|
What ever your standard, it's about the powerful abusing the powerless and then using that power to hide that it ever happened. e: ^^^^^ What he said.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I think you're over-thinking it a bit - Cyril Smith certainly didn't come from that class. Yeah, I probably am overthinking it, and you may well be right about the reasons for why this has happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Crossposting from UKMT: Butler-Sloss is standing down from the Inquiry. It's just been announced. She said in her statement "I did not sufficiently consider whether my background & fact my brother had been Att General would cause difficulties". I wonder who will be selected to replace her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Carol Thatcher?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Bellingcat's Kickstarter is online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
£250 to have a chat with BM. And we have him on tap for nowt!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Plavski posted:£250 to have a chat with BM. Clear markings of an imperialist stooge 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 13:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I'll ask you if you have stairs in your house as an added bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Butler-Sloss stepped aside http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28295282
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Butler-Sloss stepped aside Good, she was about as compromised as the term could possibly imply without actually being a child rapist herself. I mean, she isn't, right? "Just" someone who made efforts to quash allegations and investigations of child abuse by (what presently appears to be) Tories?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Good, she was about as compromised as the term could possibly imply without actually being a child rapist herself. Not to mention being the sister of one of the members of the Tory Cabinet (Attorney General) under investigation, and not only that, but one of the key cabinet members. I'm not sure how the current government expected to get away with that
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DquLnRycZms This was a documentary that was produced but never aired about a high level pedophile ring in the US during the Reagan and bush Era. It was made in 1993 and was commissioned by the discovery channel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:53
|
|
I must be terrible because I want Reagan to somehow be implicated in all of this.
|
HortonNash posted:Not to mention being the sister of one of the members of the Tory Cabinet (Attorney General) under investigation, and not only that, but one of the key cabinet members. I'm not sure how the current government expected to get away with that They believe they are still legitimate, in their minds, there is no difference between the office and themselves. Is that idolatry on our part, or theirs? Femur fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Not to mention being the sister of one of the members of the Tory Cabinet (Attorney General) under investigation, and not only that, but one of the key cabinet members. I'm not sure how the current government expected to get away with that The same way they expected to get away with molesting children: by guarding all the doors and holding all the keys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Some food for thought. The first heterosexual age of consent was set in 1275, at 12 years old. It stayed there for as near as dammit exactly 600 years; then was raised to 13 in 1875, and subsequently to 16 in 1885; so in 1970, a preteen age of consent was only just on the verge of passing out of living memory. Side note, quite a bit of that was to do with the feudal practice of marriage alliances and there were strong interests to ensure that canon law wouldn't stand in the way of a key political arrangement. That the age of consent rose just as this started not to be a concern in Western Europe is not a coincidence in my mind. Most of them were not consummated at that age (with a good number of notable exceptions though, the mother of Henry VII for one). Side note, age of consent for women was 12 whilst it was 14 for boys. Also, I should try and dig up that research I read about recently indicating that the average age of first child birth for commoners in those days was higher than many people thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison. I'm pretty sure there's a phrase for that ploy, isn't there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison. "The lib dems"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison. It's often referred to as the Harkonnen gambit, after Dune.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that Rabban guy is a real piece of poo poo. Thank God Feyd-Rautha is replacing him soon, he seems nice, and looks a bit like Sting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison. This is what I came here to post. It seems incredibly blatant - although there's no guarantee it's not just genuine incompetence. FAUXTON posted:The same way they expected to get away with molesting children: by guarding all the doors and holding all the keys. ITT the British government are literally robots from the future sucking our life force from us while distracting us with the shiny baubles of rampant consumerism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:This is what I came here to post. It seems incredibly blatant - although there's no guarantee it's not just genuine incompetence. Really? Why would the replacement be under any less scrutiny than Butler-Sloss was? I think the appointment of Butler-Sloss was mainly incompetence: a failure to recognise or appreciate the significance of her past statements and connections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
yeah, I think they just hosed up and didn't actually check things thoroughly enough. I think given the focus on Butler-Sloss' background that any replacement is going to be vetted thoroughly, if not by the government then certainly by the press.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Zephro posted:This seems wildly conspiratorial to me. Yeah, lets keep the conspiracy theories out of this discussion of a decades-long government cover-up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Gum posted:Yeah, lets keep the conspiracy theories out of this discussion of a decades-long government cover-up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No, but at the same time let's not assume the government is peopled by Batman-type masterminds who are triple-bluffing and running false flag ops and generally playing 11-dimensional chess with everyone. Deliberately making a bad first choice in order to make your second choice seem more reasonable: Literally Batman playing 11-dimensional chess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Considering we don't know who the second choice is... this seems a little... silly to assume.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Who said anything about assuming it? I just found it funny that an established political trick was called a wild conspiracy in a thread about a government paedophile ring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No, but at the same time let's not assume the government is peopled by Batman-type masterminds who are triple-bluffing and running false flag ops and generally playing 11-dimensional chess with everyone. Using bait and switch tactics to get an appointment you want is hardly 11 dimensional chess and the slow but steady revelations of Operation Yewtree have given the establishment plenty of warning and time to plan how to line up a safe pair of hands for an enquiry. I'm really not sure this is what happened but it isn't that outlandish either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
But if they already knew who they wanted, why didn't they just appoint that person to start with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Whitefish posted:But if they already knew who they wanted, why didn't they just appoint that person to start with? Because they know the media is loving lazy and thrives on novelty (it's called the 'news' for a reason), so dodgy candidate number two is going to get less attention and scrutiny than dodgy candidate number one. Plus, if too many candidates get chased off due to being compromised as gently caress, it gives them an excuse to bury the inquiry altogether because silly old Joe Public doesn't know who he wants to lead it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Whitefish posted:But if they already knew who they wanted, why didn't they just appoint that person to start with? Gum posted:Deliberately making a bad first choice in order to make your second choice seem more reasonable The barter system must mystify you
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Because they know the media is loving lazy and thrives on novelty (it's called the 'news' for a reason), so dodgy candidate number two is going to get less attention and scrutiny than dodgy candidate number one. Plus, if too many candidates get chased off due to being compromised as gently caress, it gives them an excuse to bury the inquiry altogether because silly old Joe Public doesn't know who he wants to lead it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No, this is wrong. The media is only lazy when it's got nothing to get its teeth into. This is a perfect tabloid story and you can bet that every newspaper has got reporters out raking through everybody's backgrounds looking for dirt. The fact that Butler-Sloss had to resign is going to make her replacement even more heavily scrutinised, not less. The government can't afford to gently caress up the appointment a second time, and every reporter is going to be looking for any angle that allows him or her to suggest that they have. If her replacement were to have failings or connections related to the allegations certainly but if they have other objectionable qualities such as being seen to be too partisan or an ardent critic of the NHS the government will be in a strong position to say "Look, you may not like this candidate but they've done nothing wrong and we really need to get this thing started!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
A former MET detective claims he was moved from his post in 1998 when he stated his intention to investigate politicians for child abuse: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/16/uk-detective-removed-post-alleged-child-abuse-claims quote:A former Scotland Yard detective who won plaudits for his work on cases including the murder of Stephen Lawrence has claimed that he was moved from his post earlier when he revealed plans to investigate politicians over child abuse claims.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:If her replacement were to have failings or connections related to the allegations certainly but if they have other objectionable qualities such as being seen to be too partisan or an ardent critic of the NHS the government will be in a strong position to say "Look, you may not like this candidate but they've done nothing wrong and we really need to get this thing started!" I agree it's possible that that could happen, particularly if the news cycle moves on and the media lose interest in the story. But it's not guaranteed, and it would still be really stupid to rely on that happening. I just can't imagine someone going to Theresa May and proposing to her that they take the following course of action: "Let's appoint Butler-Sloss to lead the inquiry, even though we know that her personal connections make her inappropriate and are sure to lead to outcry, meaning that Butler-Sloss will be forced to resign, and then we can appoint the person we really want safe in the knowledge that the media won't scrutinise our choice as heavily second time around!" I just can't imagine Theresa May saying, 'that's a sensible idea'. Surely the whole idea of launching an independent inquiry is to try and cool things down and get the story out of the news cycle: i.e. it allows the government to say, 'we have launched an independent inquiry, we're waiting for the results of that inquiry, we're not involved in it and we can't comment on it until it reports'. In the meantime you hope that things move on and the issue is defused. I'm sure there are political machinations going on in that respect. But it would completely undermine that whole idea if you appoint someone to lead the inquiry who is compromised. At that point the inquiry itself is called into question before its even begun, the media get even more suspicious, and the Government find it harder to defuse the issue. It's basically just applying Ockham's razor anyway: What's more plausible? The Government thought that Butler-Sloss was a decent candidate but failed to appreciate that she might appear biased because they were acting under the strain of a 24 hour media cycle that was pressuring them to act quickly? Or that they cooked up a plan to use Butler-Sloss as a decoy, even though there's no guarantee that the plan would work and in fact a real danger that it could inflame the situation rather than defuse it? Whitefish fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Ockham's Razor would suggest that there is no systemic child abuse going on at all because it's much easier for people to lie about being abused rather than there being a vast conspiracy to abuse and cover it up. One thing that infuriates me is the idea that certain policies are best ascribed to incompetence than pure malice. That someone like Boris Johnson might look and act like a buffoon so any decisions made come from a position of stupidity is insulting. These people know what they're doing. If they didn't, they would not be where they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
It's not just celebrities who are paedophilesquote:660 arrested in paedophile inquiry
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Ockham's Razor would suggest that there is no systemic child abuse going on at all because it's much easier for people to lie about being abused rather than there being a vast conspiracy to abuse and cover it up. I don't think that's necessarily true. Ockham's razor is just the idea that you should favour the simplest explanation of the evidence you currently have. What counts as the 'simplest explanation' will depend to a certain extent on your prior beliefs. If you have a prior belief that people are quite likely to lie about being abused (perhaps for political reasons) then you will favour the explanation that there is no systemic child abuse, and instead there's (systemic?) lying about child abuse having occurred. There are so many unknowns at the moment so it's hard to say what the simplest explanation is, but my own view is that given that the rumours are quite widespread, the simplest explanation is to say that there's something to them. It seems unlikely to me that so many rumours would be floating around if there was no truth to any of them. But it also seems plausible to me that some of them are false (because rumours often are). But I really don't think the simplest explanation based on the evidence we have is that all the rumours are false. Ddraig posted:One thing that infuriates me is the idea that certain policies are best ascribed to incompetence than pure malice. That someone like Boris Johnson might look and act like a buffoon so any decisions made come from a position of stupidity is insulting. Well of course it's wrong to say that it's always malice or always stupidity. Of course politicians can be malicious, but equally politicians are human and can make mistakes. You often get people saying one moment that all politicians in the Government are idiotic, and on the other depicting the Government as an all-powerful system that effortlessly achieves its pernicious aims. But it's surely never that simple, particularly given the system of Government we have in this country. The Government is a vast organisation constituted by lots of different institutions, staffed and controlled by people with different interests and ideologies. Within that system there are some very effective operators and some less effective operators. No one has total control over the entire system because it's so vast. People who are effective within the system can use it to achieve their goals (good or bad), but at times there are bound to be mistakes and system failures. I agree that certain policies can be ascribed to malice, but without specific evidence of malice I wouldn't leap to that conclusion. I think people often want to believe a policy is borne out of pure malice because then it makes it easier to disagree with it. It's easier to disagree with someone who's doing something that even they know to be morally wrong than it is to disagree with someone who genuinely believes that what they are doing is right. But I do agree with you that Boris Johnson plays up to his image as a buffoon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Whitefish posted:I don't think that's necessarily true. Ockham's razor is just the idea that you should favour the simplest explanation of the evidence you currently have. What counts as the 'simplest explanation' will depend to a certain extent on your prior beliefs. If you have a prior belief that people are quite likely to lie about being abused (perhaps for political reasons) then you will favour the explanation that there is no systemic child abuse, and instead there's (systemic?) lying about child abuse having occurred. Good post. Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be the first time politicians have failed to have someone vetted properly. It also wouldn't be the first time politicians have used a bait-and-switch maneuver. But having read whitefish's post and thought it through, the former certainly seems far more likely in this case - I'd imagine they really want to get the whole thing off the front page as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 12:46
|
|