I cant remember for sure but I believe evidence of a verifiable nature was provided to you previous re the activities of the Labour Govt over the Iraq war ( it doesn't require a report/inquiry to be able to substantiate a claim) but you still went into hiding over them.
As stated previous it's truth on your terms, you seem almost oblivious to the notion that Labour have played silly re the Iraq war....even with your above post you still try to draw fire away from Labour/Blair by tarring others with the same brush.
You're a contradiction in all ways.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Thatcher -surely last nail in her coffin
Quote by deancannock
Not wanting the truth....have I ever stated I didn't want an enquiry into the Iraq war ??? If you bother to look back Toots you will see you posted a similar link and I answered. fact is both Labour and Tory party voted for action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Lib Dems can maybe hold the moral high ground as they didn't. However as stated again and again...IF wrong doing is found to have occurred, I will without hesitation CONDEMN the actions, and the ask that the people concerned are named and if can be suitably punished !!
However TOOTS....It is now been shown that Mrs Thatcher clearly withheld offenders, names, and sought to cover up the situation. It is obvious to anyone with a shread of an open mind, that the reason for this, is because she knew it would lead back to her cabinet, her allies and her close friends.
So seeing that the documents now clearly show she withheld and covered this up. I ask do you condone her actions or CONDEMN her actions.
As more documents are realised and the full extent to her cover up is exposed, maybe you will once again come back and CONDEMN her and her actions.....
and your evidence is?????
No doubt you also subscribe to the view that Lord Brittan was a too..
Only he's dead too so can't answer for his actions or defend his innocence.
The Lord High Catcher General - your blessed hero - strikes again. Wonder how long it will be before Tom Watson is caught with his trousers round his ankles and his dick up some juvenile's arse...
Quote by Toots
I cant remember for sure but I believe evidence of a verifiable nature was provided to you previous re the activities of the Labour Govt over the Iraq war ( it doesn't require a report/inquiry to be able to substantiate a claim) but you still went into hiding over them.
As stated previous it's truth on your terms, you seem almost oblivious to the notion that Labour have played silly re the Iraq war....even with your above post you still try to draw fire away from Labour/Blair by tarring others with the same brush.
You're a contradiction in all ways.
No evidence has been provided ..just accusations. This is exactly why the enquiry has been set up. If wrong doing is found to have been done...as stated I CONDEMN, without prejudice.
Perhaps now having been giving evidence of MRS Thatchers cover up....its in her own handwriting there...telling them don't release the names !! Maybe you will now CONDEMN her actions....or I ask again...do you condone the cover up of abuse if they are your friends ??
Quote by GnV
Not wanting the truth....have I ever stated I didn't want an enquiry into the Iraq war ??? If you bother to look back Toots you will see you posted a similar link and I answered. fact is both Labour and Tory party voted for action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Lib Dems can maybe hold the moral high ground as they didn't. However as stated again and again...IF wrong doing is found to have occurred, I will without hesitation CONDEMN the actions, and the ask that the people concerned are named and if can be suitably punished !!
However TOOTS....It is now been shown that Mrs Thatcher clearly withheld offenders, names, and sought to cover up the situation. It is obvious to anyone with a shread of an open mind, that the reason for this, is because she knew it would lead back to her cabinet, her allies and her close friends.
So seeing that the documents now clearly show she withheld and covered this up. I ask do you condone her actions or CONDEMN her actions.
As more documents are realised and the full extent to her cover up is exposed, maybe you will once again come back and CONDEMN her and her actions.....
and your evidence is?????
No doubt you also subscribe to the view that Lord Brittan was a too..
Only he's dead too so can't answer for his actions or defend his innocence.
The Lord High Catcher General - your blessed hero - strikes again. Wonder how long it will be before Tom Watson is caught with his trousers round his ankles and his dick up some juvenile's arse...
FFS GNV...evidence is in Mrs thatchers handwriting....but forgot you got hands over your eyes you can't see it !!!
Take it you never bothered to read the link I provided,Leon Britton ...well we shall have to wait and see. I do believe there is a strong weight of evidence against him and there is a strong indications that he was part of a ring. Indeed it is logged that the police even cautioned him about his actions and the company he was keeping !!! However I reserve judgement until the review thankfully now been undertaken by a judge from New Zealand, has finished its investigation and given its findings.
Tom Watson exposed the whole phone tapping scandal which without his diligence would have probably been swept under the carpet and still be going on today. We need more MP's like Tom Watson who are willing to question the establishment and their actions.
As for your comments " Wonder how long it will be before Tom Watson is caught with his trousers round his ankles and his dick up some juvenile's arse " I think are in very poor taste and I honestly think you should unreservedly withdraw and apologise for.
Quote by deancannock
I cant remember for sure but I believe evidence of a verifiable nature was provided to you previous re the activities of the Labour Govt over the Iraq war ( it doesn't require a report/inquiry to be able to substantiate a claim) but you still went into hiding over them.
As stated previous it's truth on your terms, you seem almost oblivious to the notion that Labour have played silly re the Iraq war....even with your above post you still try to draw fire away from Labour/Blair by tarring others with the same brush.
You're a contradiction in all ways.
No evidence has been provided ..just accusations. This is exactly why the enquiry has been set up. If wrong doing is found to have been done...as stated I CONDEMN, without prejudice.
Perhaps now having been giving evidence of MRS Thatchers cover up....its in her own handwriting there...telling them don't release the names !! Maybe you will now CONDEMN her actions....or I ask again...do you condone the cover up of abuse if they are your friends ??
What say you here where Labour got into bed with Libya/Gaddafi the extent to which was only made available via when Tripoli/Gaddafi fell?
You must have felt proud when voting Labour knowing how warm and friendly the Blair govt were towards Gaddafi? but then Blair has in the past admitted to 'liking greatly' Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, how many ppl have lost their lives in Ireland/Mainland Britian to the IRA?
or
Truth and lies or lies and truth?, statements made by Blair but later contradicted by
those in the know and often within his own Govt
Most of the above link was available before the last election but you probably chose to ignore it but then you're both blinded to reason by your loathing of Mrs Thatcher ( what a woman she was ) and deaf to any credible argument offered against your much beloved Labour Party the same party that you've voted in previously.
Will you still vote for them even though they're proven liars? *cocks ear to listen for the pin* *ping* yup, there it is.
Quote by Toots
I cant remember for sure but I believe evidence of a verifiable nature was provided to you previous re the activities of the Labour Govt over the Iraq war ( it doesn't require a report/inquiry to be able to substantiate a claim) but you still went into hiding over them.
As stated previous it's truth on your terms, you seem almost oblivious to the notion that Labour have played silly re the Iraq war....even with your above post you still try to draw fire away from Labour/Blair by tarring others with the same brush.
You're a contradiction in all ways.
No evidence has been provided ..just accusations. This is exactly why the enquiry has been set up. If wrong doing is found to have been done...as stated I CONDEMN, without prejudice.
Perhaps now having been giving evidence of MRS Thatchers cover up....its in her own handwriting there...telling them don't release the names !! Maybe you will now CONDEMN her actions....or I ask again...do you condone the cover up of abuse if they are your friends ??
What say you here where Labour got into bed with Libya/Gaddafi the extent to which was only made available via when Tripoli/Gaddafi fell?
You must have felt proud when voting Labour knowing how warm and friendly the Blair govt were towards Gaddafi? but then Blair has in the past admitted to 'liking greatly' Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, how many ppl have lost their lives in Ireland/Mainland Britian to the IRA?
or
Truth and lies or lies and truth?, statements made by Blair but later contradicted by
those in the know and often within his own Govt
Most of the above link was available before the last election but you probably chose to ignore it but then you're both blinded to reason by your loathing of Mrs Thatcher ( what a woman she was ) and deaf to any credible argument offered against your much beloved Labour Party the same party that you've voted in previously.
Will you still vote for them even though they're proven liars? *cocks ear to listen for the pin* *ping* yup, there it is.
I see still no CONDEMNATION of child abuse cover up.....Oh that's right you either choose to close eyes to that...clear hand written evidence placed before you...or as I say maybe you condone it ???
the links above...I have now read twice...please do me the honour of doing the same. It says documents seen by THE MAIL. It does not publish or list what those documents are. therefore it is pure speculation !! This is the same MAIL newspaper that has lied and lied again...and is only second to News Of The World in the payments it has had to make for false accusations and lies it has printed. In my link I provided it showed the document with MRS Thatchers handwriting on...that's what you call evidence. Evidence is the same documents that were released that showed and were minuted about the mining dispute where Mrs Thatcher clearly approved of the proposed closing of 52 pits. This is the same Mrs thatcher who went to the commons 4 days after that meeting, and said no list has been formulated, and she would not approve of it , it it was put in future. The document of those lies are now published and are public knowledge. !! This is the same Mrs thatcher who lied through her teeth about The Hillsborough tragedy, as she didn't want the Police to get the blame. These documents have been released and openly there for all to see the lies and cover up.
Your second link is a much better and balanced view of the situation. Basically what it states is that we probably went into the conflict with un-due haste, but that the evidence provided, it was credible to think the WOMD were there !! This is what I believe the Chilcott report will say in the end. Many mistakes in hindsight were made, but nothing illegal and no cover up after was put in place. However it has not yet been published, and I will await its findings before saying anything more.
Once again I state that IF the report does come out and say Mr Blair or any other person, lied or tried to cover anything up, I will CONDEMN that action, and would hope that appropriate action is taken in regard to that person or persons.
Now then back to the original point of this thread.....Will you condone or condemn the cover up that has taken place, by Mrs Thatcher in trying to withheld names and information, relevant to abuse !!! You have failed to do this so far !!!
No, I won't dean.
Will you CONDEMN Harriet Harman and her equally nasty husband Dromy for their (founding, no less) part in PIE (mentioned in your link)?
No, of course you wont.
As Toots has said, you seem too selective in your choice of who to support in this and you seem to support the nasty people spreading vicious lies like your man Tom Watson. Perhaps he has been taking lessons in how to be a messianic prick from past master Bliar.
As my 'ol Gran used to say... them's none as blind as them who refuse t'see.
Will you CONDEMN Harriet Harman and her equally nasty husband Dromy for their (founding, no less) part in PIE (mentioned in your link)?
No, of course you wont.
As Toots has said, you seem too selective in your choice of who to support in this and you seem to support the nasty people spreading vicious lies like your man Tom Watson. Perhaps he has been taking lessons in how to be a messianic prick from past master Bliar.
As my 'ol Gran used to say... them's none as blind as them who refuse t'see.
Quote by GnV
No, I won't dean.
Will you CONDEMN Harriet Harman and her equally nasty husband Dromy for their part in PIE (mentioned in your link)?
No, of course you wont.
As Toots has said, you seem too selective in your choice of who to support in this and you seem to support the nasty people spreading vicious lies like your man Tom.
As my 'ol Gran used to say... them's none as blind as them who refuse t'see.
I give you evidence in handwriting....take your hands away from your face...you may just see it to !!
Yes...The News Of The World said Tom Watson was spreading lies about phone taping...and just witch hunting them....Opps it seemed he was 100% correct. tell me one thing that makes Tom Watson nasty and wrong because he asks difficult questions that people would rather not talk about !!!
Your comment:
"Wonder how long it will be before Tom Watson is caught with his trousers round his ankles and his dick up some juvenile's arse..."
The fact you can't see this is in poor taste....and is actually close to be libel...just about says it all GNV. Comments, with no grounding what so ever, such as that, about any person, simply fill me and anyone with an ounce of decency with disgust.
Actually Dean, you've not provided evidence in handwriting. You've provided a link to a Guardian article in which the newspaper applies its spin to the story.
Take a look at this link. Same story different newspaper
If you bother to read the link, you will see the following paragraph
'The new information appeared to undermine claims that the decision not to prosecute Hayman was part of an Establishment conspiracy to cover up child abuse'
So, which one is correct?
Even if Thatcher was part of a cover up, was she merely continuing a cover up began by the previous Labour Government? Hayman was first arrested in 1978 before Thatcher came to power.
You accuse others of being blind but you really want to believe that it is true due to your deep hatred for Thatcher. I wonder why The BBC hasn't picked up on this article?
Take a look at this link. Same story different newspaper
If you bother to read the link, you will see the following paragraph
'The new information appeared to undermine claims that the decision not to prosecute Hayman was part of an Establishment conspiracy to cover up child abuse'
So, which one is correct?
Even if Thatcher was part of a cover up, was she merely continuing a cover up began by the previous Labour Government? Hayman was first arrested in 1978 before Thatcher came to power.
You accuse others of being blind but you really want to believe that it is true due to your deep hatred for Thatcher. I wonder why The BBC hasn't picked up on this article?
"The file, compiled between October 1980 and March 1981, is made up of memos and background notes put together for Thatcher, then prime minister, and is littered with her handwritten notes, underlinings and crossings out. "
" Margaret Thatcher was adamant officials should not publicly name Sir Peter Hayman, a senior diplomat connected to a scandal, even after she had been fully briefed on his activities, examination of formerly secret papers released to the National Archives shows. "
It can't be any clearer to me. Yes it also says it was a full cover up by the establishment !! So who were the establishment in 1980/81 ?? As this unravels, you will see it wasn't Peter Hayman she was really bothered in protecting...it was because she knew where it would lead !! They had even tried to keep this file beyond the 30 year deadline...to try and hide it. The truth will out. I now have faith in the new head of the enquiry, as she is fully independent, and think you will find some big names will be shown to have be involved. And if everything is to be believed, we may even be looking the murder of children after abuse, incase they spoke out.
Norman tebbitt was one of Mrs thatchers great friends, and I think you can see here from his interview in the summer of last year...he knows what will be found;
Asked on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme if he thought there had been a political cover-up at the time, Tebbit said: "I think there may well have been. It was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did."
This scandal will grow and snowball....mark my words !!!
" Margaret Thatcher was adamant officials should not publicly name Sir Peter Hayman, a senior diplomat connected to a scandal, even after she had been fully briefed on his activities, examination of formerly secret papers released to the National Archives shows. "
It can't be any clearer to me. Yes it also says it was a full cover up by the establishment !! So who were the establishment in 1980/81 ?? As this unravels, you will see it wasn't Peter Hayman she was really bothered in protecting...it was because she knew where it would lead !! They had even tried to keep this file beyond the 30 year deadline...to try and hide it. The truth will out. I now have faith in the new head of the enquiry, as she is fully independent, and think you will find some big names will be shown to have be involved. And if everything is to be believed, we may even be looking the murder of children after abuse, incase they spoke out.
Norman tebbitt was one of Mrs thatchers great friends, and I think you can see here from his interview in the summer of last year...he knows what will be found;
Asked on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme if he thought there had been a political cover-up at the time, Tebbit said: "I think there may well have been. It was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did."
This scandal will grow and snowball....mark my words !!!
Did you read the other article? There is no mention of Thatcher being adamant not to release Hayman's name in it. Is what you quoted a Guardian journalist's spin?
The Telegraph article actually publishes a handwritten memo from Thatcher to Sir Michael Havers in which she wrote 'So that there be no doubt, I leave to your judgment whether or not you are interviewed on media or TV about the Hayman matter.” this memo is dated 20 March 1981. Does that sound like a cover up?
Who was in power when Hayman was first arrested in 1978?
The Telegraph article actually publishes a handwritten memo from Thatcher to Sir Michael Havers in which she wrote 'So that there be no doubt, I leave to your judgment whether or not you are interviewed on media or TV about the Hayman matter.” this memo is dated 20 March 1981. Does that sound like a cover up?
Who was in power when Hayman was first arrested in 1978?
yes...I can read...it says as you have quoted a cover up in 1980/81 by the establishment...please tell me who you actually think that is then !! He was arrested in late 1978 but it wasn't until 1980 that it was brought to the attention of any government minister. That is also listed !!
You know as well as I do..as well as Norman Tebbitt does...that cabinet names will come forth and be shown to be part of an organised abuse ring. I am sure MP's from all parties will actually be named. However the question will be, why was it hushed up, and covered up. I will await the findings of the judicial review....but I hope IF and yes its an IF a cover up is found, then you will join me in the Condemnation of those involved.
You know as well as I do..as well as Norman Tebbitt does...that cabinet names will come forth and be shown to be part of an organised abuse ring. I am sure MP's from all parties will actually be named. However the question will be, why was it hushed up, and covered up. I will await the findings of the judicial review....but I hope IF and yes its an IF a cover up is found, then you will join me in the Condemnation of those involved.
come on Max ...you ain't that daft....you can read between the lines.... over 110 documents go missing...documents are held longer than 30 years...Norman Tebbitt himself says there may of been a cover up....but it was done to protect the establishment...you know where this is leading and what the outcome will be.
Personally my only hope in this matter, is that it is not as bad as some would have it, and we don't find that Murders of innocent children were due to the actions of MP'S and Ministers. I have little doubt myself that, we will find a ring did exist and that very prominent people were involved.
If I am wrong and the report states no sex abuse ever occurred, and there was nothing to cover up...I will come on here and unreservedly apologise and say I got it wrong !!
If I an right and report shows there was an organised ring operating and that Mrs Thatcher knew about it and choose to ignore it.....will you come on here and condemn her and say that such actions and attitudes are abhorrent ???
Personally my only hope in this matter, is that it is not as bad as some would have it, and we don't find that Murders of innocent children were due to the actions of MP'S and Ministers. I have little doubt myself that, we will find a ring did exist and that very prominent people were involved.
If I am wrong and the report states no sex abuse ever occurred, and there was nothing to cover up...I will come on here and unreservedly apologise and say I got it wrong !!
If I an right and report shows there was an organised ring operating and that Mrs Thatcher knew about it and choose to ignore it.....will you come on here and condemn her and say that such actions and attitudes are abhorrent ???
answer the question....I will abide by the independent enquiry and apologise if wrong.
Will you condemn those involved and say the actions are abhorrent if a ring is found to have operated !!
easy enough question ??
and yes ....I was laughed at when I said the weight of evidence against Jimmy Saville would show he was guilty. I was told it was all rubbish and a figment of my imagination. there again, maybe you still think he is innocent as well !!!
Will you condemn those involved and say the actions are abhorrent if a ring is found to have operated !!
easy enough question ??
and yes ....I was laughed at when I said the weight of evidence against Jimmy Saville would show he was guilty. I was told it was all rubbish and a figment of my imagination. there again, maybe you still think he is innocent as well !!!
Quote by Max777
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.
Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
Quote by deancannock
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.
Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
No comment about Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt then I see. Those awful people still in the so called 'establishment' who were the founder members of PIE - just as a reminder - the diabolical organisation which called for sex with 10 year olds to be made legal.
It is reckoned that this new enquiry, if it ever gets off the ground, headed by Ms Goddard will not report before 2018. It's terms of reference are yet to be determined but it is thought that it will mainly focus on more recent events such as Rotherham and measures to prevent this type of establishment abuse ever happening again. Good luck to them. This is a more pragmatic approach to take.
Now, I'm sure Ms Goddard is a resourceful kind of person; the thought of £791 per day (if she is to be remunerated at the same going rate as Chilcot - his rate set in 2009 hasn't changed) must be quite alluring and I wouldn't doubt that, like the Chilcot débâcle, it will undoubtedly stretch far beyond the 3 years suggested. I mean, you cant rush these things, can you?
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.
Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
No comment about Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt then I see. Those awful people still in the so called 'establishment' who were the founder members of PIE - just as a reminder - the diabolical organisation which called for sex with 10 year olds to be made legal.
It is reckoned that this new enquiry, if it ever gets off the ground, headed by Ms Goddard will not report before 2018. It's terms of reference are yet to be determined but it is thought that it will mainly focus on more recent events such as Rotherham and measures to prevent this type of establishment abuse ever happening again. Good luck to them. This is a more pragmatic approach to take.
Now, I'm sure Ms Goddard is a resourceful kind of person; the thought of £791 per day (if she is to be remunerated at the same going rate as Chilcot - his rate set in 2009 hasn't changed) must be quite alluring and I wouldn't doubt that, like the Chilcot débâcle, it will undoubtedly stretch far beyond the 3 years suggested. I mean, you cant rush these things, can you?
You are correct, you can't rush these things! Or people jump to conclusions which seems to be the case in this thread. I do not believe in conspiracies however!
It does appear strange to me that that the previously chosen chairs for this enquiry turned out to not only unsuitable for the role but also unacceptable to the survivors! I wish Justice Goddard very good health, however wouldn't it be a little coincidence if it was found that she had an illness that meant she could not continue in her new role?
This selection process has taken a very long time, time for those who may have something to hide to leave office. Also time for those who put this enquiry into place to be seen to do the right thing be there paymasters. That is not a swipe at any political party but of all political parties, establishments and organisations that have and in some cases continue to close ranks to protect the guilty at the expense of the victims.
To suggest one document is by some way proof of guilt is not helpful. What it is, is a starting point to investigate one thread of what has gone on to find out "THE TRUTH!" To suggest that some (very misguidedly) were sympathetic to the idea of lowering the age of consent are guilty of a criminal act, is to attempt to deny them there right to free speech. It is however an opportunity to question these people to find out who lobbied them and what was there intensive to do this.
I understand that historic allegations stretching back before the 1970's are now going to be looked into. This process will take time but surely waiting for the conclusions is better than tar and feathering anybody who is mentioned with out proof of guilt? Or perhaps some would like a witch hunt and don't care about the truth!
I think that the victims deserve justice and everything must be done in an attempt to ensure there are no more victims in the future. That is why this enquiry is so important, that is why it has to be fearless and not distracted from it's task and that is why it has to be given free access to turn any stone it thinks will be useful to the enquiry.
Do not presume you know the truth, that is the way to ruin, do not get the hammer and nails out till the facts are known, please!
Quote by deancannock
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.
Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
If it is proven that a ring operated in Westminster them I'm sure everyone will condemn those involved. The issue here however, is that you are accusing Thatcher of personally covering up such a thing. as I have said before, you want to believe this is true because of your hatred for Thatcher. I have previously answered you that I would rather wait and see the outcome an enquiry before publicly condemning anyone.
You still haven't answered as to why he wasn't prosecuted in 1978 when it was Labour in power.
And please, if you're going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote me in full. That way you don't misrepresent my words.
Quote by Max777
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.
Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
If it is proven that a ring operated in Westminster them I'm sure everyone will condemn those involved. The issue here however, is that you are accusing Thatcher of personally covering up such a thing. as I have said before, you want to believe this is true because of your hatred for Thatcher. I have previously answered you that I would rather wait and see the outcome an enquiry before publicly condemning anyone.
You still haven't answered as to why he wasn't prosecuted in 1978 when it was Labour in power.
And please, if you're going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote me in full. That way you don't misrepresent my words.
To answer your question..see I do !!! The reason he wasn't prosecuted was because there was not enough evidence at the time and the police issued a caution . At no time was this brought to the attention of the government at that time !! In 1980 there was enough evidence, and it was brought to the attention of the government, as he had risen to a position, which it felt could compromise secret information. Did you really need me to tell you that as its information easily found !!
Any yes I am saying I believe Mrs Thatcher knew of a Westminster ring and she choose to keep quiet, so as to protect her friends, and because some of those people involved, were in her cabinet.
Please note.. I said same sort of things about Jimmy Saville as it was starting to break, and people on here said what rubbish. It really doesn't take much to see the weight of information and read between the lines.
I will await the enquiry, which as I said, I now fully respect and trust....and IF a cover up is found I await your unreserved CONDEMNATION...with anticipation !!!
Equally as clearly stated I will unreservedly apologise IF no wrong doing is found !!!
Quote by GnV
@dean
and PIE? Hariett Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt et al calling for sex with 12 year olds to be made legal?
Or is it one rule for Labourites and another for Conservatives in your little wonderworld of Tom Watson, the caped Westminster crusader
please show where any politician of any colour has asked for sex with 12 years olds to made legal....you really are talking total rubbish GNV.
Quote by deancannock
@dean
and PIE? Hariett Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt et al calling for sex with 12 year olds to be made legal?
Or is it one rule for Labourites and another for Conservatives in your little wonderworld of Tom Watson, the caped Westminster crusader
please show where any politician of any colour has asked for sex with 12 years olds to made legal....you really are talking total rubbish GNV.
Obviously in denial (again) dean.
Google it - one thing you are good at :lol2:
no I would never google that as such like searches are registered !!
It shows the level you have sunk to, that you would suggest that any MP of any party would advocate changing the law for the age if consent to be lowered to 12.
GNV...your recent comments do not become of man of your intelligence. We all have differences of opinion, else the world would be boring place, but I'm sorry to say your recent comments fall below a standard of decency.
It shows the level you have sunk to, that you would suggest that any MP of any party would advocate changing the law for the age if consent to be lowered to 12.
GNV...your recent comments do not become of man of your intelligence. We all have differences of opinion, else the world would be boring place, but I'm sorry to say your recent comments fall below a standard of decency.
Quote by deancannock
Here is the first evidence...and proof of the cover up. You wait...this is the tip of one massive iceberg that will be uncovered as documents are released.
You then say when pointed to a variety of links from different sources
Quote by deancannock
It says documents seen by THE MAIL. It does not publish or list what those documents are. therefore it is pure speculation !! This is the same MAIL newspaper that has lied and lied again.
and yet earlier in the thread you use the Mail as your own reference point
Quote by deancannock
quick goggle and loads came up.....but choose two from The Daily mail....the Tories own newspaper....and even Norman Tebbitt say...in those days it was just the thing to do...the save the establishment !! As we know.....certain files have mysteriously gone missing.....If they are found, lets see what they have to say.....they haven't gone missing just for fun !!!
So, as stated previous, you are a contradiction in all ways, anything of merit you have stated is all but extinguished by your continued changing of the goalposts to suit where anything offered to you back is automatically dismissed seemingly because of your loathing of Mrs Thatcher ( What a formidable woman she was ) and your inability to see past that.
You have sullied the name of Mrs Thatcher on nothing but hearsay/conjecture and what has been printed in the press and so far nothing of any value has been proven and yet you seek to dismiss factual evidence against your beloved Labour Party and write it off as lies.
This isn't really a debate from you, it's simply your own personal rant against Thatcher and one where you appear to have lost the plot entirely. I have no desire to add further to your personal demons and will step out at this point.
Toots....what a laugh....you seen the letter where she underlines....don't release his name !! Is that hearsay...is that conjecture.
And yes...I do have a strong dislike of Mrs thatcher....not exactly on my own hear am I. The most unpopular politician in recorded history during her premiership. So much that her own party got rid of her !!
You still won't answer the question I have put to you numerous times !!
I have clearly said to you that will willing unreservedly to condemn any politician, including Tony Blair, if they are found to have done any wrong doing or deliberately covered anything up !!
I ask again.....I do believe looking back for the 5th time...
If Mrs thatcher is shown to have known and done nothing about a ring in Westminster, that is more than likely to have included some very close friends of her, and cabinet ministers in her government....will you then unreservedly Condemn her and her actions !!
Your silence so far...speaks volumes.
And yes...I do have a strong dislike of Mrs thatcher....not exactly on my own hear am I. The most unpopular politician in recorded history during her premiership. So much that her own party got rid of her !!
You still won't answer the question I have put to you numerous times !!
I have clearly said to you that will willing unreservedly to condemn any politician, including Tony Blair, if they are found to have done any wrong doing or deliberately covered anything up !!
I ask again.....I do believe looking back for the 5th time...
If Mrs thatcher is shown to have known and done nothing about a ring in Westminster, that is more than likely to have included some very close friends of her, and cabinet ministers in her government....will you then unreservedly Condemn her and her actions !!
Your silence so far...speaks volumes.
Quote by deancannock
no I would never google that as such like searches are registered !!
It shows the level you have sunk to, that you would suggest that any MP of any party would advocate changing the law for the age if consent to be lowered to 12.
GNV...your recent comments do not become of man of your intelligence. We all have differences of opinion, else the world would be boring place, but I'm sorry to say your recent comments fall below a standard of decency.
and so they should be....
All I googled was Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt in the same search box which gave rise to a significant number of references to their joint involvement with PIE and their desire to allow as young as aged 10. Despicable people. That is what is meant by falling below a standard of decency, mate! There are different accounts of what age was supported (some accounts say 10, some 12) but in any event, that these dreadful people even had it in their mind to support such a wicked notion and remain in free circulation beggars belief.
That you are suspicious of googling them speaks volumes... and can only lead one to the belief that you do after all associate them with and are anxious about being tarred with the same brush, as a devout supporter of Labour and it's terrible record on PIE (the Information Exchange organisation), Rotherham and no doubt other Labour regimes to follow. But don't worry, PIE was thankfully disbanded years ago but their awful desire to legalise sex with young children lives on regardless.
Funny how the self appointed -catcher-General Watson fails to make reference to his Opposition Bench colleagues with the same gusto he applies to smirching the good name of Baroness Thatcher and Baron Brittan, both of whom served their Country in exemplary fashion - something sadly lacking in the bunch of no-marks of your persuasion who followed them.
Quote by GnV
no I would never google that as such like searches are registered !!
It shows the level you have sunk to, that you would suggest that any MP of any party would advocate changing the law for the age if consent to be lowered to 12.
GNV...your recent comments do not become of man of your intelligence. We all have differences of opinion, else the world would be boring place, but I'm sorry to say your recent comments fall below a standard of decency.
and so they should be....
All I googled was Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt in the same search box which gave rise to a significant number of references to their joint involvement with PIE and their desire to allow as young as aged 10. Despicable people. That is what is meant by falling below a standard of decency, mate! There are different accounts of what age was supported (some accounts say 10, some 12) but in any event, that these dreadful people even had it in their mind to support such a wicked notion and remain in free circulation beggars belief.
That you are suspicious of googling them speaks volumes... and can only lead one to the belief that you do after all associate them with and are anxious about being tarred with the same brush, as a devout supporter of Labour and it's terrible record on PIE (the Information Exchange organisation), Rotherham and no doubt other Labour regimes to follow. But don't worry, PIE was thankfully disbanded years ago but their awful desire to legalise sex with young children lives on regardless.
Funny how the self appointed -catcher-General Watson fails to make reference to his Opposition Bench colleagues with the same gusto he applies to smirching the good name of Baroness Thatcher and Baron Brittan, both of whom served their Country in exemplary fashion - something sadly lacking in the bunch of no-marks of your persuasion who followed them.
I have goggled it and we are referring back to 1976....when none of the above were registered with or had any support for PIE at all. They were registered with a campaign to stop GAY people being outed !! remember we are talking about 40 years ago when it was not so acceptable to be GAY...and not many actually came out and admitted it. It followed that 3 of that group , out of the thousands that were members were later to be found to be members of PIE. That is hardly support and agreeing with reducing the age of consent. I repeat no MP of any political party that I know of, has ever suggested or supported at reduction in the age of consent.
With your quite ridiculous comments you are simply showing your self up !!
