Wed 30 Jan 2013:

tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/onl...-being-talked-about/

" Mark Williams-Thomas was probably the first high-profile figure out of the blogs. This guy, it may be recalled, is the ex-detective whose dodgy documentary for ITV on Jimmy Savile finally set ablaze the dry tinder of rumour about the late entertainer last October. He was quick enough, mainly on the word of a woman who has been dismissed as a serial fantasist, to trash Savile’s reputation. But he seemed stunned into disbelief that Heretic TOC had surfaced in a Guardian article by John Henley. He tweeted, 'Is it the real Tom O’Carroll from Paedophile Info Exc…?' There are of course many wannabe T.O’C.s, lookalikes, tribute acts and outright imposters, but Heretic TOC can assure him that, yes, this time it was the real McCoy (or O’Carroll).

And then there was Murdoch-bashing (well, he’s got one thing right) MP Tom Watson, who lost no time in blogging about Henley’s article and reviving his campaign against my former PIE committee colleague Peter Righton, one-time Director of Education at the National Institute of Social Work. If Watson is to be believed, Righton was into a VIP underage rent boy scene back in those days, involving a B&B in the upmarket Barnes district of London. Watson is claiming there is intelligence pointing to a 'powerful paedophile network' linked to parliament and No 10 Downing Street. Naturally, in these no-stone-unturned times, Scotland Yard has started an inquiry..."

now you know why in 1692 any dear old single lady with a cat lived in fear of her life.

Poor old Hedda and her pussy would be trembling.

the most striking thing I find after plowing through all that is how David Icke has transformed from harmless nutter to dangerous sociopath.

Icke's promotion of the poor retarded Scot's girl' alleged abuse and the continued use of her name , publishing of picture and the endless campaigns by self righteous 'campaigners for truth" without apparently one scintilla of concern about the harm they are doing a (now) woman who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to consent, is nothing short of a protracted campaign of child abuse.

Icke and other shave breached all the rules and some laws by naming an alleged victim. Shocking.

Yes - but let's not fall into the trap of going to the other extreme ourselves. Just as those loonies who say nobody ever lies about sex abuse have ignored the clear reality that many do, intentionally or unintentionally, we must accept that there ARE those who abuse and damage the vulnerable. So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.]


But just the same - let's not fall in love with dramatic conspiracies and yes, totally agree about Icke.

JK2006 wrote:
So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.

... and let that examination be based on fact and evidence, not hysteria.

(and if the evidence has disappeared - because the complainant waited 40 years to complain !!! - whose fault is that ???)

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.

... and let that examination be based on fact and evidence, not hysteria.

(and if the evidence has disappeared - because the complainant waited 40 years to complain !!! - whose fault is that ???)

I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.

... and let that examination be based on fact and evidence, not hysteria.

(and if the evidence has disappeared - because the complainant waited 40 years to complain !!! - whose fault is that ???)

I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.

I cannot understand people not complaining...but all 500 ???

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
So let's not automatically dismiss ALL allegations. Let's examine each as individual.

... and let that examination be based on fact and evidence, not hysteria.

(and if the evidence has disappeared - because the complainant waited 40 years to complain !!! - whose fault is that ???)

I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.

I cannot understand people not complaining...but all 500 ???

I know. It is as if we have suddenly slipped into a Brian Rix farce. And nobody even thinks it is odd.
They said he did it "in plain sight" Well, why the heck did nobody see him then? Unless of course, it never happened.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.

... and it certainly is not the accused's fault !!

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I dont think it is anyone's "fault" if they dont complain at the time,but it is beyond ludicrous to have a trial without proper evidence.

... and it certainly is not the accused's fault !!

Absolutely!
Nobody should be expected to defend themselves years after the alleged incident.

Its reached the RAF now !

news.sky.com/story/1049606/child-sex-abu...af-base-investigated

The flying yewtree?