Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 26.08.2015, 18:04
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,737
Groaned at 360 Times in 294 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
I see them talking about Nick quite a lot in fact it says he came to them first. So the question is still the same: this politician, who you may or may not like, he's had his life reputation destroyed by the look of it. Is this on the back of some kind of evidence, or at least more than one source, or is it from one anonymous person, Nick, making multiple accusations ?
Of course nothing like this has ever happened before and found out to be untrue.

A blog on the Exaro news
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post:
  #122  
Old 26.08.2015, 19:44
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
I see them talking about Nick quite a lot in fact it says he came to them first. So the question is still the same: this politician, who you may or may not like, he's had his life reputation destroyed by the look of it. Is this on the back of some kind of evidence, or at least more than one source, or is it from one anonymous person, Nick, making multiple accusations ?
There is plenty of evidence from plenty of witnesses, and the forementioned MP has been convicted of sex with an underage child previousy so I think it could be fair to say that he already did a very good job damaging his own reputation already, he just thought people would forget like many of them, except the dead ones of course.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 26.08.2015, 19:50
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
Of course nothing like this has ever happened before and found out to be untrue.

A blog on the Exaro news
That's just a blog you've dug up off the internet. Has no real relevence as it is one lawyers opinion on the case in which the police will make the final judgements along with the inquiry, it has also been a cover-up remember? All sorts of crazy stuff happens as with the Jimmy Saville situation when those in high places abuse their power...

Last edited by Hausamsee; 26.08.2015 at 22:07.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 26.08.2015, 21:52
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
There is plenty of evidence from plenty of witnesses, and the forementioned MP has been convicted of sex with an underage child previousy so I think it could be fair to say that he already did a very good job damaging his own reputation already, he just thought people would forget like many of them, except the dead ones of course.
Wow. How old was the underage child he was convicted of having sex with ?
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 26.08.2015, 23:23
Veltliner's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: ZH / SZ
Posts: 274
Groaned at 3 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 343 Times in 131 Posts
Veltliner has an excellent reputationVeltliner has an excellent reputationVeltliner has an excellent reputationVeltliner has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
Wow. How old was the underage child he was convicted of having sex with ?
He was convicted of gross indecency for engaging in S&M activities with male prostitutes aged 17+, but at a time when the age of homosexual consent was 21.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 26.08.2015, 23:51
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
He was convicted of gross indecency for engaging in S&M activities with male prostitutes aged 17+, but at a time when the age of homosexual consent was 21.
thanks. so not a child then, an adult, but under 21. so the wild descriptions of 'previous for under age sex with a child' is bending the dramatic effect as far as possible when what is meant is having sex with a male adult escort 30 years ago.

still, "Nick" could be telling the truth, I'm sure time will tell and if the accused has been abusing young boys in a horrific manner, then he'll rightfully be locked away. however Nick hasn't got too much to worry about on the admission front because even if its a pack of lies he's guaranteed anonymity while the accused has had his reputation destroyed and plenty of people not even wanting to see further evidence because they have already made up their minds.

perhaps getting one of those vigilante groups that run round council estates beating the shit out of paediatricians might be a good next step.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Mikers for this useful post:
  #127  
Old 27.08.2015, 16:29
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
thanks. so not a child then, an adult, but under 21. so the wild descriptions of 'previous for under age sex with a child' is bending the dramatic effect as far as possible when what is meant is having sex with a male adult escort 30 years ago.

still, "Nick" could be telling the truth, I'm sure time will tell and if the accused has been abusing young boys in a horrific manner, then he'll rightfully be locked away. however Nick hasn't got too much to worry about on the admission front because even if its a pack of lies he's guaranteed anonymity while the accused has had his reputation destroyed and plenty of people not even wanting to see further evidence because they have already made up their minds.

perhaps getting one of those vigilante groups that run round council estates beating the shit out of paediatricians might be a good next step.
An illegal act at the time committed by an MP, ie: someone who is supposed set an example and the charge of gross indecency, is that not reputation-harming enough (especially for an MP) in your books? Obviously we have different standards then. And 17 years old is under 18, therefore a child or... are we bending the rules (like Proctor has) so it may be slightly acceptable for whatever reason? You tell me.

There are very good reasons why the victim wants to remain anonymous, 'Nick' fears for his life, when police press charges he will for sure reveal his true identity.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 27.08.2015, 16:42
fatmanfilms's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Verbier
Posts: 15,675
Groaned at 252 Times in 213 Posts
Thanked 13,087 Times in 7,364 Posts
fatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
An illegal act at the time committed by an MP, ie: someone who is supposed set an example and the charge of gross indecency, is that not reputation-harming enough (especially for an MP) in your books? Obviously we have different standards then. And 17 years old is under 18, therefore a child or... are we bending the rules (like Proctor has) so it may be slightly acceptable for whatever reason? You tell me.

There are very good reasons why the victim wants to remain anonymous, 'Nick' fears for his life, when police press charges he will for sure reveal his true identity.
In the UK the age of consent is 16, before 1999 homosexual consent was 21 so your the only one pretending it's 18 when it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 27.08.2015, 16:59
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
In the UK the age of consent is 16, before 1999 homosexual consent was 21 so your the only one pretending it's 18 when it's not.
He broke the law, I was not talking about consent. I was saying that over 18 years old is considered to be the age of adulthood, therefore the person he had sex with was a child as he was 17.

It's OK, like I said we live in a democracy and I'm happy he has a good defence on this thread (if only a very few persons). As far as I see it none of this kind of news would see the light of day in Switzerland if it were not highlighted on here, it is way up there in terms of public interest on EF, even as much as this thread or perhaps this one... carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 27.08.2015, 17:14
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,737
Groaned at 360 Times in 294 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
I'm happy he has a good defence on this thread (if only a very few persons)
"He" is not being defended. Due process is being defended.

Look at the title of the thread - should it not be "Alledged Westminster Paedophile Ring" or do, in your eyes, the allegations equal confirmed guilt?

The articles you cite carry significent bias, after all what is the underlying mission of Exaro?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post:
  #131  
Old 27.08.2015, 17:40
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
He broke the law, I was not talking about consent. I was saying that over 18 years old is considered to be the age of adulthood, therefore the person he had sex with was a child as he was 17.

It's OK, like I said we live in a democracy and I'm happy he has a good defence on this thread (if only a very few persons). As far as I see it none of this kind of news would see the light of day in Switzerland if it were not highlighted on here, it is way up there in terms of public interest on EF, even as much as this thread or perhaps this one... carry on.
He did break the law at the time, no one is disputing that, its the phrasing "for having sex with an underage child" that you used. A better description might have been "for having sex with a 17 year old male, which was under the age of consent at the time". That would give a fairer picture of what you are trying to say. Do you refer to other 17 year old people you know as children ? I dont.

That is Mr Proctors whole complaint here - did you not hear what he said ? he wants to be charged so he can have a court case. he wants all this to be tried, properly, in a court of law and not have the current burning cross witch-hunt going on when there is a chance here that he has done nothing wrong.

Just out of interest, if it was shown that he was innocent and Nick had made it all up, would you feel any remorse for the accused ?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Mikers for this useful post:
  #132  
Old 27.08.2015, 17:59
fatmanfilms's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Verbier
Posts: 15,675
Groaned at 252 Times in 213 Posts
Thanked 13,087 Times in 7,364 Posts
fatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
He did break the law at the time, no one is disputing that, its the phrasing "for having sex with an underage child" that you used. A better description might have been "for having sex with a 17 year old male, which was under the age of consent at the time". That would give a fairer picture of what you are trying to say. Do you refer to other 17 year old people you know as children ? I dont.

That is Mr Proctors whole complaint here - did you not hear what he said ? he wants to be charged so he can have a court case. he wants all this to be tried, properly, in a court of law and not have the current burning cross witch-hunt going on when there is a chance here that he has done nothing wrong.

Just out of interest, if it was shown that he was innocent and Nick had made it all up, would you feel any remorse for the accused ?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/26/re...kIHCOse43oTjTQ

Probably not of interest to the OP, however others may be interested to what HP has to say. He has not even been arrested which seems very odd.
BTW the 17 year old 'children' were rent boys (male prostitutes)
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 27.08.2015, 23:00
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
http://order-order.com/2015/08/26/re...kIHCOse43oTjTQ

Probably not of interest to the OP, however others may be interested to what HP has to say. He has not even been arrested which seems very odd.
BTW the 17 year old 'children' were rent boys (male prostitutes)
NO, you're wrong, I am interested.

Especially section: 29. Those Labour Members of Parliament who have misused parliamentary privilege and their special position on these matters should apologise. They have behaved disgracefully, especially attacking dead parliamentarians who cannot defend themselves and others and they should make amends. They are welcome to sue me for libel. In particular, Mr Tom Watson, M.P. should state, outside the protection of the House of Commons, the names of ex Ministers and ex M.P.s who he feels are part of the so called alleged Westminster rent boy ring.

I've highlighted what he calls a 'Rent-boy' ring when we are actually dealing with a 'Paedophile' ring. He seems to deflect the name so it implies the 'boys' were willing participants, if this was so, I doubt very much that the Police would be interested at all.

For me anyone under the age of 18 (check 'adult' in wikipedia) is a child, whether they are a rent-boy is of no relevance whatsoever as they might have started out doing that for any reason including being forced to.

I do agree though that it is well overdue that charges by the police should have been brought by now. Especially in the case of Harvey proctor.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 28.08.2015, 09:09
dodgyken's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,737
Groaned at 360 Times in 294 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
I do agree though that it is well overdue that charges by the police should have been brought by now. Especially in the case of Harvey proctor.
That is a very good point.

Allegations were made public 9 months ago - you'd expect the the police to be able to come up with some evidence in that time to bring at least some charges against him - at least one other person to collaborate the story and do enough to allow them to interview him under caution.

And remember it is all well and good the police having enough evidence to charge - it will then go to the CPS who will decide whether there is enough to get a conviction - and it will then go to court where a jury will decide.

And then if he is finally committed you can be sure it will go to appeal due to jury bias.
__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post:
  #135  
Old 28.08.2015, 10:21
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post

I've highlighted what he calls a 'Rent-boy' ring when we are actually dealing with a 'Paedophile' ring. He seems to deflect the name so it implies the 'boys' were willing participants, if this was so, I doubt very much that the Police would be interested at all.

For me anyone under the age of 18 (check 'adult' in wikipedia) is a child, whether they are a rent-boy is of no relevance whatsoever as they might have started out doing that for any reason including being forced to.
When two people age 17 get married do you consider it a marriage of two children or two adults ?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Mikers for this useful post:
  #136  
Old 28.08.2015, 12:23
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
That is a very good point.

Allegations were made public 9 months ago - you'd expect the the police to be able to come up with some evidence in that time to bring at least some charges against him - at least one other person to collaborate the story and do enough to allow them to interview him under caution.

And remember it is all well and good the police having enough evidence to charge - it will then go to the CPS who will decide whether there is enough to get a conviction - and it will then go to court where a jury will decide.

And then if he is finally committed you can be sure it will go to appeal due to jury bias.
The police got it right with Rolf Harris and Max Cliffird but wrong with Cliff Richard and Harvey Proctor in terms of the release of information before arrest and charges. This scenario won't work as you say, the justice system is compromised and open to infinite appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 28.08.2015, 12:51
fatmanfilms's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Verbier
Posts: 15,675
Groaned at 252 Times in 213 Posts
Thanked 13,087 Times in 7,364 Posts
fatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond reputefatmanfilms has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
The police got it right with Rolf Harris and Max Cliffird but wrong with Cliff Richard and Harvey Proctor in terms of the release of information before arrest and charges. This scenario won't work as you say, the justice system is compromised and open to infinite appeal.
The UK justice system is not open to infinite appeal unless the law has been broken.....
Sub Judicie used to be taken very seriously as it's contempt of court, quite why the matter is not pursued at the highest level I do not know.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 05.09.2015, 08:21
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Police concerned 'nick' may have made it all up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-inquiry.html
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 05.09.2015, 09:51
Hausamsee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lucerne
Posts: 363
Groaned at 71 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 465 Times in 217 Posts
Hausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputationHausamsee has an excellent reputation
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
Police concerned 'nick' may have made it all up http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-inquiry.html
its just a quote from the Daily Mail with nothing in any other press today, nothing to comment about at the moment.

Last edited by Hausamsee; 05.09.2015 at 11:44.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 21.09.2015, 22:58
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 2,056
Groaned at 131 Times in 93 Posts
Thanked 3,741 Times in 1,428 Posts
Mikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond reputeMikers has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

Quote:
View Post
its just a quote from the Daily Mail with nothing in any other press today, nothing to comment about at the moment.
The Independent and Guardian reporting police admitting it an error to refer to the evidence as 'credible and true'. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10511713.html
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Mikers for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
mp's, paedophiles, politics




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ring appraisal mountains1661 Other/general 2 20.08.2013 23:45
'Sex box' initiative fails after paedophile scandal The Local Swiss news via The Local 0 05.06.2012 12:26
Ring resizing gata General off-topic 4 25.04.2011 18:55
lost a ring? weekerry Daily life 5 08.04.2010 21:12
Australia deports UK paedophile Castro International affairs/politics 8 20.03.2008 22:36


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0