72 thoughts on “Who is on the Tory Paedophile list?”

1. You couldn’t make it up, unbelievable! I hope this goes global so the whole world can see what the establishment is all about!

   Reply

2. Disgraceful that you publish a list like this online. Rumours on twitter/blogs – you will wreck innocent people’s lives with this stuff. Check the misktaken identity story on The Guardian today. If you have EVIDENCE then take it to the police. If not, then try writing an investigative piece that might actually give a sh*t about the victims other than the 3 minutes you took to write this stuff from a few Google searches.

   Stephen Green – grow a brain.

   Reply

   • Richard Cheese: if you care to look at my other posts on this subject, you will know how much sympathy I have for the victims of child abuse – after all, I am a victim myself and I know first hand of the “damage it does to innocent lives”.

     The reason I published this list – and I was careful to say they are allegations and charges have not been brought yet and offered an apology if I had named anyone innocent of charges- is that both Labour and Conservative governments have issued D notices or covered up in the past. Both Hague and Blair knew of allegations from the Police and swept them under the carpet. This is fact.

     People are innocent until proven guilty – but the Internet can do one thing the press cannot- we can keep this issue spoken about and put pressure on those in power to investigate these cases properly and finally offer the victims justice.

     The victims were not believed when they told the authorities. That’s how Paedophiles keep on keeping on. If a few politicians have a bit of gossip about them for a few days, it’s a small price to pay.

     Reply

3. I’m sorry that I haven’t had the opportunity to read the rest of your blog and as a victim of abuse, I accept my original post wasn’t sympathetic towards your stance on this issue.

   I agree with you on the powers of the Internet and the benefits in pushing those in power where the main stream media can’t. But, you have to ensure checks and balances are in place. In my opinion, you can’t publish a list of people and apologise in advance to people who might be innocent. Where will this end? Anyone could publish any number of unsubstantiated rumours against their enemies … eventually, these Salem-esque witch-hunts will dilute the effectiveness of the Internet.

   I make no apologies for the authorities in the past but, that is no reason not to use them now – or, would you advocate a nation of vigilantes who act upon Internet rumours?

   Reply

   • Thanks for your apology Richard. “Internet vigilantism” is not pretty and not fair, I accept that, but we are fighting against very powerful people who have the resources to sue and shut people up. So if this is the only tool we have at our disposal – we should use it. Our press is no longer free because they have too many political links, so where else do we protest?

     The horrible thing about child abuse is how prevalent it really is. There are thousands involved in the three care home investigations, many of whom have taken their own lives. We have to keep the issue alive until they can no longer maintain the cover ups. That’s my singular aim.

     Reply

4. Such a tricky situation … I agree that public heat must be be kept on these investigations in order that they’re not kicked into the long grass. But I think your second published list does that effectively (ie. politicians who have been charged and convicted in a Court of Law) without the need to add rumoured suspects.

   One of the more distressing angles to come out of the Jimmy Savile scandal is the fact that we all know he can never be bought to justice for his crimes. However, if there is some good to come from this, it is that I am convinced this story will run and run and bring down many heinous abusers with it. This will be due in no small part to people like yourself who will keep the pressure on and not let the issue die. But, you need to be careful how you do it – you can (and will) get justice without the need of scare-mongering and finger-pointing.

   Reply

   • Yes it’s a tough one. I expect the accusations to be watered down, discredited and blamed on the previously convicted and/or the dead. Another McAlpine? Possibly. If so – who was he and how did he have access to the kids? I’d like to know… Let’s see if the government have the balls for a thorough enquiry – if not, I’m likely to include the rot is deeper than we all fear.

     Sent from my iPhone

     Reply

5. What evidence do you have for a D notice? The person responsible for issuing D notices has already stated that the system only vovers defence matters and that there have been no D notices issued for these purposes:

   I wish to make it clear that there is absolutely no truth in the statement repeated in your e-mail below that the ‘Blair government…issued a D-Notice to gag the press from revealing the names of known paedophiles within the British executive’. No ‘D Notice’ advice has ever been issued in connection either with the Hollie Greig case or the naming of paedophiles, as these issues fall far outside Defence Advisory Notice concerns. Those concerns deal only with the disclosure of national security information which falls within the guidelines set by the five Standing DA Notices
   (see http://www.dnotice.org.uk). Moreover, the Government does not issue ‘D Notices’, I do. And I do so on behalf of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, which is an independent body, composed of senior officials and media leaders, the latter being in the great majority.
   Sincerely,
   Andrew Vallance
   Air Vice-Marshal
   Secretary, DPBAC

   Reply

   • Mr.Hudson
     Are you a conduit for Andrew Vallance and if so, why? Thanks

     Reply

     • Ah, the typical way of dealing with an akward fact – just change the subject of the discussion.

       DA notices can not be used for the purpose you claim.
       I have quoted the horses mouth on this.

       Claims of mass cover ups are usually untrue. Its very hard to keep secrets these days.

     • Huh? Are we on the same planet? Who changed what subject?

6. As a lawyer I do understand it is important that we bear in mind the principle of innocence before any trial and that the police rather than social media should undertake investigations. I feel that if only we showed the same concern to understand the position of the abused children who had no-one to protect or explain them and spent less time trying to maintain the image of politicians and others, the better. It is appalling how we not just turn a blind eye, reject the children’s complaints and find any way to do nothing but in some cases take active measures to collude with the perpetrators. At least now we have people on the back foot. On the other hand, I do have reservations about some people on the ‘list’ and would feel much more confident with hard evidence.

   Reply

7. It appears that if you have been a victim of abuse, this means you have a free hand to publish allegations again people without any hard proof, just because the allegations are out there.

   I’ve never said it about those blood suckers before, but thank god we have lawyers.

   Reply

   • The fact that I (and many others) have written about the rumours about child abuse (AND convicted paedophiles from government) has nothing to with whether I am a victim or not. If you don’t approve, don’t read it. It is, thankfully, still a free country and a free internet. As for lawyers and defamation, if you have actually read my article, I have made it very clear that these names are from online rumour and speculation and as far as I am aware, no charges have been brought as yet. I was merely demonstrating that they are out there and need to be looked into. Lord McAlpine is NOT the McAlpine accused (news just in) but I’d like to know who the other “McAlpine”/senior Tory was. I’ll be correcting the post accordingly.
     What IS important, however, is that pressure is kept up so that any and all allegations are checked out. The biggest danger is that these allegations are swept under the carpet yet AGAIN. Any human being with an ounce of empathy would want to back up victims like Steve Messham and anyone else brave enough to speak out. Pussy footing around with “hints” and “Politician X” infers that we are more interested in protecting the rich and powerful than blowing the whole, widespread, stinking mess open to be examined, preferably by a single Royal Commission.
     If your “Thank God” lawyers had actually represented victims properly back when they first made the allegations, we would not be having this discussion. There have already been two major enquiries that have not brought the abusers to book.

     Reply

     • I can’t think of a single point you make that I disagree with. I stumbled across your blog searching for the “Schofield Names”. I have a 3 year old boy and would protect him to the sacrifice of my life at the drop of a hat. I struggle to understand the mentality of these people, whether the names are guilty or not it has highlighted the suffering of children everywhere at the hands of these monsters. Makes me so fucking angry.

8. Steve Messham has now had to apologise to Sir McAlpine who has come out agressively against the allegations. Steve Messham hadn’t ever looked at a photograph of Lord McAlpine to establish he was an abuser. Now the BBC is in big trouble over these allegations for broadcasting the interview with Steve Messham, whose evidence is now in question as to it’s voracity.

   Ken Clarke? Do me a favour.

   Reply

   • Yes. Most unfortunate. May be another McAlpine though…we’ll wait and see what’s next.

     Reply

     • Actually on second thoughts…the McAlpine stuff is perfect way to discredit Steve Messham’s testimony …and Newsnight to boot..

     • may i know whom you all talking about.

     • Lord McAlpine ex treasurer of the Tory Party was wrongly identified as someone that abused a child at a children’s home.
       His cousin Jimmie McAlpine, who is dead, had some rumours about him in regard to the children’s home. We don’t yet know if there will be any futher information yet. It looks like a case of mistaken identity.

9. Thank you for doing this – I find myself stunned and appalled at the names and the obvious acceptance of this as normal amongst the accused. As a father, it makes me physically sick. Words cannot begin to express my revulsion and anger.

   Reply

10. Why not ken clark?

    Reply

    • He was accused of touching up a teenage actor – by the teenage actor. He denies it all.

      Reply

    • Why Ken Clarke? Is the real question. This is a list of people posted by people who have no proof of the acusations. If there is proof – then the police will prosecute – but until then let’s not froth at the mouth and take it as given that because the names have been published on the internet – these people are fair game. They are not. I refuse to believe this about Ken Clark without any evidence against him. He seems to me a very nice man.

      Look at the list of men at the top of this posting – it is suggested that they were all members of a “peadophile ring” Can you imagine all these people getting involved together for such a purpose and that Jimmy Savile was like some circus ring-master orchestrating access to vulnerable children. It’s complete nonesense in my view.

      With the list of “officially” accused and charged transgressors above – it gives the impression that Politicians are prone to this kind of activity. There is an intake of 600 MPs every 5 years, several hundred memebers of the hosue of Lords, over 400 local counils in England and Wales and out all those there are a dozen or so people cited for sexual crimes. This is hardley wide spread.

      Reply

      • Hello again Bill,

        The Ken Clark accusation was from a teen actor (at the time) Ben Fellows who told of multiple people making passes at him. See link.http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/10/ben-fellows-kenneth-clarke/
        This may be BS, of course, I don’t know if this has been reported to the police.

        I don’t know how any of this is going to be proven or if all of them are ‘nice guys’ and 100% innocent. It does seem outrageous and unbelievable – but then again, some Paedophiles operate in rings and
        the victims at various children’s homes talked of parties of men abusing them as does Saviles’s nephew.

        I have a horrible feeling we’ll never really know.

11. Why cant me… ?

    Reply

12. Usually I don’t learn article on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to take a look at and do it! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very great post.

    Reply

13. Pingback: Who is on the Tory Paedophile list? | The Musings Of Mike

14. Ha, spent all yesterday evening Googling for facts and speculations to put in a new post on this very subject, and damn me if a fellow WordPress blogger hasn’t not only said everything I wanted to, but dredged up more names to boot. I’m gonna reblog this and finish a different post instead.

    I have no problem with the internet being used in this way – quite the contrary. Given what sex-abuse victims over the course of centuries have been up against in their generally fruitless quest for justice; to question the fairness or legitimacy of victims/survivors/witnesses speaking out or discussing matters via social media is a bit rich; even if you believe it to be wrong it’s surely the lesser of two wrongs? And besides, I don’t buy the idea that the lives and/or careers of men in power are wrecked or even much affected by these kinds of rumours. The old boys network looks after its own and a public hungry for vicarious stimulation quickly moves onto the next thing.

    And am I the only one who’s getting irritated by seeing ‘peadophile’ in any number of commentaries from message boards to blogs to mainstream media? How can you expect your opinion to be taken seriously if you can’t get the basics right. Right, my Lynne Truss moment has passed

    Great blog Scarlet, I’ll be back for sure…

    Reply

    • Thank you Guls!

      Peadophile? Good lord! Will look out for that

      Best
      Scarlet x

      Reply

    • So it’s ok to accuse anyone of anything? Even without foundation? But it’s alright because people in power will get over it! Mud sticks – wether it be true or not. Also – spreading accusations without any factual foundation undermines the inetrnet and blogging – it does not enhance it as a medium. The whole system will become untrustworthy.

      Reply

      • I am just a microscopic nothing in the blogosphere – I could say the Queen is a rampant lesbian child eater and no-one would particularly care. Have a look around, there’s much more detail out there on the web, stated as fact and without any caveats at all. Don’t worry, they’ll shut us all up soon. Just like they’re shutting up the BBC and the Press. Note that the main remaining witness from North Wales has been discredited by the wrong McAlpine being named – now how did that happen ? The Internet is the last bastion of free speech – and I’m delighted about that, even though it gives a voice to fascists, monsters and all kinds of people you or I might not like or approve of. That is the point of free speech and I support that right.

        Caroline’s iPad

      • If I may Scarlet, you are wrong on a couple of counts. Fristly – publishing the names of people mentioned in rumours is not Free Speech – it is gossip. Free Speech is not shouting FIRE ! in a crowded theatre, free speech is telling the truth as best you can and expressing yourself honestly in whatever manner you see fit.

        Secondly, you’re not a microscopic nothing – you are a blogger/writer and your stature will grow if your site becomes a place where people go to for trusted information and informed opinion.

        ..and thirdly, whilst I am on the line…if any here named were to be charged and taken for trial, could they get a fair hearing if every jury member in the country could potentially have read and believed the rumours on the internet?

        So in my view, publishing the names – without any evidence or proof is actually running counter to your intentions – with which we all agree.

        I mean no offense to you by anything I have said.

      • Much of what is published on internet sites may well be described as gossip, but gossip is nothing new – the mainstream media has thrived on it for years – and if it’s morally reprehensible, then it’s no more so than gossipping with your mates down the pub. Is it really true that people’s faith in the new media will be undermined by dubious content posted online? I strongly suspect naysayers are those who never believed in the first place; much like those who watched the Macpherson report or the fall of the NotW were those who had their knives out for those institutions anyway. Folk mostly tune in to media which tends to confirm their extant predjudices and narrow world view, with little regard for whether their content is fact or gossip.

        The reason victims of sex crime in particular turn to the media, and the more so since the advent of social media is because institutions from the family, to the police and judiciary have repeatedly let them down. Trials have never been
        truly fair; certainly if you’re a woman, a child, from a poor background, black etc then the dice were loaded against you from the start. Look at the Savile case – years of gossip and eyewitness accounts to which the establishment turned a blind eye and deaf ear; witnesses were accused of lying, punished by those in authority in whom they confided. This is the rule, not the exception.

        Had complaints been taken seriously enough for the CPS to take them to court, it would have been the same old story of witnesses being grilled about irrelevant details such as their prior sex lives, ‘provocative’ behaviour, alcohol consumption (not a factor in the case of the Savile victims, perhaps) and their choice of attire, whilst the previous – and far more pertinent – violent history of the accused would have been witheld from the court. And even supposing a conviction could be achieved, sentencing would undoubtedly have been derisory. Is it any wonder that most such crimes went unreported? And is it any wonder that now technology has given these disinfranchised a means to take matters into their own hands they’ve gladly embraced it. It may not be ‘right’, exactly, but as I said earlier, it’s surely the lesser of two wrongs.

      • I owe you a drink. Well said. Have you heard Entwistle has resigned from Beeb tonight?

      • are they not people under the spotlight any way? we have a right to the truth

15. Reblogged this on musicbugsandgender and commented:
    Schofield’s ‘ambush’ of Cameron has provoked a backlash against rumour-mongering via social media and accusations of encouraging a witch-hunt. Personally I applaud his stunt – for that’s what it surely was – if it keeps the too-long-ignored subject of sex crime in the public consciousness. Many others agree, including this fellow WordPress blogger:

    Reply

16. Pingback: Who is on the Tory Paedophile list? | Sovereign Independent UK

17. In the case of Jimmy Saville too, he hasn’t actually been tried and convicted. It seems if you’re well connected and can apply a lot of serious pressure the allegations are ignored. Just at these politicians yet again dodging justice.

    Well done to you for naming names.

    It seems these are another untouchable category like “ethnic minorities” are “gays” … quite honestly pervert overlap is ignored.

    It’s got to addressed … paedophilia = major perversion and gay = major perversion
    And that there is an equation that any amount silly legislation will never make any difference to the truth.

    Cameron always jumps to the defence of his criminal colleagues this is yet another example.

    Reply

    • Am I misreading your post, Jackie? – writing in sentences may clarify my misunderstanding – but you seem to be suggesting that a) Ethnic minorities are an ‘untouchable’ group (demonstrably false, being overrepresented in our prison population: http://www.tdpf.org./MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_prisons.htm )
      and b) that homosexuality is a ‘major perversion’ nebulously related to paedophilia? Again, demonstrably false when one considers that the majority of sex offences are committed against females by males.

      Reply

      • Recently there was the Rochdale paedophile gang and although the Police knew a lot about them they never acted because “allegedly” they were from an “ethnic” minority.
        That fact was politically very dodgy ground for both the Police and the government.

        As for sex offences; if you consider that indeed most offences are committed by men that is true, however there are male offenders assaulting other male victims which may be more common than is published and if you factor in the ratio of “gays” per percentage of the population then the incidences would well exceed the incidences of attacks that would expected if you had say 50% heterosexual and 50% homosexual. Also lesbian attacks are virtually ignored and they use well established grooming techniques to add to their numbers which are also ignored.

        Again the Tory party may well be infested with many old school tie Etonians with assorted sexual perverts in particular “gays” and a scandal much bigger than the expenses row would emerge if Mr Cameron didn’t step and use legal and physical threats to potential litigants families. Of course all the political parties have been infiltrated.
        If you look at the history of the de-criminalisation of homosexuality as a perversion then it was the involvement of some Lord and well to do toff that sparked the Tories at the time to review the law.

        Even the Jimmy Savile story … isn’t it interesting that whenever the government has an enquiry or investigation into it like with the recent Murdock and Tory party deals a big story like Jimmy Savile allegations comes up to take everyone’s attention from it?

        Looks like some of the newspapers have wised up to this and re-directed fire back to where it should be.

        And to Bill Hayes… not everyone agrees Bill!

      • The validity of some of your points is still somewaht undermined by your spurious association of paedophilia to homosexuality.

    • “It’s got to addressed … paedophilia = major perversion and gay = major perversion” – Really? So Pedophilia is to be lumped with gay. We’ve got past that as a society. Being gay is not being a pervert. You are on the wrong side of the curve there I am afraid.

      This argument has been done long ago.

      Reply

18. Sorry. This is wrong implicating people who may well be innocent and appoligising in advance. it is in itself an abuse of the notion of free speech. This is no better than the atmosphere stirred up by Brooks et al when paedetricians were mistaken for paedophiles. You should hang your head in shame as should those guilty of covering up for those who actually are responsible.

    Reply

    • Sadly, the only people hanging their heads in shame are the victims, those that are still alive, that is.

      Paediatrician vs Paedophiles-result of an ignorant mob; if only the Red Tops would teach their readers a little Latin.

      Reply

19. Details of the St John ambulance paedophile protection network are here:
    http://www.stjohnnz.com

    Reply

20. Stop press: Mail on Sunday (f***ers) have already started their dissection of Steve Messham’s claims.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/Steven-Messham-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html?ICO=most_read_module

    I knew this would happen……

    Reply

    • Heartening to see that all the comments below the article, left by readers – Mail readers, at that – are having none of it and unanimously supportive of Messham. Poor guy – abused once by his carers, again by authorities attempting to discredit him and again by the press once he’s outlived his immediate usefulness to them. Isn’t this so typical though, where sex-abuse victims are concerned? In that This Morning interview, Cameron advises anyone with information to ‘go to the police’, proclaiming that ‘…we are a civilised democratic country under the rule of law, with a police force, with a justice system…’, yet here, as so often in court, the judicial (and press) response is little more than character assassination. So he’s suffering emotional problems; gets confused – funny that, after being bullied and molested as a kid and his wife committing suicide! And they cite two fraud actions against him – both of which he was cleared of – as evidence of his alleged unreliability. Nonsense, isn’t it?! Posters questioning the motives and morality of us here in the blogosphere when the mainstream media gets away with contriving this sensationalist garbage…

      Reply

      • Yep, I’m supposed to be “hanging my head in shame” or something! There are lots of questions out there as to who “David Rose” of The Mail is….

        Caroline’s iPad

      • Just read the Daily Maul article has been redacted – going to check it out later.

21. Tony blair was arrested for bumming in a public toilet in the 80s, he only managed to evade the press because he used his middle name when arrested and managed to get away with a £500 fine

    Reply

    • I saw that a few times on the interweb. Bow Street Magistrates 1983, allegedly – if so, must be on record somewhere…

      Reply

22. very couple of internet sites that happen to be comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly properly really worth checking out

    Reply

23. Pingback: De Jimmy Saville Zaak en zo | Am@zing Nieuws Blog

24. Pingback: Everything You Need To Know About The Tory Paedophile Scandal In Five Minutes | Parents Rights Blog

25. Pingback: Hoe hoog zit de pedofielenscene? | Linsky's Place

26. Good article. I certainly love this website. Keep writing!

    Reply

27. Pingback: My Homepage

28. Great post. I used to be checking constantly this blog and I am inspired! Very helpful information specially the final part I care for such info much. I used to be seeking this certain info for a long time. Thank you and good luck.

    Reply

29. why don’t the police publish the picture of the person who is apparently not mcalpine? what are they hiding.

    Reply

    • Interestingly, Lord McAlpine refers to taking legal action as clearing his and his family’s name. Check out this link: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/tag/lord-mcalpine/

      The photos, I discovered yesterday, were polaroid pictures taken of the abusers in the act of raping the boys. They were stolen by Steve Messham from the flat of one of the abusers and handed over to the police when the first accusations were made. Apparently, the abusers are easily identified in these pictures. Wonder where they are now?

      Reply

      • You don’t have one single piece of reliable eveidence or testimony to back up your continued claims about all these people. In your last statement, by listing that link, you are basically still claiming that McAlpine is guilty.

        His lawyers are scanning these sites and may come calling.

      • Er…I’m not. The link goes to Mr Messham’s apology for the mis-identification. That’s the last I’m saying on this subject for now.

30. Pingback: De Jimmy Saville Zaak en zo | hetuurvandewaarheid.info

31. Pingback: torontoaccountatnca

32. Interesting articles on information like this is a great find. It’s like finding a treasure. I appreciate how you express your many points and share in your views. Thank you. http://www.coachbagsonjp.com/

    Reply

33. Dear Scarlet,

    Please do hold your ground! You are one of the few who feel more FOR and ON BEHALF of the VICTIMS than those who ‘worry’ about the ‘poor’ perpetrators.

    I have been accompanying parents whose children were taken LONG before I realised that it’s all to feed the paedophiles. Long before I realised that not only Police but also courts and Judges are sanctioning what Social Services are doing.

    How come Family Courts are secret??? http://bit.ly/kExfF1

    I have been gagged by three local councils because I tried to expose their wrong-doings. The Mainstream Media are not gagged any more, but I can assure you they do NOT take the subject on. In fact, we identified Seven Deadly Syndromes and Seven Media Cover-Ups. http://bit.ly/X9hk5N

    Only one MP dares to stand up. We are talking about 1,000 kids being taken a MONTH and 200 parents already imprisoned in 2006 a year.

    Please look at the statistics [http://bit.ly/Woo9Am] as to what happens to kids in ‘care’ and/or homes. It’s sooo disgusting that, indeed and hopefully, the story will go on and on and on – THANKS to the net with its whimsical connections! For, eventually, kids will look for their abusers and/or biological parents thanks to Facebook and Google!…

    I’m afraid it’s all sooooooooooo hard to believe and to imagine that it takes ‘evidence’ from people who’ve been victimised themselves. That’s how bad it is!

    The first list I came across was published in 2010 by a journo who is blacklisted and lives now in Germany. http://bit.ly/UsEWjD Google for “Operation Ore” for more horrible cover-ups with a 100-year rule as ‘D-notice’.

    Fortunately, thanks to the net, we are not alone!…

    Reply

34. Good on anyone who speaks up on this issue – the Government have clearly much to hide and as ‘our employees’ I think we have every right to know what they are up to. These constant cover up’s are a disgrace and the fact they get to pick and choose what paedophiles get charged and what one’s don’t. If we are ever going to get control of these freaks, they need to be shaken out from the top and all the way down.
    It sickens me to think tax payers are actually paying for these grubs to do what they do in some cases.
    I am disgusted that I have been following this since they first covered it up and that all these years on the people who were abused have still not got justice and that people are still being threatened every time they dig in to this. Can’t think of another time when the whole country was threatened into silence – and as all the things that have been said have been in the public domain for decades, in print, on the net etc etc – this stinks of an attempt to shut everyone up to stop the digging.
    Doing what they have done, keeping secrets, protecting people and being petrified that the truth will come out, has naturally made people more suspicious – it’s human nature – they have created the situation and yet, as usual, everyone else gets to pay the price.
    I cannot believe that in 2012 we are in a situation where paedophiles hold all the power.
    I’m sick of the endless sacrificial lambs being thrown out to appease the public, whilst people accused of raping kids much more vile than a boob squeeze on an adult to any right minded person, get to dodge the bullets – and if by some unlikely miracle they do get dragged in, they’ve had so much time to get rid of any evidence they had lurking about, it’s obvious they’ll slip the hook again.
    My dearest wish is that the victims of these evil toe rags get their Justice – I know it’s going to make any difference to what happened to them or take away the horrific memories, but they DESERVE for this to be dealt with properly and to be served the Justice they are entitled to.
    I am ashamed that this stuff happens in our country in 2012 and it is being hushed up and covered up and we are threatened to shut up. This is how paedophiles operate and they expect to out fox everyone and keep getting away with it – which they will unless people stop being scared and start standing up for what we should be standing up for the KIDS and victims of these vile acts and they should not continue to be used as collateral damage in the game of politics and paedophiles.

    Reply

35. First off, Gordon is quite correct, a D Notice cannot be put in place to protect the identities of those who have committed a crime. However, Tony Blair issued a D Notice sighting National Security as the reason because of the imminent war in Iraq. However, the ulterior motive was to protect those high profile politicians, including himself whose names were passed on by the FBI to their British counterparts following Operation Avalanche. Further names were uncovered in the subsequent British investigation named Operation Ore. You can find more info on my website. http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/ or you can find the info here: http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

    The names listed by Scarlet are a matter of record in the case of those convicted in court, or put another way, Fact. Scarlet’s main source, once again appears to be my website.
    Scarlet, I’m not sure if you are aware or not, but to repeat an allegation is libellous, under British law, the toughest Libel laws in the world. To ask yourself why that is, ask yourself who makes the laws and you are half way to discovering why they are so tough.

    However, all those names that are alleged appear on my site.
    When Derek laud, good friend of the Cameron family (he attended David and Samantha Cameron’s wedding) and many more top MPs past and present, Thatchers speech writer, and dangerous predatory paedophile, who was heavily implicated in the cash for questions scandal was confronted with my expose of him and asked why he hadn’t sued me, he replied that he hadn’t because I am “Certifiable” and that no one believes the “Crap” that I write anyway. He was probably correct when he said that I am “certifiable”, but unfortunately for him, it turns out an awful lot of people believe the “crap” I write as Laud has not been seen since (Nov12) and the information regarding his high powered friends, including Our honest and upstanding PM has since been removed from his Wikipedia page.

    Steve Messham was telling the truth about McAlpine, in so much as it was not the ex Tory MP who abused him. However, The BBC knew that before the program ‘newsnight’ was aired… Put another way, it was a fix designed to stop people naming these high profile nonces, named in the Alternative Media and on Twitter etc. It worked with those just repeating the allegations who had no idea if they were true or not. It did not work with those of us who hold evidence to back our allegations against the likes of McAlpine. I will tell you now, as I have continued to say all along,Lord Alistair McAlpine abuses Children… Note to Andrew Reid: I am still waiting for my Letter and happy to present to the courts my evidence to back my accusation that your client is a nonce. However, there is one point of law, that is a satisfactory defence to libel that McAlpine is fully aware of and to go to court knowing full well about this point of law, would be like taking candy from a baby.

    As for Steve Messham, he is not who, the MSM would have you believe. He deliberately misled the nation and has been very well paid to do so.This info comes to me directly from the person who exposed Sir Peter Morrison as a Child Sex Abuser and who was in Bryn Estyn with Messham. Sally Bercow also has a lot to answer for and you would be mad to buy into the up coming libel trial.

    My accusation about Leon Brittan raping a 12 yr old boy, still stands unchallenged. The Sun Newspaper, after originally acknowledging my communication to them, in which I asked them to either confirm or deny being ordered to drop their own investigation into the rape, has not been responded to since. My communication was sent following information that I was made privy to and the newspapers subsequent silence is deafening.

    Ken ‘ill sue, ill sue’ Clarke, has now had the allegation made against him by Ben Fellows made official. Fellows made a formal Police statement on Nov 29th or 30th, I forget which. The police now have no choice except to launch an investigation. Despite Clarkes original hot air that he will sue, the allegation still remains on my website. Interestingly enough, the penis touching allegation took place in ex parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer’s office. Ian Greer is a friend of Derek Lauds and someone who I accused of Child rape, long before the Clarke allegation was made public.

    All this info is available on my website and I can assure you, that all those I have accused are aware of this fact. http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/

    In short, those named are only done so with supporting evidence. Keep up the good work Scarlet

    Regards
    Chris Spivey

    Reply

    • The wonderful Mr Spivey! I’m a big fan of your blog and long may you continue to be a clarion for the truth!

      Reply

36. you couldn’t make it up ,,, but it’s been going on for years

    http://liarsbuggersandthieves.blogspot.co.uk/

    Reply

37. Wow that was strange. I just wrote an really long comment
    but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not
    writing all that over again. Anyway, just wanted to say
    superb blog!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.