Female MP abused boy in care

First topic message reminder :

A FORMER female MP was involved in a paedophile network at the heart of government, police have been told.


She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile”  sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.

Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express: “I want justice.”

Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.

Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.

He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.

“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”

Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.

“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.

“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.

The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.

Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.

He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care



Questions

Who was in govenment 32 years ago ?

Who did David Smith, Jimmy Savile visit most often surely they will be records ?

How many female mps where in govenment 32 years ago (not many i suspect )

NemsAgain wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I did.

He's only lost his Sir because he's dead though.

That's what I read.

Maybe some people in authority did come out and say "yeah, we took it off him" - if they did, they did it to keep the noisy louts quiet.

You are right. Cant remember where I saw it but they were saying the clamour to strip him of his knighthood was meaningless as it dies with you

Yep, that's what I read.

Yeah yeah, to please the lower 5% of society who wouldn't have the brain to accept that, they may have "stripped him of it", but, hey, that's the way it is.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

Didn't think that you would be the sort, to agree with someone who has suggested that Jimmy Saville was innocent.

I think, just like I was joking, Nems was also joking, Mr Catman.

Well you've been having the same joke for quite a while now then, on ADO you were always defending the paedophiles over the victims, you're twisted.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

Didn't think that you would be the sort, to agree with someone who has suggested that Jimmy Saville was innocent.

I think, just like I was joking, Nems was also joking, Mr Catman.

Bloody hell you're on eggshells on here sometimes  
 

BigAndy9 wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Really Andy?    Just because he's dead doesn't make him not guilty.  The Savile case has to be the most sickening revelation I've ever heard.  Taking advantage of innocent kids, Jim'll Fix It sick sick sick. Along with the It's a Knockout presenter too  

I didn't explain myself very well ftl.

I should have said - he could be completely innocent.

.....hmmm, I think perhaps unlikely in this instance Andy

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I didn't explain myself very well ftl.

I should have said - he could be completely innocent.

.....hmmm, I think perhaps unlikely in this instance Andy

That is so fucking offensive, what Andy said, you know.

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

.....hmmm, I think perhaps unlikely in this instance Andy

That is so fucking offensive, what Andy said, you know.

Well I stand by it 100%, and always will.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

That is so fucking offensive, what Andy said, you know.

Well I stand by it 100%, and always will.

I wonder that if someone close to you had suffered, and my best mate was a survivor of child abuse as well, that you would come out with the crap that you come out with, perhaps you might think differently, and not defend paedophiles.

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Well I stand by it 100%, and always will.

I wonder that if someone close to you had suffered, and my best mate was a survivor of child abuse as well, that you would come out with the crap that you come out with, perhaps you might think differently, and not defend paedophiles.

Possibly Mr Catman, the emotional attachment to the case would seep through.

But with Savile, there isn't one, therefore I can look at it solely through legal eyes.

You know i'm making sense, you just know it. That's all it is, not hatred, not evil, just common sense.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

I wonder that if someone close to you had suffered, and my best mate was a survivor of child abuse as well, that you would come out with the crap that you come out with, perhaps you might think differently, and not defend paedophiles.

Possibly Mr Catman, the emotional attachment to the case would seep through.

But with Savile, there isn't one, therefore I can look at it solely through legal eyes.

You know i'm making sense, you just know it.  That's all it is, not hatred, not evil, just common sense.

It isn't just the Saville case though, you have made a habit of defending paedophiles on lots of occasions.   

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Possibly Mr Catman, the emotional attachment to the case would seep through.

But with Savile, there isn't one, therefore I can look at it solely through legal eyes.

You know i'm making sense, you just know it.  That's all it is, not hatred, not evil, just common sense.

It isn't just the Saville case though, you have made a habit of defending paedophiles on lots of occasions.   

Nope, just Sir Jimmy Savile.

You aren't even worthy of anger Andy, you are just a waste of energy.