Thatcher 'personally covered up' child abuse

The Tory Prime Minister is said to have held a meeting with a rising star, who was tipped for promotion, and told him: “You have to clean up your sexual act”

Margaret Thatcher personally covered up child abuse ­allegations made against one of her senior ministers, according to explosive new claims.

The Sunday People reports Tory Prime Minister is said to have held a high-powered meeting with the rising star, who was being tipped for promotion, and told him: “You have to clean up your sexual act.”

It followed an allegation that the minister had sexually abused young boys at the home of one of his political allies in 1982.

However the minister apparently ignored the warnings.

It is claimed that four years later he was spotted by police seeking young boys for sex at Victoria railway station in London.

But no action was taken.

The extraordinary claims – made to the Sunday People by a source with inside knowledge of Scotland Yard in the early 1980s – are now expected to be put before the Westminster child abuse ­inquiry announced last week by the Prime Minister.

They go to the very heart of claims that there was an Establishment cover-up to protect politicians , judges and police officers involved in a sick ­paedophile network.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-personally-covered-up-3848836

"An Establishment cover-up to protect politicians , judges and police officers involved in a sick ­paedophile network."

Here is one interesting person that was the highest ranking female judge and had a lot to do with in protection of children for many years, everything seemed to be kept neat and tidy under her watch.

The Sunday People?

Hmmmmmm.

I can't take these smears by a Labour Newspaper seriously.Iwould need proof from an independent source.

nicko wrote:I can't take these smears by a Labour Newspaper seriously.Iwould need proof from an independent source.

the fact its all over the news papers and TV news not enough ? nicko
seem more than just smears it appears to be disturbing facts
thatcher knew about this abuse and did nothing ,even allowed the knighthood of cyril smith

You could be right Korban, up till my post I had only read reports from the BBC and other Labour supporting media. Now more reports from other sources are coming in.

nicko wrote:You could be right Korban,    up till my post I had only read reports from the BBC and other Labour supporting media. Now more reports from other sources are coming in.

disturbing never the less

Covered up?
Or did not act?

It is the later, I do not see evidence of a cover up Maggie, which would be burying the evidence where again there would evidence of her squashing any Police charges.
I am not going to pass any judgement here based off claims untill I see some facts.

Brasidas wrote:Covered up?
Or did not act?

It is the later, I do not see evidence of a cover up Maggie, which would be burying the evidence where again there would evidence of her squashing any Police charges.
I am not going to pass any judgement here based off claims untill I see some facts.

Sometimes the best cover-up is unconcealed silence. Often the best tool in the tool box.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Covered up?
Or did not act?

It is the later, I do not see evidence of a cover up Maggie, which would be burying the evidence where again there would evidence of her squashing any Police charges.
I am not going to pass any judgement here based off claims untill I see some facts.

Sometimes the best cover-up is unconcealed silence.  Often the best tool in the tool box.

Two different things and if she is guilty of inaction like for example the Rotherham/Oxford councils who did the same who did actually surpress evidence of which we have no idea if Maggie did, but I will be highly critical if she knew and did nothing.
As yet like I said we first need to see the evidence of this and it should be investigated

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sometimes the best cover-up is unconcealed silence.  Often the best tool in the tool box.

Two different things and if she is guilty of inaction like for example the Rotherham/Oxford councils who did the same who did actually surpress evidence of which we have no idea if Maggie did, but I will be highly critical if she knew and did nothing.
As yet like I said we first need to see the evidence of this and it should be investigated

Does that not place the ball in the court of her supporters, to come forward with evidence of the action she allegedly took?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Two different things and if she is guilty of inaction like for example the Rotherham/Oxford councils who did the same who did actually surpress evidence of which we have no idea if Maggie did, but I will be highly critical if she knew and did nothing.
As yet like I said we first need to see the evidence of this and it should be investigated

Does that not place the ball in the court of her supporters, to come forward with evidence of the action she allegedly took?

Wht if there is no evidence to the claim in the first place?

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Does that not place the ball in the court of her supporters, to come forward with evidence of the action she allegedly took?

Wht if there is no evidence to the claim in the first place?

That is why there are always two questions: 1) what did she know; and 2) what did she do about it?