was all over Grantham
virtually…
“But he was an Alderman and so that sort of thing got hushed up. It was a
question of who do you believe – a teenage girl, or Mr Roberts?”
A 74-year-old woman from Grantham told the Independent on Sunday that she had
been sexually abused on frequent occasions by Alderman Roberts, when she
worked in his shop, aged just 15.
“He was a bad one. He came round and put his arms around me, feeling my
breasts. He used to put his tongue in my mouth.
“I got quite frightened. I didn’t like it and I’d push him away. He’d
say nothing and go, but then he would come back again. He used to chase other
girls round the counter.”
The woman was then a chorister at the Methodist chapel where Alderman Roberts
was a lay preacher.
Punch sent a reporter to Grantham and found pensioners willing to recount
tales about the child-abusing Alf Roberts.
“He was forever pinching their bums when they bent over – and looking up
their skirts.”
In Grantham, Rotten Borough, by local journalist Oliver Anderson, published
in 1937, a councillor who has a corner grocery shop has fun with his female
assistants.
At one point he is caught in flagrante “when a faulty light is switched on
and passers-by see him, trousers down, through the shop window.”
And that's your evidence of Maggie 'stuffing her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse', is it?
Care to tell us when her father was a member of her cabinet?
Post by Keema's Nan
they are simply libellous.
Like father like daughter?
I can't say. I don't know anything about your father.
Where do you say your libellous tendencies come from?
Then take me to court.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Then take me to court.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Libellous? You are having a laugh. All of this is in the public domain.
They are unfounded, unproven allegations, maybe invented, maybe just
malicious.
And yet if the allegations were about ex-LibDem MPs that seems to be
perfectly ok.

Don’t you right wingers know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?
Post by Norman Wells
Where are the *facts*? Where is the *evidence*? If you
don't have any, and you don't seem to, you have no defence for your
libellous comments.
Then take me to court.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
You seem to be trying to adopt the “silence by legal action” defence of
your pro-establishment position.
Isn’t that what guilty people do?
I've asked you to justify your claims, that's all. If you can't,
they're libellous, pure and simple.
Then take me to court.

Although you have now become so obsessive you are sounding like a broken
record.

Beware though, as you might also have to take The Independent to court -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thatchers-dad-mayor-preacher-groper-
1257249.html

Not forgetting Punch magazine, where the original article was published.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
I wonder why Jimmy Savile used to spend Christmas with Thatcher at Chequers?
Perhaps you would like to give the official version of why a PM would want
invite a paedophile to Christmas dinner?
Or are you frit?
I wasn't aware she did.
If you are not aware of even the simplest of well known facts, you are
replying from a position of gross ignorance.

Maybe you should read something other than articles which preach to the
converted?
Post by Norman Wells
I don't normally concern myself with who spends
Christmas with whom, nor do I read anything into it.
Blind leading the blind in your narrow minded troll world.
Norman Wells
2019-11-07 09:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual deviants
and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse
In Grantham, Rotten Borough, by local journalist Oliver Anderson, published
in 1937, a councillor who has a corner grocery shop has fun with his female
assistants.
At one point he is caught in flagrante “when a faulty light is switched on
and passers-by see him, trousers down, through the shop window.”
And that's your evidence of Maggie 'stuffing her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse', is it?
Care to tell us when her father was a member of her cabinet?
Well? No answer?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
they are simply libellous.
Like father like daughter?
I can't say. I don't know anything about your father.
Where do you say your libellous tendencies come from?
Then take me to court.
It's not me you're libelling, sweetheart.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Then take me to court.
Why me?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Libellous? You are having a laugh. All of this is in the public domain.
They are unfounded, unproven allegations, maybe invented, maybe just
malicious.
And yet if the allegations were about ex-LibDem MPs that seems to be
perfectly ok.
No it isn't. Nor have I suggested any such thing.
Post by Keema's Nan
Don’t you right wingers know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?
Post by Norman Wells
Where are the *facts*? Where is the *evidence*? If you
don't have any, and you don't seem to, you have no defence for your
libellous comments.
Then take me to court.
I have no locus standi.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
You seem to be trying to adopt the “silence by legal action” defence of
your pro-establishment position.
Isn’t that what guilty people do?
I've asked you to justify your claims, that's all. If you can't,
they're libellous, pure and simple.
Then take me to court.
Why is it you cannot support even the simplest of propositions you make?
Post by Keema's Nan
Although you have now become so obsessive you are sounding like a broken
record.
Beware though, as you might also have to take The Independent to court -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thatchers-dad-mayor-preacher-groper-
1257249.html
Not forgetting Punch magazine, where the original article was published.
I've told you, it's not for me to take anyone to court. I haven't been
libelled.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
I wonder why Jimmy Savile used to spend Christmas with Thatcher at Chequers?
Perhaps you would like to give the official version of why a PM would want
invite a paedophile to Christmas dinner?
Or are you frit?
I wasn't aware she did.
If you are not aware of even the simplest of well known facts, you are
replying from a position of gross ignorance.
Maybe you should read something other than articles which preach to the
converted?
Post by Norman Wells
I don't normally concern myself with who spends
Christmas with whom, nor do I read anything into it.
Blind leading the blind in your narrow minded troll world.
You're becoming ever more incoherent in your ramblings.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-07 09:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Thatcher had the right idea. Stuffed her cabinet full of sexual
deviants
and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse
In Grantham, Rotten Borough, by local journalist Oliver Anderson, published
in 1937, a councillor who has a corner grocery shop has fun with his female
assistants.
At one point he is caught in flagrante “when a faulty light is switched on
and passers-by see him, trousers down, through the shop window.”
And that's your evidence of Maggie 'stuffing her cabinet full of sexual
deviants and mostly those with a desire for child sex abuse', is it?
Care to tell us when her father was a member of her cabinet?
Well? No answer?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
they are simply libellous.
Like father like daughter?
I can't say. I don't know anything about your father.
Where do you say your libellous tendencies come from?
Then take me to court.
It's not me you're libelling, sweetheart.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
And you have come up with no substantiation at all despite having been
asked. It's all nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and libellous.
Then take me to court.
Why me?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
Libellous? You are having a laugh. All of this is in the public domain.
They are unfounded, unproven allegations, maybe invented, maybe just
malicious.
And yet if the allegations were about ex-LibDem MPs that seems to be
perfectly ok.
No it isn't. Nor have I suggested any such thing.
Post by Keema's Nan
Don’t you right wingers know the meaning of the word hypocrisy?
Post by Norman Wells
Where are the *facts*? Where is the *evidence*? If you
don't have any, and you don't seem to, you have no defence for your
libellous comments.
Then take me to court.
I have no locus standi.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
You seem to be trying to adopt the “silence by legal action” defence of
your pro-establishment position.
Isn’t that what guilty people do?
I've asked you to justify your claims, that's all. If you can't,
they're libellous, pure and simple.
Then take me to court.
Why is it you cannot support even the simplest of propositions you make?
Post by Keema's Nan
Although you have now become so obsessive you are sounding like a broken
record.
Beware though, as you might also have to take The Independent to court -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/thatchers-dad-mayor-preacher-groper-
1257249.html
Not forgetting Punch magazine, where the original article was published.
I've told you, it's not for me to take anyone to court. I haven't been
libelled.
Who has been libelled, in your view?

Someone must have been as you have mentioned the word in every single
sentence recently.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Keema's Nan
I wonder why Jimmy Savile used to spend Christmas with Thatcher at Chequers?
Perhaps you would like to give the official version of why a PM would want
invite a paedophile to Christmas dinner?
Or are you frit?
I wasn't aware she did.
If you are not aware of even the simplest of well known facts, you are
replying from a position of gross ignorance.
Maybe you should read something other than articles which preach to the
converted?
Post by Norman Wells
I don't normally concern myself with who spends
Christmas with whom, nor do I read anything into it.
Blind leading the blind in your narrow minded troll world.
You're becoming ever more incoherent in your ramblings.
Pamela
2019-11-07 15:45:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
If there are no mental images in your head - have you ever thought you
might be the odd one out?
It explains your persistent trolling, though.
Not again. :(
Grikbassturdo®™
2019-11-06 13:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
The Lib Dems never fully recovered from the Jeremy Thorpe scandal.
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
Not really.
Post by Vidcapper
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
Nowadays, when just about every sexual disorientation is acceptable.

Not then. It had barely become legal.
Peeler
2019-11-06 13:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 05:28:18 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Col
Recovered?
They didn't even exist then.
Good point. :P
Not really.
No? <BG>
Post by Grikbassturdo®™
Post by Vidcapper
And even if they had, a gay affair would have most people nowadays
saying 'so what?'
Nowadays, when just about every sexual disorientation is acceptable.
Except for YOUR disorientation, frustrated pedophilic gay dreckserb!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: <rlMUE.676067$***@usenetxs.com>
Col
2019-11-05 20:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Don't you mean *left* the EU??
Anyhow, all LibDem leaders say things along the lines of we are just on
the cusp of some 'seismic change' that will propel them to No.10. They
say it, perhaps they even believe it. 'Go back to your constituencies
and prepare for government' and all that.
I believe there is a 'tipping point' in the share of the vote that would
see the LIbDems start winning very large numbers of seats as they
convert all those second places into wins but I think that's around the
mid 30s and they're only on half that now so nowhere near.
And I say this as a LibDem voter, but I am also a realist!

They also say that they absolutely categorically won't do deals with
other parties, well we'll see about that. Again, they (and others)
always seem to say that before elections. However once the new
parliamentary arithmetic is known then if they can, they will. They may
appear reluctant to do so, but to form a stable government and all in
the 'national interest' of course....
--
Col
Omega
2019-11-06 07:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Col
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has
attracted for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300
seats this coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in
parliament at the moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime
Minister she claims and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in
the EU.
Don't you mean *left* the EU??
Yes. Thank you.

omega
R. Mark Clayton
2019-11-05 20:36:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
Only took five days after the 2010 election to cancel ID cards...
nightjar
2019-11-06 09:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU...
Not much point in saying vote for us, we won't get in, but we will
appreciate the votes. That isn't going to attract voters. Saying get us
in and we will revoke Article 50 gives the LibDems more than 16 million
potential voters - more than any government has ever had put them in power.

In practice, they are very unlikely to get anything like enough seats to
form a government, but the policy might well see them become a major
force in parliament again.
--
Colin Bignell
Pamela
2019-11-07 09:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by nightjar
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has
attracted for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300
seats this coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in
parliament at the moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime
Minister she claims and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in
the EU...
Not much point in saying vote for us, we won't get in, but we will
appreciate the votes. That isn't going to attract voters. Saying get us
in and we will revoke Article 50 gives the LibDems more than 16 million
potential voters - more than any government has ever had put them in power.
In practice, they are very unlikely to get anything like enough seats
to form a government, but the policy might well see them become a major
force in parliament again.
For the first time since the 1920's?
Not 2010?
Vidcapper
2019-11-07 15:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by nightjar
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has
attracted for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300
seats this coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in
parliament at the moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime
Minister she claims and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in
the EU...
Not much point in saying vote for us, we won't get in, but we will
appreciate the votes. That isn't going to attract voters. Saying get us
in and we will revoke Article 50 gives the LibDems more than 16 million
potential voters - more than any government has ever had put them in power.
In practice, they are very unlikely to get anything like enough seats
to form a government, but the policy might well see them become a major
force in parliament again.
For the first time since the 1920's?
Not 2010?
Not a major force even then, any more than the SNP were with a similar
total in 2015.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
nightjar
2019-11-07 16:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Pamela
Post by nightjar
In practice, they are very unlikely to get anything like enough seats
to form a government, but the policy might well see them become a major
force in parliament again.
For the first time since the 1920's?
Not 2010?
Not a major force even then, any more than the SNP were with a similar
total in 2015.
I think that, realistically, they would be happy with there being a
minority government that needs their support, or that of the SNP, or
both to operate.
--
Colin Bignell
The Todal
2019-11-06 21:32:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Omega
Disregarding the ragbag of turncoats and the throwouts she has attracted
for a month or two now, Jo Swinson will win another 300 seats this
coming election, to go with the dozen she commands in parliament at the
moment, immediately revoke A50, first day as prime Minister she claims
and save us all a dreadful fate had we stayed in the EU.
Then another Scottish nitwit will invoke by some magic charm, Indref 2
and Scotland will leave the Union forever.
What the fuck is going on up there?
I'm fucking puzzled by these people I can tell you!
omega
LibDems have issued lying misleading leaflets. Attributing quotes to
newspapers.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/lib-dems-accused-over-misleading-and-irresponsible-leaflets
Loading...