pap

He said "pleb", according to this judgement. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-libel-case-legal-costs £1.5m bill for trying to save reputation.

I've really got to start thinking about moving back to Southampton. The North West has been great for me for 20 years, but surely it's only a matter of time.

Probably worth dealing with Savile first. It is of course, unfair to label anyone that had dealings with him as a potential paedophile, but it's also naive to think that those in authority didn't know what he was. There are few parts of the establishment that he didn't touch. He dined with Prime Ministers at Chequers, was close to the Royals, even going as far as boasting that he helped Charles and Diana settle differences in the early years of their marriage. I find it inconceivable that in those times, and with that level of access, that his proclivities were unknown to those charged with protecting the integrity of the realm and its representatives. Thatcher was dissuaded from suggesting him for honours five times before he finally became a Knight. He was also given a Papal knighthood from the Catholic church, which has spent the last two decades paying victims of its own child abuse off. As I said before, there is no hard evidence on Mountbatten that I've seen - a large part of why I wasn't prepared to characterise the allegation as anything more than persistent rumours. Realistically though, it's unlikely that we'll ever get confirmation on that. The establishment is very good at protecting itself. A picture is emerging of industrial scale abuse of children. Look at what we do know. Today, a care home magnate was convicted on 33 separate counts of child abuse. Savile got himself into positions of trust, as did every depraved pervert that sought the cover of the Catholic church to abuse kids. The patterns are all too familiar; vulnerable kids in care homes or hospitals, facilitated by a secret courts system for family matters. Institutions and tools designed to protect children were used against them. So yep, there are some glib and unsubstantiated comments out there. I think we have a duty to substantiate those claims, punish or denigrate the guilty, depending on whether they are alive or dead and clear those that have been named in error. People, including myself, laugh at David Icke's lizard claims but as a metaphor, it works just fine. I feel like this people don't belong to the same fúcking species as most people I know. There have been some very interesting points made about the context of our times, and the age of consent at various points in our history. Interesting arguments, but they don't hold water now. At some point, our ancestors recognised that 12 year olds did not have the emotional maturity to fend off grooming predators, or the means to deal with the consequences of sexual congress even in a consensual relationship. Entirely the right call. I have no confidence in this enquiry, by the way. It looks like a whitewash, and if this is the level of interest we're going to see in Parliament, those damaged by these vile cúnts will never see justice nor closure.

Think Montagu's son has spoken of the shame he brought on his family.

Look at Unbelievable Jeff lording it about ☺ Power or not, deep down, he knows his place in the pecking order.

I did not know Victor was an adopted Winker. Sell him. Sell him now.

Not a fan of small cars. I've seen too many roadside write-offs to put my family in a small motor. 10 year old big cars is what I go for.

My first year was quite an education. My absolute favourite bit of scouse is not dialect at all; simply accent. When the missus wants her own way, she says "I'll be friend-ly". Never fails ☺

Scouse slang time. These fairies would be described as "dead nesh". You all know that scousers use "dead" to mean "very". "Nesh" means susceptible to cold temperatures. F××king meffs.

Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? Only messing, good post, whelk.

Regarding Mountbatten, the biggest claims are to be found in The War of the Windsors. I haven't read it myself, but the summarised versions I have seen don't present any hard evidence. They link him to the Kincora abuse scandal, but their claims do not go beyond circumstantial from the summaries I have read. It is mainly references to his other proclivities and relationships. Mountbatten was the Royal that introduced Jimmy Savile to the rest of the Royal family. I'd love to offer something more concrete, but the situation doesn't really lend itself to it, and unlike some other commentators, I'm not prepared to lie to make some semblance of a point.

So that's a no, then. Odd. I thought it was important to not mix up the two.

Wrong, I'm afraid. The specifics are this. I claimed that D Notices were used to cover up instances of abuse, with specific reference to the findings of Operation Ore, itself a result of an FBI investigation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice As for the differences, people can check the above. Wiki claims it is a mere renaming. Can you tell us what the differences are apart from that?

Remind us then. Which one didn't happen?

Changed your stance on D Notices?

I'm not sure that there is much appetite to get to the bottom of the truth from any government we are likely to have. One of the inquiries has already ditched two of its proposed heads because those proposed were too connected with some of the accused. To me, that says whitewash from the start, and that the inquiries are setting out to achieve the opposite of their stated purpose. In addition to all the pain, suffering and murdering, it is also worth remembering that paedophiles in high places constitute a massive national security risk, due to the ease at which they can be blackmailed or brought to heel. I have mentioned Ted Heath before. He visited Haut de la Garenne and with the help of a referendum, signed us up for the European Economic Community, effectively the end of independent sovereignty in this country. Possibly putting 2+2 together and getting 5, but I do wonder how many of his decisions were his own.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2014/news/local-press-gagged-over-child-sex-abuse-scandal/

You know that I have some off-beam opinions about the way the world is run. Ultimately, I'm a simplifier, both in work and at home. This situation is simple. If the political will to investigate and prosecute existed, we'd not be having this discussion. It would have occurred in the mid 1980s, lessons would have been learned and we would now be entirely dismissive of the defunct dodoes caught up in the controversy. The broader picture is simple too. We have laws that we are all supposed to subscribe to. One of those laws is that we don't mess with people if they are not an adult. An unspoken principle is that kids should be entitled to the freedom of childhood. If any of these allegations are proven, both of the previous principles are lost. Simplifying even further, it seems like we abandon the principles of justice if the alleged perpetrators are important enough.

Weĺl done whelk. You've arrived

Thanks for starting the thread, Charlie. This may be one of our rare moments of agreement. When first referencing this topic, you mentioned both conspiracies, and the fact that this may be our "Watergate". Watergate sells the situation less than it needs to. This is no mere Watergate, which primarily focused on the hubris of a single man. This is bigger. I don't give a f××k who you are, where you come from, or how much money you earn. There is nigh universal condemnation for nonces, and rightly so. This is not the new Watergate. It is a new potential Russian Revolution, in the sense that the entire establishment could be wiped out. Nixon never really had to deal with that.

Tried to discuss the matter on the Savile thread. Was assured by aintforever that it was no more prevalent in the establishment than it is in mainstream society. He missed, which is that the establishment will protect itself. It has long been my view that leverage was more important for those in the know than justice. If you're sincere about this, Chapel End Charlie, start a thread. I'll happily contribute, but know that on this at least, May is right. It is the tip if the iceberg. I cannot talk about anyone living, but other names you may wish to consider are Ted Heath and Lord Mountbatten. Heath, like Savile, visited Haut de la Garenne. A conspiracy of silence exists to this day on the island. I am in NI now, and have heard persistent rumours for years that the IRA got to Mountbatten through his weakness.

Liverpool to probe inner workings of Southampton's infamous transfer market black box.

The lengths that the press went to during the phone hacking scandal will suggest that they are amoral businesses. Context and coverage seem to be key so far. Based on numbers along, The Telegraph and Guardian look like they're pretty selective about what they'll let people comment about, especially compared to the Mail which has a very high percentage of commentable articles. I suspect that the Mail is simply covering less; I can bear this out crudely with numbers, but bletch's idea about being able to detect different versions of the same story (or absence of) is what's really needed there. tbf to the Mail though, their coverage does seem to be reasonably broad - there's just little categorisation per page. I fed the RT.com configuration into the dev version of the site today. Almost not worth doing. You can comment on everything. On the numbers alone, it's the winner - but then you consider its raison d'etre, an English language web site run by the Russian government, and you'd feel less comfortable about making any sort of judgment on RT's overall freedom based on their perfect record. They want people to have a pop. The metric is still prey to editorialisation, unfortunately. I can't measure what isn't published - but I've found the results so far fairly interesting.

Normal service is resumed. Lovren's hapless dive and attempted block is his season in microcosm. Always in the wrong place and making desperate moves

Arsenal is a weird club these days. I'm not sure it's the best destination for our youngsters. Wenger's English rep was built on attacking football and introducing bright talents from overseas. I've seen the argument advanced that he also benefited from the old guard of defensively disciplined players he inherited upon assuming the post. Wouldn't really disagree with that. If Tottenham was Bale's finishing school, Arsenal would seem to be a ruining school for our alumni. Frequently crocked and there are the nagging suspicions that none of them have reached their full potential and that some may never get there at all.