From Guido fawkes:

Explosive Newsnight in Pipeline
If the lawyers don’t spike it, tonight’s Newsnight could be pretty spectacularly explosive. Bureau of Investigative Journalism hack Iain Overton has been working on a major story that is currently being legalled.

Hopefully George Entwistle has not commissioned any forthcoming Christmas specials about said politician…

If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.—
Iain Overton (@iainoverton) November 02, 2012

no 'alleged'??

Hedda wrote:
no 'alleged'??

Nah ! ... there all as guilty as sin - proof not needed anymore !!!

I was literally staggered to discover - 12 years ago - that evidence is no longer needed in a trial to condemn an innocent person ... and convict them of a crime that never happened and that there is no proof at all that it ever happened.

Extraordinary. Society creates its own hell.

Surely "the person" will block it, from being shown &/or sue Newsnight?

Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

bh wrote:
Surely "the person" will block it, from being shown &/or sue Newsnight?

Savile's family always said they never knew about the ITV expose.
Newsnight would not broadcast something without the lawyers checking their facts.

UncluedView wrote:
Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.

I think I know who it is, and I sincerely hope I'm wrong...

We'll see what they have to say, there's some very funny games being played at the moment....

Well it didn't tell us much. i wonder if the ex-politician also came from Wales? In which case, could be one of 2 people.

it is the perfect crime

..falsely accuse someone, anyone, a dead or live person of abuse and the fact that you are broke, hopeless , have led a life of no consequence, committed fraud, stole cars, bashed old ladies over the head for their pension book in order to buy drugs..are unable to mainatin a steady relationship, have children and have them removed by social services because you are a vile abusing parent and stubbed cigarettes out on their arms....is all proof the abuse happened and 'ruined your life' and the only thing that will bring 'closure' is a large cheque.

How that money will bring closure is never explained by the NSPCC or CEOPS.

All the above in a normal case, say stealing a car or fiddling the dole would be proof of a shocking character and bring condemnation from a judge as proof of a dissolute life and a drain on civil society.

Yet if you claim a celebrity abused you the NSPCC will be there to say it's proof of the abuse.

mind you they also claim you are an abused child if Daddy made you wash your own clothes ( which mine did ! )

note the dreadful use language as exampled in The Mirror:

"But the man, said to have links to Downing Street, was not identified “because there is simply not enough evidence to name names”.

transaltion : he is as guilty as sin and the lack of evidence means we just haven't found it yet.


"Steven Messham, who claims he was abused as a boy, said: “David Cameron has made a sweeping statement that abused people need to be believed."

transaltion : proof is no longer needed and mere accusation is enough to condemn.
( And this coming from the chief law-maker in the land who seems oblivious to how the Wesminster system actually works.)

Blackit wrote:
UncluedView wrote:
Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.

I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself?

For expert Blackit's unblocked view please ?

" PUPILS as young as SIX have subjected teachers to sexual abuse, shocking reports reveal today. Kids all over Britain have ogled, groped and even threatened to rape ..."
www.thesun.co.uk/.../news/3096988/Kids-a...her-sex-abusers.html

bh wrote:
Well it didn't tell us much. i wonder if the ex-politician also came from Wales?

Was there a shortage of sheep that year?

No - the prog was a disappointment - but interesting to hear that the "inquiry" was drafted so finely that it was fine to ignore anything not included in its remit.

I wonder if that is standard?

Angel wrote:
Blackit wrote:
UncluedView wrote:
Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.

I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself?

I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons.

But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press.

If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is?

I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing? He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time?

If the above link is down, then these/inline are currently up.

Whole page piece by TOM WELLS: 16th August 2010

" PUPILS as young as SIX have subjected teachers to sexual abuse, shocking reports reveal today.

Kids all over Britain have ogled, groped and even threatened to rape staff in growing numbers, figures show. Hundreds of teachers have been propositioned or ridiculed and children have even fondled themselves in class to embarrass them. The scale of the harassment is uncovered in logs kept by local councils and just released under the Freedom of Information Act.

They detail incidents over three years involving both primary and secondary school teachers..........."

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3096988/.html#ixzz2BB5Jtd00

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/30969...her-sex-abusers.html

Blackit wrote:
Angel wrote:
Blackit wrote:
UncluedView wrote:
Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.

I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself?

I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons.

But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press.

If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is?

I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing? He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time?

I have no idea if the bloke in question had consensual sex or not but you obviously do which is the bone of my contention with many of your comments. Consensual or not the law had been broken so its a crime in my book.

doubt if angel will reply to your insult, but i'm pretty sure that everyone has heard of turing.

angel wrote:
Blackit wrote:
Angel wrote:
Blackit wrote:
UncluedView wrote:
Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.

I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself?

I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons.

But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press.

If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is?

I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing? He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time?

I have no idea if the bloke in question had consensual sex or not but you obviously do which is the bone of my contention with many of your comments. Consensual or not the law had been broken so its a crime in my book.

I said PROBABLY.

Please, please, learn to read before you mindlessly insult me.