|
Can someone remind me how this thread went from phone hacking to an actual not-joking infestation of pedophiles?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Grundulum posted:Can someone remind me how this thread went from phone hacking to an actual not-joking infestation of pedophiles? Well people bothered to do some actual investigation for once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Can someone remind me how this thread went from phone hacking to an actual not-joking infestation of pedophiles? Saville was so open and ravenous a necrophilic and pedophilic serial rapist that, unlike the rest of his network, upon his death there was still significant pent up demand for an.investigation. That investigation brought attention to a network of elite pedophiles that doesn't have the juice to protect itself anymore since half thr members are dead or senile. And after decades of operating I can't imagine there isn't a contemporary wing still active. I really want to see this go as far as it can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:And after decades of operating I can't imagine there isn't a contemporary wing still active. I really want to see this go as far as it can. It's still shocking just how long it had been going on for, and the conspiracy of the thing. And how far spead it was/is. And the culture of silence surrounding it. It's a horrible concept to think over, but yeah, I agree with you, it's highly likely. And hopefully, (government mishaps/maliciousness aside), the inquiry will bring more stuff to light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:It is literally the thread title. The title is missing the 'ph' which is jarring.  Alternative: We Are The Daily Mail And We Represent The British "P'ed-Off" Isles
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Just saw something on the news as I was passing through the coffee bar. Sound was off, but it looks like Janner may yet be getting nicked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Here's a graun article about it. seems quite a tricky situation.quote:However, as Janner is expected to be unfit to stand, there will likely be a so-called trial of the facts on the 22 sex offences allegedly committed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In a trial of the facts, because the defendant cannot put forward a defence, no verdict is reached and the court does not pass sentence. The court can only decide whether the offences were committed as charged.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Lord Janner fit to answer charges of historic sex abuse, magistrate rules Lord Janner is fit to attend court to answer charges of historic sex abuse, chief magistrate Howard Riddle has ruled at Westminster Magistrates Court. The former Labour peer and MP, 87, who has Alzheimer's, faces a trial over 22 child sex charges in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. His lawyers claimed he was not fit enough to appear in court over the charges. However after hearing medical evidence from two psychiatrists as to the extent of his dementia, Mr Riddle said it was his opinion that he should attend court. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11789363/Lord-Janner-fails-to-appear-in-court-to-face-child-abuse-charges.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
so is it no longer a trial of facts? e: oh right the trial of facts thing was an assumption prior, ignore that
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
I like that the justification for having Janner attend court was "Well, yes it'll be very confusing and traumatic for him and he almost certainly won't be able to understand any questions, let alone answer them, but gently caress it, he's got Alzheimers so he won't remember any of it anyway!" I'm not opposed to alleged criminals having 'traumatic' experiences in court as part of the trial, but this just seems like an exercise in futility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:I like that the justification for having Janner attend court was Hell, you never know, a guy with alzheimer's might forget he was supposed to keep that stuff a secret and spill the beans, assuming he still remembers it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
chairface posted:Hell, you never know, a guy with alzheimer's might forget he was supposed to keep that stuff a secret and spill the beans, assuming he still remembers it. It doesn't seem likely; if his lawyer's telling the truth Janner can barely speak any more. Honestly, I won't be upset if this doesn't come to court. Janner's name is tainted anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
So remember the stuff about Lord McAlpine, and how it was a case of mistaken identity? Has it ever come out who the person he was mistaken for was? Because I've just heard something very, very strange but it's about a living (and very litigious) person so I'm nervous about mentioning it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:So remember the stuff about Lord McAlpine, and how it was a case of mistaken identity? Has it ever come out who the person he was mistaken for was? Because I've just heard something very, very strange but it's about a living (and very litigious) person so I'm nervous about mentioning it. Given that Lord McAlpine is dead, and I assuming you have just heard the fact he had the largest collection of Graham Ovenden's pictures - whose pictures were of naked girls, yet called art and Overden has a few years ago been convicted of Sexual abuse against some of his 'models'. Was surprising how this fact which was on the public record mysteriously never appeared in any of the press at the time. If its not that then send the info to an American and they can spill the beans 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ukle posted:Given that Lord McAlpine is dead, and I assuming you have just heard the fact he had the largest collection of Graham Ovenden's pictures - whose pictures were of naked girls, yet called art and Overden has a few years ago been convicted of Sexual abuse against some of his 'models'. Was surprising how this fact which was on the public record mysteriously never appeared in any of the press at the time. I'd actually heard of the Ovenden stuff - the failed obscenity prosecutions against him were much-discussed at the time as they were potentially important precedent for the limit of the SOA's "indecent pseudophotograph" definition, as well as being a battleground for the art community generally. Given Lord McAlpine was an avid art collector with very eclectic tastes I wouldn't actually call his ownership of Ovenden's stuff suspicious at all. Bear in mind that the accuser of Lord McAlpine unreservedly withdrew their accusation as soon as he saw a picture of him (while not recanting any other part of their story) and literally no other accusers have come forward. Obviously in this world it's impossible to say anyone's free of suspicion but Lord McAlpine is pretty drat close to it. The context in which I heard this new name - let's call him Not Lord McAlpine - was of him successfully suing someone for naming him on an internet forum as the person mistaken for Lord McAlpine. To be fair that's also literally the only evidence, other than coincidence and conjecture, against Not Lord McAlpine that I'm aware of, so I'd be reluctant to name him even if I had absolute defence against litigation because the only evidence against him is not even circumstantial, just coincidental. I was just intrigued to see if anyone had even heard this particular rumour and if there might be a bit more evidence against him than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Okay I've been doing my own research and it turns out Not Lord McAlpine couldn't possibly have been the figure associated with the North Wales case (or at least the accuser has specifically identified another person, who is now dead) so pretty much ignore everything I just posted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I'm quite curious to know now, and they probably can't sue if you explicitly post that they're definitely not a paedophile without seeming sarcastic or insincere
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Especially if they sued over it, their name must be on a court record. I don't see how "X sued Y regarding Z" and here is the record could be considered libelous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Alternatively from what goddamntwisto is saying, their only connection to the pedophilia shitfest is that they're angry when their name gets brought up in connection with the pedophilia shitfest, so isn't this a pretty good opportunity to use discretion and not bring someone's name into it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Alternatively from what goddamntwisto is saying, their only connection to the pedophilia shitfest is that they're angry when their name gets brought up in connection with the pedophilia shitfest, so isn't this a pretty good opportunity to use discretion and not bring someone's name into it? gently caress no, name and shame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Name and shame for... what? Being accused of looking a bit like Lord McAlpine one time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
This whole discussion sounds purely academic and quite dumb to boot. If I ever get sued for posting here, I hope they get very confused and attempt to arrest the legit Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Name and shame for... what? Being accused of looking a bit like Lord McAlpine one time? They don't even look like him, they just have a similar name to one of the accused in the North Wales case (which as I said is also the only evidence against Lord McAlpine).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Name and shame for... what? Being accused of looking a bit like Lord McAlpine one time? Given the current track record they're just as likely to turn out to be pedos now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Back on the historical track of old TV personalities, Timmy Mallett's still not caught up in any of this, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Back on the historical track of old TV personalities, Timmy Mallett's still not caught up in any of this, right? Not currently. Keeps appearing on social media lists of "Well, which 70s/80s media personality will probably be next revealed as a nonce" stuff. But nothing either as rumour, or anything substantial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Name and shame for... what? Being accused of looking a bit like Lord McAlpine one time? This is the guy who sued a woman for obliquely referencing news reports that he was a pedophile, right? If so, yeah, gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:This whole discussion sounds purely academic and quite dumb to boot. That would be a new height of Lowtax having to talk to the authorities about SA posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:That would be a new height of Lowtax having to talk to the authorities about SA posts. I still remember in those final decadent days of LF the amount of people who were absolutely astonished that Lowtax wasn't prepared to lose his entire livelihood and do serious jail time in order to defend their right to shitpost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I still remember in those final decadent days of LF the amount of people who were absolutely astonished that Lowtax wasn't prepared to lose his entire livelihood and do serious jail time in order to defend their right to shitpost. I wonder if the staff of certain offsite forums are~
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Anyone better at researching than me know what happened to Patrick Rock? For those unaware he was a prominent aide for David Cameron, becoming Deputy Director of Policy. That was until 2014 when he was charged with the making and possession of indecent images of children (found on his iPad...). He appeared in court in December, pleading not guilty with a pre-trial hearing scheduled for February 2015 but then...nothing. The trail runs cold. I found a FOI request made recently to the Cabinet Office regarding this issue but they haven't provided anything of worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
tdrules posted:Anyone better at researching than me know what happened to Patrick Rock? Check the court entries for the high court might be a good start. All points to that a injunction stopping any reporting of the trial was raised shortly after he was charged, note this isn't abnormal in child abuse cases if there are children who possibly could have been physically abused. The reporting restrictions are normally only removed when the case ends and sometimes not even at that point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Guess who got her job back with News International.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Aw, you beat me to it. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
A paeodophile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Mark Hanna, former Director of Group Security at NI, has posted a video on YouTube saying he is upset at Rebekah Brooks' re-appointment and promises to spill the beans on the company (forgot there was a thread for this, sorry): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXZdcC_KiE
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:Mark Hanna, former Director of Group Security at NI, has posted a video on YouTube saying he is upset at Rebekah Brooks' re-appointment and promises to spill the beans on the company (forgot there was a thread for this, sorry): Oh this is never going to end, is it? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:Mark Hanna, former Director of Group Security at NI, has posted a video on YouTube saying he is upset at Rebekah Brooks' re-appointment and promises to spill the beans on the company (forgot there was a thread for this, sorry): Think we'll ever see him again? I mean, as anything other than part of a pile of unidentified human body parts found in a quarry a decade from now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
"Accidentally cut his head off while shaving"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 14:35
|
|
