The establishment and historic child sex abuse

[martyn20]

How many of the current run of investigations/prosecutions etc are because someone has suddenly taken a conspiracy site seriously, and how many are because a/several victim(s) have stepped forward and been taken seriously by the authorities (encouraged by other people getting justice for their historical attacks)? Since none of the current prosecutions are a result of CT websites, if we didn't have these websites it would have had no effect.

No one is saying conspiracy theorists weren't saying it years ago, but that they weren't being taken seriously because they are conspiracy theorists, and that the reputation of CTs is such that it would make people less inclined to believe the alleged far reaching tendrils of this case, simply because it is being tied to CTs.

I see your point very well, sadly though for decades people stepping forward to the authorities have been ignored, told to shut up or worse. In Rochdale we are talking about a mass grooming case where the victims were totally let down by the police and the authorities as recently as 2012.
The fact is without the internet an these 'conspiracy nutters' who use it very well this could have carried on. The tipping point so many have talked about on this thread has only been reached by pressure and getting the word out 'to the public'.
In the case of Cyril Smith he was as active for 50 odd years and many people knew and many reported what they knew and what had happened to them but the 'authorities' totally protected him, that included the police, council and MI5.
Jimmy Saville Abuser was a conspiracy theory until 2012, how many conspiracy theories will become facts in the coming months or years.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, but also don't dismiss anything because the 'wrong' people are saying it right now or the 'wrong' website is trying to highlight the story right now.

 

[dingodan]

I think you're missing my point. My point is not that all conspiracy websites are BS, but rather that because most are BS it obfuscates the truth behind the few that are not.

I honestly believe the Savile stuff would have come out into the mainstream anyway - most people got their first serious knowledge of Savile from the ITV documentary, which I do not believe was prompted by conspiracy websites, but instead came about through one or two dogged mainstream investigative journalists.

There is a case that can be made, imo, that the conspiracy websites actually delayed the story hitting the mainstream. The investigative journalists would have had to got their editor's approval to pursue the story. That conversation could easily have gone:

Journalist: I want to investigate Savile.
Editor: You've been reading those conspiracy websites again, haven't you? No.

Conspiracy theorists often believe that what they are doing is bringing something important to the public gaze. Regrettably, I actually think it often has the opposite effect due to people dismissing their opinions due to the impossibility/unlikeliness of much of what they say.

People were, rightly, collating and sharing this information, absent any coverage by the media.

It's a bit of a cheek to blame those people for the fact that others refused to examine the evidence because of their own prejudice.

 

[dingodan]

How many of the current run of investigations/prosecutions etc are because someone has suddenly taken a conspiracy site seriously, and how many are because a/several victim(s) have stepped forward and been taken seriously by the authorities (encouraged by other people getting justice for their historical attacks)? Since none of the current prosecutions are a result of CT websites, if we didn't have these websites it would have had no effect.

No one is saying conspiracy theorists weren't saying it years ago, but that they weren't being taken seriously because they are conspiracy theorists, and that the reputation of CTs is such that it would make people less inclined to believe the alleged far reaching tendrils of this case, simply because it is being tied to CTs.

Before recent media coverage, you would have considered a website detailing Elm Gust House a "Conspiracy Theory Website" wouldn't you?

A lot of the websites detailing this information had nothing to do with any other subject than this. It's not that these websites had the problem of being "a conspiracy theory website", the problem was that people consider alleged conspiracy/wrongdoing, if not reported by the media, as being therefore untrue.

 

[Goldstone1976]

People were, rightly, collating and sharing this information, absent any coverage by the media.

It's a bit of a cheek to blame those people for the fact that others refused to examine the evidence because of their own prejudice.

The problem is not that they were collating and sharing this information, but that many of the same people were also collating and sharing information about all manner of other things, many of which are completely ludicrous. If you throw enough mud, eventually some of it will stick. How though does an "average" person sift through all the chaff to find the few kernels that may be in there somewhere?

Anyway, some people will believe that conspiracy theory websites serve a useful purpose. Others, including myself, believe they are generally meaningless, sometimes positively damaging (for the reasons I've posted previously) and just very occasionally useful. Each to their own.

 

[dingodan]

Tomorrows Times:

 

[Triggaaar]

A lot of the websites detailing this information had nothing to do with any other subject than this. It's not that these websites had the problem of being "a conspiracy theory website", the problem was that people consider alleged conspiracy/wrongdoing, if not reported by the media, as being therefore untrue.

Indeed, CTs like The Truth, give a bad rep that sticks to those that actually do have a true story to tell.

 

[spring hall convert]

I've heard this German angle before. It seems far fetched but I wouldn't reject anything out of hand.

 

[herecomesaregular]

So maybe David Icke isn't such a nutter after all?

 

[WATFORD zero]

For anyone who believes it's the conspiracy websites that have bought this to the public's attention, i suggest that they dig a little deeper. There is a lot of information in journalistic circles that doesn't get published for a number of reasons. I remember when John Major was in power a journalist friend told me he was having an affair, but the person he was having an affair with wouldn't talk so there was no story. He took a bit of stick in the pub that night.

TIP : The words 'Private Eye' may be useful in your investigations.

 

[Soulman]

Ok, i know this piece is about the Savile case, but let's face it all these recent cases seem to have the same sort of cover ups and are merging.
Again this police force are in the news.
http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/must-read-operation-yewtree-blown-wide-open

 

[dingodan]

For anyone who believes it's the conspiracy websites that have bought this to the public's attention, i suggest that they dig a little deeper. There is a lot of information in journalistic circles that doesn't get published for a number of reasons. I remember when John Major was in power a journalist friend told me he was having an affair, but the person he was having an affair with wouldn't talk so there was no story. He took a bit of stick in the pub that night.

TIP : The words 'Private Eye' may be useful in your investigations.

Actually, most of the information out there was sourced from the very minor media coverage that there was, for example Private Eye, and a few other rare but well researched historical news reports.

There are a number of good reasons why certain stories are not printed, although usually a story is not printed to allow further investigation. For a story to legitimately never get to print, it would have to be something in which there is no public interest in disclosure. A private affair has many reasons why it might not ever go to print, and it's arguable not in the public interest (arguably).

it's not the same as criminality and corruption at the highest levels of the establishment.

There are no good reasons why these stories were not printed, only bad ones.

 

[Goldstone1976]

There are no good reasons why these stories were not printed, only bad ones.

Well, surely the fear of a libel case is a pretty good reason? I've lost count of the number of times that Private Eye nearly went down - they rarely won in those days either.

 

[HOFNSKIN]

The Elm Guest House list of allegations contains the name of a local Sussex MP.

 

[dingodan]

Well, surely the fear of a libel case is a pretty good reason? I've lost count of the number of times that Private Eye nearly went down - they rarely won in those days either.

Perhaps, but I think the media is there to bring to the attention of the public things which they need to know. As a watchdog. A form of protection.

If these things are true, then the media has failed in a way which I actually find difficult to comprehend.

 

[Soulman]

....

 

[dingodan]

...plums.

I think it would be a good idea not to use any names or specifics here.

 

[Soulman]

I think it would be a good idea not to use any names or specifics here.

Why, the name has been put in print and is on a piece of paper containing the guest list.....it's out there for all to see, hardly a secret is it.

 

[dingodan]

Why, the name has been put in print and is on a piece of paper containing the guest list.....it's out there for all to see, hardly a secret is it.

I'm only suggesting it because a mod will remove it.

I also appreciate this discussion being had/allowed and I don't want to get this thread closed.

 

[Soulman]

I'm only suggesting it because a mod will remove it.

I also appreciate this discussion being had/allowed and I don't want to get this thread closed.

I merely replied to a poster, did not state what the local MP was involved or not involved in, just that his name appeared on the list and that he was an MP for a Worthing constituency. If the mods want to remove a name that has been put up, but no accusations or theories included, then fair enough.

MOD EDIT: Yeah but your not the one who kops for all the shit if it all goes wrong are you? think before you type please!

Oh sorry, as I edited your post I guess i had best say who i am.........no on second thoughts....guess who?

 

[spring hall convert]

I'm sure this is just a coincidence

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ily-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html