Now this is a bit of a shock

Viscount Tonypandy?

Police are investigating claims that the late peer Viscount Tonypandy raped a boy, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is looking into what took them so long to launch an inquiry.

31 comments on “Now this is a bit of a shock

  1. Yes, I thought the febrile atmosphere over the Westminster “paedophile ring” had died down a bit. Now I know why: it was one their boys. I’m so looking forward to Alan Davies and Sally Bercow tweaking about ‘Labour Peados, except it won’t happen!

  2. I assumed from the fact that May set up an enquiry that she was pretty confident that they’re would be plenty of Labour fish to net.

  3. Once you remove all requirement for solid objective evidence and create a “believe the victims without properly investigating” culture then anybody can be accused of anything. Also the additional dimension of “why did it take the coppers so long to act?” is another unpleasant development. As I have said–the femministas want the cops leaping into action as soon as any accusation is made like Adam West getting a call on the bat-phone regardless of how little substance it has and how long ago the event supposedly occurred.

  4. Dearime: If I thought May had two brain cells to rub together I might wonder if she sees advantage to herself in trying to spread the Yewtree panic to Westmonster. She is believed to be ambitious (and has little substance to be ambitious with–as if any of them do). If a shit-storm of accusations hit politicians–well it will be male politicians. Even if there is not enough evidence for Yewtree show trials–shit sticks. Male politicians will be compromised all around and reputations will fall much lower even for those not accused. May of course –because there are no such things as female paedos–will sail serenely thro’ the chaos and mayhem. Britain’s second woman prime minister?.

    Like I said–if she had two brain cells—-

  5. What Me Ecks says in his first comment.

    The BBC article last night quoted the police referring to the victim, not the alleged victim or accuser, but the victim. They’ve obviously decided guilt as he ain’t around to to fight back.

  6. “I’m so looking forward to Alan Davies and Sally Bercow tweaking about …”

    Ironman, I misread that as ‘twerking’ and threw up in my mouth a little…

  7. …except having posted that, that it seems to be turning, as I’ve expected, into a mass outing of closeted gays from the past.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10978492/My-father-was-a-sexual-predator-like-Jimmy-Savile-says-son-of-former-Tory-MP.html

    Note how ordinary gay behaviour (seeking sexual opportunities with handsome younger men) becomes “predatory paedophilia”. Presumably the apology to Alan Turing (middle aged man with 19 year old) will be withdrawn and Oscar Wilde (cruised for chicken) will have his martyrdom status withdrawn.

    I’ve been saying for some time that the internal logic of the Feminazis would force them to turn on the gays in the end. I think we’re pretty much there.

  8. Looks like Dave’s reshuffle was partly to stop his party being identified with sad right-wing male weirdos (see names in last two Sunday Mirror revelations). A bit rich from a member of all male Bullingdon Club. Do other countries have problems with politicians who are rent-boy enthusiasts or paedophiles? Would have thought Berlesconi looks downright healthy by comparison.
    ( I blame the public schools)

  9. Again Mr Reed I remind you of the illustrious history of socialist sexual continence in the person of Laventiy Beria–very fond of drugging and raping teenage girls and all without benefit of public school–instead being a part of the “steel-hardened Soviet cadre”.

  10. DBC Reed: see names in last two Sunday Mirror revelations

    See [xxx] in The Mirror is an injunction with which I for one cannot comply.

  11. >Note how ordinary gay behaviour (seeking sexual opportunities with handsome younger men) becomes “predatory paedophilia”.

    Yes, a normal attempt at seduction is now routinely classed as Jimmy Saville-type behaviour.

    And the source is the man’s son who obviously has (understandable) issues about his father — in the past that would have been reason for The Telegraph to be sceptical, but now they’re acting more like the Mail.

  12. >I’ve been saying for some time that the internal logic of the Feminazis would force them to turn on the gays in the end. I think we’re pretty much there.

    Logically speaking the Feminazis will also have to turn on themselves eventually, because there are many prominent feminists who are sexually aggressive. (But they won’t, of course).

  13. I find myself unsure about this. On the one hand, the guy is dead – what can be achieved? On the other hand, if it’s true, perhaps we should know.

    I certainly don’t see the dead hand of the ‘radfems’ or ‘feminazis’ in this, but then I don’t believe in goblins.

  14. The whole Yewtree madness kicked off with accusations against a dead man–Saville. The police did not “investigate” those allegations. In the conventional sense of doing whatever they could (even for events 40 years past) to determine the truth/falsehood of events–eg find other still living witnesses who might have been able to corroborate/refute accusations made. Indeed the police expressed zero interest in actual evidence. In the case of the Duncroft Home–lots of accusations made–and the police interviewed the 90+ (and still fully compos) Headmistress of the place for the period in question. She confirmed that Saville never visited Duncroft before 1974–evidence against the slew of tall tales about supposed visits of Saville in the 60s and early 70s told by a particular group of former inmates (and further refuted by other former inmates –inc blogger Anna Racoon who was in Duncroft in the 1960s). The police ignored the old ladies testimony. They also could have looked at the still existing Duncroft daybooks–a daily log of events kept up throughout that period–which once again confirm there was NO visit by Saville prior to 1974. The police didn’t want to know. Instead they gathered up a huge mass of unsubstantiated stories and published them as accounts of “victims”.
    The police excuse was that Saville was dead and could not be prosecuted anyway so there was no reason to spend public money. No reason either to endorse and help kick of a panic that is now threatening Westminster – or rather the males in Westminster.
    It will be interesting to see if the same excuse is used with Tonypandy–we will be happy to hear all allegations–the wilder the better–but we won’t actually be investigating any of them since he is dead already.

  15. Yewtree may have been kicked off by Savile, but it didn’t end there, and there is to me a great difference between the allegations against Savile (which seem to me to have been taken far too much at face value and then presented as though they met the criminal standard of proof) and those against our Aussie mate, where they did meet the criminal standard.

    I’m noddingly familiar with Anna Racoon’s work and find it persuasive insofar as I remember the stuff she wrote, but that only goes to the credibility of the Savile allegations (as far as I’m aware?). (Even so, the fact that he doesn’t appear in the list of visitors in the day book may be – may be – neither here nor there.)

    Anyway, as I said, I’m unsure. I am not a big believer in the existence of paedophile gangs, but then the old bill nicked another 600 of them the other day, some or all of whom will have their day in court. Perhaps I’m naive. I do wonder what people’s response would be to a story which said ‘Police refuse to investigate Establishment paedophile activity as “not worth it” despite seeing x compelling evidence’.

    All I haven’t seen yet is the compelling evidence.

  16. I agree with you that Tonypandy should be investigated. But it should be a proper investigation–not a exercise in seeking out victim stories and then doing nothing to properly check them out. Maybe there is evidence supporting the claim and maybe there is evidence to prove it untrue. They should look–that is all I want–a real investigation.

    For example–in the Leeds General report into the alleged iniquities of Saville–there is a case were a schoolgirl says she was in a hospital corridor with two school friends and JS came up, grabbed her in a bear hug and stuck his tongue down her throat and held her like that for 30 seconds. I’m not police but my thought on reading that is—2 chances to have the story confirmed or denied—surely to God her friends would remember that even after 40 years. They are likely to still be amongst the living.The “investigators” however, don’t even mention asking for the names of her friends let alone checking out the story. Alright the investigators weren’t coppers but that is just common sense–that is how an investigation should be done. After 20-40 years a lot of people may be dead and records gone–but an investigation that doesn’t even check what it still could check is not a real investigation. The Saville caper was and the forthcoming Westminster go-around will be conducted with the police under the thumb of the NSPCC. Supposed experts in child abuse whose board is composed of radfem true-believers with one or two mangina acolytes. That does not bode well for the truth.
    As for Rolf–the only way to truly settle it would be to have a transcript of the trial. I am going to try and get one–altho’ I don’t yet know how. I don’t even know if you can get them ( “victim” names/id info would obviously by blanked out) but you bloody well should be able to. I think I will ask Anna Racoon. She is or was a lawyer.

  17. Interested,

    Anyway, as I said, I’m unsure. I am not a big believer in the existence of paedophile gangs, but then the old bill nicked another 600 of them the other day, some or all of whom will have their day in court. Perhaps I’m naive. I do wonder what people’s response would be to a story which said ‘Police refuse to investigate Establishment paedophile activity as “not worth it” despite seeing x compelling evidence’.

    “another 600 of them”. Hmmm. I wonder if they’d visited the same websites that Rolf Harris did that the CPS didn’t bring forward for prosecution, but were certain contained underage girls, despite having S2257 compliance notices and still being accessible weeks after the case rather than shut down by IWF.

    Sorry, but unless the police actually bring someone to court I don’t believe a fucking thing they say any longer. The police are now part of whatever message the government is selling.

    I can’t speak for anyone but me, but my reaction to not investigating Establishment paedophile by a dead member of the establishment is “good”. What the hell is the point in investigating allegations against someone who died nearly 20 years ago about events that happened 45 years ago? Are we going to put his remains in the dock?

  18. @Mr Ecks you can buy transcripts but they are prohibitively expensive. They also don’t show the emotions etc that the jury saw. But yes, it would be a fair start.

    @TS yes I’m not personally bothered – I just like arguing (for intellectual reasons, not trolling). But in this case the cops would be a bit damned if they didn’t.

    Fact is, kids do get abused – often in institutions at both ends of the scale. Care homes I’m sure were one forum; it certainly happened at my prep school (not to me) and at my brother in law’s (not to him) and it’s a bad thing when people get away with it.

    (At my school they did, at his they didn’t – one master hanged himself in the grounds as the cops arrived, another went away for quite a while.)

    I’m just not sure how much of the total manpower of British policing and the media should be aimed at it. ‘Some’ is my unscientific answer!

  19. They always are by the spam trap. Can’t see anything in there that shouldn’t be. One of yours missing?

  20. Nah – the post above the question seems as I wrote it. Just when it posted it said comment awaiting moderation or something. I didn’t think I’d said owt too controversial!

  21. When someone has done something wrong, but has since died, I’m afraid he has escaped. When there is no real evidence to collect or assess, it is ridiculous to waste police time on it. The time to complain to police is when someone is still alive. Meanwhile, I see that recorded violent crime is up 6% http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html . That’s real, physical crime with those committing it mostly still here to be caught, and without endless arguments about virtual fantasies on the Internet.

  22. CHF–I agree–but–given the current mess all these charges WILL be “investigated”, regardless of expense. The only question is are they going to be “investigated” by Brothers Dimm collectors and endorsers of fairy tales that provide political advantage to assorted marxists or are they going to be investigated–as far as they can be now–by those who are trying to find out what actually happened. Even if that means upsetting alleged victims by looking for evidence supporting their claims instead of just believing them. A real investigation will–I believe–show that while there are a few paedos and abusers the numbers are small and there are no massive gangs or mass abuse. Which would begin the panic-deflating process. Every time the bullshitters successfully fill the media with their tripe the panic is inflated and we get nearer to more oppressive anti-male laws–which is the outcome the radfems want.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.