MI5 'helped Margaret Thatcher cover-up paedophile Tory MP's activities' new documents reveal

First topic message reminder :

Labour MP Simon Danczuck said the newly unearthed documents prove 'the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up'

The head of MI5 warned Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary that an unnamed MP, understood to be a senior Tory, had “a penchant for small boys”, Government child abuse papers have revealed.

The newly unearthed documents link Mrs Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and ex-minister Sir William van Straubenzee to the establishment paedophilia scandal.

In the bombshell letter written in 1986, MI5 boss Sir Antony Duff revealed two sources had accused an MP of child abuse.

But he told Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong he accepted the MP’s denials, adding: “At the present stage... the risks of political embarrassment to the Government is rather greater than the security danger.”

In a letter released today, the Cabinet Office admitted: “The risk to children is not considered at all.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi5-helped-margaret-thatcher-cover-6120006

Disgusting.

sassy wrote:Labour MP Simon Danczuck said the newly unearthed documents prove 'the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up'

The head of MI5 warned Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary that an unnamed MP, understood to be a senior Tory, had “a penchant for small boys”, Government child abuse papers have revealed.

The newly unearthed documents link Mrs Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and ex-minister Sir William van Straubenzee to the establishment paedophilia scandal.

In the bombshell letter written in 1986, MI5 boss Sir Antony Duff revealed two sources had accused an MP of child abuse.

But he told Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong he accepted the MP’s denials, adding: “At the present stage... the risks of political embarrassment to the Government is rather greater than the security danger.”

In a letter released today, the Cabinet Office admitted: “The risk to children is not considered at all.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi5-helped-margaret-thatcher-cover-6120006

Disgusting.

perhaps less time and energy should be spent on catching dead people and more on convicting the live ones. lets not forget janner is still alive and kicking and now a serving labour MP is being mentioned in dispatches,although unlike tory ones who have been suspected, his name is not plastered all over the BBC.

if MI5 was involved in a cover up it is surprising the 3 labour administrations since thatchers day did absolutely nothing about it., well except to say, "nothing to see here"

Perhaps we should forget about the two boys they now have evidence were murdered, one of them the son of a chauffer at the Australian Embassy, and their families should never get justice?  Not going to happen, especially after the Austrailian 60 Minute programme.  They should be getting investigating all of them alive or dead, from any political party or none.  Because this isn't about bloody politics, it's about the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Devil, You Know wrote:

sassy wrote:Labour MP Simon Danczuck said the newly unearthed documents prove 'the full weight of the British establishment, including MI5, colluded in a cover-up'

The head of MI5 warned Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary that an unnamed MP, understood to be a senior Tory, had “a penchant for small boys”, Government child abuse papers have revealed.

The newly unearthed documents link Mrs Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and ex-minister Sir William van Straubenzee to the establishment paedophilia scandal.

In the bombshell letter written in 1986, MI5 boss Sir Antony Duff revealed two sources had accused an MP of child abuse.

But he told Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong he accepted the MP’s denials, adding: “At the present stage... the risks of political embarrassment to the Government is rather greater than the security danger.”

In a letter released today, the Cabinet Office admitted: “The risk to children is not considered at all.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi5-helped-margaret-thatcher-cover-6120006

Disgusting.

perhaps less time and energy should be spent on catching dead people and more on convicting the live ones. lets not forget janner is still alive and kicking and now a serving labour MP is being mentioned in dispatches,although unlike tory ones who have been suspected, his name is not plastered all over the BBC.

if MI5 was involved in a cover up it is surprising the 3 labour administrations since thatchers day did absolutely nothing about it., well except to say, "nothing to see here"

It bothers me a bit that so much time is spent on those who cannot defend themselves any longer because they're dead. It's easy to chuck accusations around without any come back. Even if there's proof, there's not much point anyway.

Not sure about Janner. It depends on how ill he is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
perhaps less time and energy should be spent on catching dead people and more on convicting the live ones. lets not forget janner is still alive and kicking and now a serving labour MP is being mentioned in dispatches,although unlike tory ones who have been suspected, his name is not plastered all over the BBC.

if MI5 was involved in a cover up it is surprising the 3 labour administrations since thatchers day did absolutely nothing about it., well except to say, "nothing to see here"

It bothers me a bit that so much time is spent on those who cannot defend themselves any longer because they're dead. It's easy to chuck accusations around without any come back. Even if there's proof, there's not much point anyway.

Not sure about Janner. It depends on how ill he is.

There is every point, because it makes the children, who are now adults who have had their lives shattered, feel that what happened to them is finally getting some notice and justice.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It bothers me a bit that so much time is spent on those who cannot defend themselves any longer because they're dead. It's easy to chuck accusations around without any come back. Even if there's proof, there's not much point anyway.

Not sure about Janner. It depends on how ill he is.

There is every point, because it makes the children, who are now adults who have had their lives shattered, feel that what happened to them is finally getting some notice and justice.

But those people can't defend themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
perhaps less time and energy should be spent on catching dead people and more on convicting the live ones. lets not forget janner is still alive and kicking and now a serving labour MP is being mentioned in dispatches,although unlike tory ones who have been suspected, his name is not plastered all over the BBC.

if MI5 was involved in a cover up it is surprising the 3 labour administrations since thatchers day did absolutely nothing about it., well except to say, "nothing to see here"

It bothers me a bit that so much time is spent on those who cannot defend themselves any longer because they're dead. It's easy to chuck accusations around without any come back. Even if there's proof, there's not much point anyway.

Not sure about Janner. It depends on how ill he is.

janner sent many old and infirm nazi's to prison in his time. IT's odd how he is found to be too ill just in time to escape justice, but still well enough to vote dozens of times in the house of lords since the revelations came out. I have a feeling he is as ill as earnest saunders was when he got away with it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It bothers me a bit that so much time is spent on those who cannot defend themselves any longer because they're dead. It's easy to chuck accusations around without any come back. Even if there's proof, there's not much point anyway.

Not sure about Janner. It depends on how ill he is.

janner sent many old and infirm nazi's to prison in his time. IT's odd how he is found to be too ill just in time to escape justice, but still well enough to vote dozens of times in the house of lords since the revelations came out.  I have a feeling he is as ill as earnest saunders was when he got away with it.

We'll see. If he really is too far gone, it just seems a bit awful to pronounce him guilty of something he hasn't got a clue about.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
janner sent many old and infirm nazi's to prison in his time. IT's odd how he is found to be too ill just in time to escape justice, but still well enough to vote dozens of times in the house of lords since the revelations came out.  I have a feeling he is as ill as earnest saunders was when he got away with it.

We'll see. If he really is too far gone, it just seems a bit awful to pronounce him guilty of something he hasn't got a clue about.

have to disagree there, that just becomes a get out of jail free card for any criminal.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We'll see. If he really is too far gone, it just seems a bit awful to pronounce him guilty of something he hasn't got a clue about.

have to disagree there, that just becomes a get out of jail free card for any criminal.

Just like the appearance of halley's comet
there are times i do have to agree with you

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We'll see. If he really is too far gone, it just seems a bit awful to pronounce him guilty of something he hasn't got a clue about.

have to disagree there, that just becomes a get out of jail free card for any criminal.

Well most of them don't have Alzheimer's. If he really does have it, and it's progressed, he might not have any idea what he's being accused of.

Funnily enough, Leon Brittan died on 21st January. On 22nd the file was referred to the Cabinet Office. And of course, it's a coincidence

Probably not a coincidence. As I said, it's much easier to accuse a dead person than a living one - a dead one can't answer back and defend themselves.

They have had the evidence for years, establishment coverup of the highest order. They even have videos of what was going on that were confiscated from one of Margaret Thatcher's aides.

sassy wrote:They have had the evidence for years, establishment coverup of the highest order.  They even have videos of what was going on that were confiscated from one of Margaret Thatcher's aides.

So who are you gunning for? People at MI5 who are still around, or dead people who can't defend themselves?

Oh FFS, the whole bloody lot of them, anyone who has conspired in any way to hurt children or to cover up the hurting of children.

And I think you will find that is exactly what the National Enquiry into Child Sex Abuse was set up to do and is finally about to start doing it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:They have had the evidence for years, establishment coverup of the highest order.  They even have videos of what was going on that were confiscated from one of Margaret Thatcher's aides.

So who are you gunning for? People at MI5 who are still around, or dead people who can't defend themselves?

Er...jimmy savile was dead when the whole thing broke are you saying that was wrong because he coulnd`t defend himself ....surely not ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So who are you gunning for? People at MI5 who are still around, or dead people who can't defend themselves?

Er...jimmy savile was dead when the whole thing broke are you saying that was wrong because he coulnd`t defend himself ....surely not ?

Well it didn't matter that much to him obviously - he was dead. His family also seemed to go along with the accusations too.

However, in general, I think that it's a fundamental right to be able to defend yourself. You cannot libel a dead person, and that should be remembered when accusations are flying around.

I'm a bit concerned about some of the stories flying around generally. Some have been substantiated, and others have not. Look at Freddie Starr - it made him ill and yet there was no evidence other than the word of that woman. He got no justice.

I'm also dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard.

Is it a bad thing to err on the side of caution Korban?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Er...jimmy savile was dead when the whole thing broke are you saying that was wrong because he coulnd`t defend himself ....surely not ?

Well it didn't matter that much to him obviously - he was dead. His family also seemed to go along with the accusations too.

However, in general, I think that it's a fundamental right to be able to defend yourself. You cannot libel a dead person, and that should be remembered when accusations are flying around.

I'm a bit concerned about some of the stories flying around generally. Some have been substantiated, and others have not. Look at Freddie Starr - it made him ill and yet there was no evidence other than the word of that woman. He got no justice.

I'm also dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard.

Is it a bad thing to err on the side of caution Korban?

I'm dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard as well. but just because someone is dead is not a reason not to expose wrong doings on there part

for example
if you take an absurd example of that view Hitler`s crimes would have been ignored

it speaks to reputation and closure for the victims that may still be alive

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it didn't matter that much to him obviously - he was dead. His family also seemed to go along with the accusations too.

However, in general, I think that it's a fundamental right to be able to defend yourself. You cannot libel a dead person, and that should be remembered when accusations are flying around.

I'm a bit concerned about some of the stories flying around generally. Some have been substantiated, and others have not. Look at Freddie Starr - it made him ill and yet there was no evidence other than the word of that woman. He got no justice.

I'm also dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard.

Is it a bad thing to err on the side of caution Korban?

I'm dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard as well. but just because someone is dead is not a reason not to expose wrong doings on there part

for example
if you take an absurd example of that view Hitler`s crimes would have been ignored

it speaks to reputation and closure for the victims that may still be alive

My concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind Korban - family and friends. I'm sure that most people would not like to read in the paper that their father, uncle, or whoever was being accused of such crimes before any evidence has been heard properly.

I'm just saying that such stories should be treated with caution, particularly if a lot of time has passed. Some may be genuine, but the pound signs in some people's eyes makes me a bit cynical.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
I'm dubious about the accusations directed at Cliff Richard as well. but just because someone is dead is not a reason not to expose wrong doings on there part

for example
if you take an absurd example of that view Hitler`s crimes would have been ignored

it speaks to reputation and closure for the victims that may still be alive

My concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind Korban - family and friends. I'm sure that most people would not like to read in the paper that their father, uncle, or whoever was being accused of such crimes before any evidence has been heard properly.

I'm just saying that such stories should be treated with caution, particularly if a lot of time has passed. Some may be genuine, but the pound signs in some people's eyes makes me a bit cynical.

caution certainly other wise you have people like Tommy who makes all sorts of baseless accusation and absurd links as he has in this thread
But when evidence exist`s it should be pursued and made public knowledge regardless if the person concerned is dead or not  
or the family's and friends feelings

alzheimer's is a tricky one as they is provision in law for criminals who as a result of a disease or accident have no recollection of the crime committed but that needs to be tested in a court with medical evidence to support that claim  

But i find my self in the unenviable position of agreeing with dean such defence is basically a get out of jail free card and unfortunately can be faked
as there is no way to definitely prove one way or another

And i understand your concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind - family and friends but what about the victims

and family and friends are not guilty of anything (hopefully)

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind Korban - family and friends. I'm sure that most people would not like to read in the paper that their father, uncle, or whoever was being accused of such crimes before any evidence has been heard properly.

I'm just saying that such stories should be treated with caution, particularly if a lot of time has passed. Some may be genuine, but the pound signs in some people's eyes makes me a bit cynical.

caution certainly other wise you have people like Tommy who makes all sorts of baseless accusation and absurd links as he has in this thread
But when evidence exist`s it should be pursued and made public knowledge regardless if the person concerned is dead or not  
or the family's and friends  feelings

alzheimer's is a tricky one as they is provision in law for criminals who as a result of a disease or accident have no recollection of the crime committed but that needs to be tested in a court with medical evidence to support that claim  

But i find my self in the unenviable position of agreeing with dean such defence is basically a get out of jail free card and unfortunately can be faked
as there is no way to definitely prove one way or another

And i understand your concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind - family and friends but what about the victims

and family and friends are not guilty of anything (hopefully)

If evidence exists, I think it should be investigated properly rather than every accusation being splashed all over the press and internet at the drop of a hat. It happens because it generally involves famous people of course, but that's no excuse.

There are people on here who do not like suggestions that medical conditions are faked by some people, so that's interesting. If doctors do testify that he does indeed have progressive dementia, will you be accusing them of lying? Some doctors have said that, have they not?

I didn't suggest that family and friends are guilty of anything, but they have to read all kinds of stuff about their relatives with very little evidence to back it up. I would not like to have to do that myself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
caution certainly other wise you have people like Tommy who makes all sorts of baseless accusation and absurd links as he has in this thread
But when evidence exist`s it should be pursued and made public knowledge regardless if the person concerned is dead or not  
or the family's and friends  feelings

alzheimer's is a tricky one as they is provision in law for criminals who as a result of a disease or accident have no recollection of the crime committed but that needs to be tested in a court with medical evidence to support that claim  

But i find my self in the unenviable position of agreeing with dean such defence is basically a get out of jail free card and unfortunately can be faked
as there is no way to definitely prove one way or another

And i understand your concern is mainly for the people who they leave behind - family and friends but what about the victims

and family and friends are not guilty of anything (hopefully)

If evidence exists, I think it should be investigated properly rather than every accusation being splashed all over the press and internet at the drop of a hat. It happens because it generally involves famous people of course, but that's no excuse.

There are people on here who do not like suggestions that medical conditions are faked by some people, so that's interesting. If doctors do testify that he does indeed have progressive dementia, will you be accusing them of lying? Some doctors have said that, have they not?

I didn't suggest that family and friends are guilty of anything, but they have to read all kinds of stuff about their relatives with very little evidence to back it up. I would not like to have to do that myself.

i am not a doctor so why would i ?
will you ,if they say he hasn`t or does remember

my mum (87) has progressive dementia some times she knows me other times she doesn`t that's why its a tricky one as i said


i did not say you did ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If evidence exists, I think it should be investigated properly rather than every accusation being splashed all over the press and internet at the drop of a hat. It happens because it generally involves famous people of course, but that's no excuse.

There are people on here who do not like suggestions that medical conditions are faked by some people, so that's interesting. If doctors do testify that he does indeed have progressive dementia, will you be accusing them of lying? Some doctors have said that, have they not?

I didn't suggest that family and friends are guilty of anything, but they have to read all kinds of stuff about their relatives with very little evidence to back it up. I would not like to have to do that myself.

i am not a doctor so why would i ?
will you ,if they say he hasn`t or does remember

my mum (87) has progressive dementia some times she knows me other times she doesn`t that's why its a tricky one as i said


i did not say you did ?

You mentioned medical evidence. Four doctors have said that Janner is suffering from Alzheimer's. Are you saying that he possibly fooled them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i am not a doctor so why would i ?
will you ,if they say he hasn`t or does remember

my mum (87) has progressive dementia some times she knows me other times she doesn`t that's why its a tricky one as i said


i did not say you did ?

You mentioned medical evidence. Four doctors have said that Janner is suffering from Alzheimer's. Are you saying that he possibly fooled them?

i don't know janner or the doctors but people have fooled doctors before so the possibility is there
that`s why i also said it needs tested in court
i also noted
my mum (87) has progressive dementia some times she knows me other times she doesn`t that's why its a tricky one as i said

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mentioned medical evidence. Four doctors have said that Janner is suffering from Alzheimer's. Are you saying that he possibly fooled them?

i don't know janner or the doctors but people have fooled doctors before so the possibility is there
that`s why i also said it needs tested in court

How?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i don't know janner or the doctors but people have fooled doctors before so the possibility is there
that`s why i also said it needs tested in court

How?

i am just getting ready to go to bed but i will bite "how "what

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How?

i am just getting ready to go to bed but i will bite "how "what

How can his medical condition be tested in a court?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i am just getting ready to go to bed but i will bite "how "what

How can his medical condition be tested in a court?

not a doctor not a lawyer not an expert on the condition so not sure what you want me to say ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How can his medical condition be tested in a court?

not a doctor not a lawyer not an expert on the condition so not sure what you want me to say ?

You said it needs to be tested in court.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
not a doctor not a lawyer not an expert on the condition so not sure what you want me to say ?

You said it needs to be tested in court.

yes with evidence from a doctor/psychologist and an expert by a lawyer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faking-mental-illness/

Honestly i don`t know what you having a problem with i don`think it`s unheard of

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said it needs to be tested in court.

yes with evidence from a doctor/psychologist  and an expert by a lawyer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faking-mental-illness/

Honestly i don`t know what you having a problem with i don`think it`s unheard of

So you think that the reports the four doctors already made are not valid?

I'm quite interested in this view you have that people can fake such an illness with or without a doctor's report. Do you extend that to benefit claimants?

i hate useing wiki but i am tired and need to go to bed

but read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_forgetting

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yes with evidence from a doctor/psychologist  and an expert by a lawyer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faking-mental-illness/

Honestly i don`t know what you having a problem with i don`think it`s unheard of

So you think that the reports the four doctors already made are not valid?

I'm quite interested in this view you have that people can fake such an illness with or without a doctor's report. Do you extend that to benefit claimants?

i think they have been few of cases of that in the news recently

i don`t think anything i am pointing out the possibility as i said

The best people to ask are people who see him regularly, or staff, or whoever. It would be difficult to fool them all of the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:The best people to ask are people who see him regularly, or staff, or whoever. It would be difficult to fool them all of the time.

And why i said it needs tested in court .......

night raggs

Night Korban.