Jump to content

No 10 aide arrested for child porn


pap
 Share

Recommended Posts

Potentially interesting news for those of us that suspect that light entertainers might be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to paedophilia in the establishment.

 

Patrick Rock, one of Cameron's aides, has been arrested for possession of child pornography.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572495/No-10-aide-arrested-child-porn-Police-quiz-man-advised-Cameron-web-filters.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/03/special-advisor-pm-arrested

 

Rock, unmarried and 62 years old, has variously been described as a pillar of the Tory community and Thatcher's protege. He was involved in the new child pornography legislation, although government sources are already denying he took a lead role. Tipped for peerage just weeks ago, he resigned from his post after the allegations were made against him.

 

Downing Street has apparently opened up access to its computers to assist with the investigation, and of course, Rock is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Logic would suggest that the coppers have hard evidence; you'd hope they wouldn't pull one of Cameron's aides based on anything flimsy. Moreover, the Conservatives have distanced themselves from this guy, and are being seen to be fully co-operating with the police investigation.

 

Any thoughts on this? Got to say, tonight is the first time I've heard of Patrick Rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pap. How come you have given the kiddy fiddling apologists from the Labour Party a wide berth?

 

No doubt you will post a load of waffle to explain this

 

You really have filled the void left by dune

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical.

 

A thread about a Tory . I must have missed the one about Mr and Mrs Harman , Hewitt and the PIE.

 

Pap. How come you have given the kiddy fiddling apologists from the Labour Party a wide berth?

 

No doubt you will post a load of waffle to explain this

 

You really have filled the void left by dune

 

Whatabouttery, chaps?

 

Really?

 

I find it a bit disturbing that you'd dismiss these charges (and their implications) because:-

 

a) He's a Tory

b) I personally didn't start a thread about Harriet Harman when the NCCL/PIE links were revealed.

 

If you feel strongly enough about Harriet Harman, start your own thread and discuss the implications there. Don't wreck this one because you don't like the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick.... Someone post a photo of Maggie a Thatcher standing next to Jimmy Savile...

 

Thatcher:-

 

1) Tried to get Savile knighted five times, was refused four times.

2) Had Peter Morrison as a PPS

3) Lord McAlpine as chairman of the Conservative party.

4) Patrick Rock, arrested last night, described as her protege.

 

The first one should worry you enough, but the impression I get is that Thatcher knew about this; just didn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatcher:-

 

1) Tried to get Savile knighted five times, was refused four times.

2) Had Peter Morrison as a PPS

3) Lord McAlpine as chairman of the Conservative party.

4) Patrick Rock, arrested last night, described as her protege.

 

The first one should worry you enough, but the impression I get is that Thatcher knew about this; just didn't care.

 

Who was completely exonerated from any allegations of child abuse and received substantial damages as a result. For that example you give above, if I were you I would check some facts before inferring guilt upon innocent people. This internet thing is serious business you know - you never know who may be snooping on your posts :p. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/19/lord-mcalpine-of-west-green

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More often than not the most bent or corrupt person in any organisation are the people at or near the very top! It s the people at the bottom who get caught, usually for lesser things than those at the top.

Govt today is just as bad as it was 100 years ago, too many pigs at the trough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was completely exonerated from any allegations of child abuse and received substantial damages as a result. For that example you give above, if I were you I would check some facts before inferring guilt upon innocent people. This internet thing is serious business you know - you never know who may be snooping on your posts :p. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/19/lord-mcalpine-of-west-green

 

Let's not dress McAlpine's case up as if he was cleared in court.

 

Steven Messham first identified him, then claimed it was a case of mistaken identity; pretty much the only outcome that would guaranteed a lack of further scrutiny. Furthermore, this isn't even the first time these allegations have been made. McAlpine was named years ago, and didn't sue.

 

http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html

 

I do agree that one needs to be careful; both the authors of this piece are now dead, well before their time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when was raising similar examples to add balance to a conversation declared invalid? Other than by the thought police on here of course.

 

What's worse? Whataboutery or whataboutery deflection?

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again. Whatabouttery. It beggars belief, trousers.

 

Do you really want to be seen as someone who turns a blind eye to child abuse because you like the colour of the tie?

 

What logic did you apply to come to the conclusion that was what trousers was advocating?

 

I certainly didn't interpret his posts to suggest anything like that.

 

Permission to be offended on Trousers behalf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when was raising similar examples to add balance to a conversation declared invalid? Other than by the thought police on here of course.

 

What's worse? Whataboutery or whataboutery deflection?

 

Once again, you're making the mistake that I am particularly arsed about shouting for the Labour Party.

 

You've posted a picture of Tony Blair standing next to Jimmy Savile with a link (inexplicably) to the NCCL story about Harman. The one time that Blair is mentioned in that article is when they explain that he was Prime Minister during Hewitt's time as health secretary.

 

Frame it as a legitmate response if you want; I prefer to see it as intellectually dishonest sleight-of-hand, unravelling the minute that someone does what I did. e.g. click on the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What logic did you apply to come to the conclusion that was what trousers was advocating?

 

I certainly didn't interpret his posts to suggest anything like that.

 

Permission to be offended on Trousers behalf

 

Pap's up there with Verbal when it comes to putting words in people's mouths... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, you're making the mistake that I am particularly arsed about shouting for the Labour Party.

 

You've posted a picture of Tony Blair standing next to Jimmy Savile with a link (inexplicably) to the NCCL story about Harman. The one time that Blair is mentioned in that article is when they explain that he was Prime Minister during Hewitt's time as health secretary.

 

Frame it as a legitmate response if you want; I prefer to see it as intellectually dishonest sleight-of-hand, unravelling the minute that someone does what I did. e.g. click on the link.

 

Fair points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly old me thought that all kiddie fiddler chat occurred on the Savillie thread. Seems that a Tory deserves his own thread, when Rolf and others don't. Seeing as its pretty silly starting a thread for every suspect, perhaps PAP's effort could be the political peado thread. In light of this, Pap do you think Harmen should follow others lead and apologise and do you think she was right when she called for naked photos of kids not to be made illegal unless it could be proved that the kid was harmed. Would you resign from an organisation that let peados affiliate, I would. Would you Pap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly old me thought that all kiddie fiddler chat occurred on the Savillie thread. Seems that a Tory deserves his own thread, when Rolf and others don't. Seeing as its pretty silly starting a thread for every suspect, perhaps PAP's effort could be the political peado thread. In light of this, Pap do you think Harmen should follow others lead and apologise and do you think she was right when she called for naked photos of kids not to be made illegal unless it could be proved that the kid was harmed. Would you resign from an organisation that let peados affiliate, I would. Would you Pap?

 

If you'd had any genuine conviction on the specifics of Harman, why isn't there a thread about it or taking you at your own suggestion, a series of posts on the Savile thread?

 

There is nothing; not a word about Harman until this very thread. The first time you've been arsed about her views is in some bizarre "two wrongs make a right" calculation you seem to be performing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd had any genuine conviction on the specifics of Harman, why isn't there a thread about it or taking you at your own suggestion, a series of posts on the Savile thread?

 

Maybe those who lean towards the right of centre don't feel the urge for political point scoring as often as those who lean towards the left of centre? (yes, I know you're 'omni-political' but... :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have missed the one about Mr and Mrs Harman , Hewitt and the PIE.

 

Pap. How come you have given the kiddy fiddling apologists from the Labour Party a wide berth?

 

Must have missed the responses as well. It really was a new low for the Daily Mail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26399413

 

Trying to equate the arrest of a current PM's aide for actual involvement in paedophilia with guilt by association from 40 years ago is pretty desperate.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Pap was trying to score any political points, rather trying to highlight the fact that somebody within the core staff at No 10 has been arrested for child porn..

 

It's a bit sad that he gets accused of anti-Tory bias when talking about this matter - it doesn't really matter what party they belong to really, the crime itself is the centrepiece of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Pap was trying to score any political points, rather trying to highlight the fact that somebody within the core staff at No 10 has been arrested for child porn..

 

It's a bit sad that he gets accused of anti-Tory bias when talking about this matter - it doesn't really matter what party they belong to really, the crime itself is the centrepiece of the story.

you should stop right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Pap was trying to score any political points, rather trying to highlight the fact that somebody within the core staff at No 10 has been arrested for child porn..

 

It's a bit sad that he gets accused of anti-Tory bias when talking about this matter - it doesn't really matter what party they belong to really, the crime itself is the centrepiece of the story.

 

I wasn't trying to score any points; anyone can see that from the opener - I went to lengths to assert that the Conservatives have already started distancing themselves from Patrick Rock. As you point out, there are huge points of discussion to be had about someone so close to the PM being implicated in these charges, from child protection to national security.

 

So far, the only people to talk about Patrick Rock have been myself and Bearsy.

 

Lord D + trousers; really poor performance on this thread.

 

batman; no change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain Politicians of all hues have been involved in kiddie fiddling since time immemorial.

 

The reason that celebrities are getting it in the neck for it is because it suits the establishment to do so and keeps their puppets (the government, of varying parties)

from investigation.

 

See the UK section on the following link for what I mean by Establishment.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to score any points; anyone can see that from the opener - I went to lengths to assert that the Conservatives have already started distancing themselves from Patrick Rock. As you point out, there are huge points of discussion to be had about someone so close to the PM being implicated in these charges, from child protection to national security.

 

So far, the only people to talk about Patrick Rock have been myself and Bearsy.

 

Lord D + trousers; really poor performance on this thread.

 

batman; no change.

 

Of course had Theresa May, IDS & Edwina Currie belonged to an organisation that allowed a bunch of peado's to affiliate and join. Had May refused to say it was mistake, despite being asked 6 times by a Newsnight interviewer to do so and despite the present head of the organisation having done so (despite not even being born when it started), there's no way Pap would have started a thread about that :mcinnes:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatcher:-

 

1) Tried to get Savile knighted five times, was refused four times.

2) Had Peter Morrison as a PPS

3) Lord McAlpine as chairman of the Conservative party.

4) Patrick Rock, arrested last night, described as her protege.

 

The first one should worry you enough, but the impression I get is that Thatcher knew about this; just didn't care.

 

I wonder if all four were ever in the same room at the same time?

 

Hopefully not with Steven Messham too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course had Theresa May, IDS & Edwina Currie belonged to an organisation that allowed a bunch of peado's to affiliate and join. Had May refused to say it was mistake, despite being asked 6 times by a Newsnight interviewer to do so and despite the present head of the organisation having done so (despite not even being born when it started), there's no way Pap would have started a thread about that :mcinnes:.

 

Ah, another post inspired by the "Keep Digging" philosophy.

 

You have failed to address any part of the news story that spawned this thread, failed to condemn Patrick Rock's activities (despite you demanding the same standard of Harman; she at least condemns PIE retrospectively) and you're increasingly looking like someone that is indifferent to a hugely serious issue, and for what? Some crappy speculative argument about what I might have done when the Harman story broke?

 

It's not like I've gone easy on Labour in the past either. I've often privately speculated on the matter of why Blair raised D-Notices following Operation Ore. Unfortunately, most of the people that I've seen named are still alive, and still very much in a position to sue. Paedophilia in the establishment is a national security risk as well as an ongoing source of misery for all the victims.

 

It's a damn shame that a normally decent poster like yourself can't take off the blue-tinted goggles long enough to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree it happens in all party's and hate the smears and believe you are innocent until proved guilty but hate how the daily mail the mouth piece wing of the tory right propagandist machine . its about time they apologised there support for hitler and the nazis then if we use the logic the die hard tory committed paid up supporters on here .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potentially interesting news for those of us that suspect that light entertainers might be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to paedophilia in the establishment.

 

the idea that there is a paedophilia iceberg in the establishment is bizarre. It's just the famous/high up pervs are the one's that hit the headlines.

 

It's your idea, mate. Can't help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with anything, its easier to cover up if you're rich n powerful.

 

True, but the rich and powerful are also more of a target for false claims and more of a story for the media.

 

Fact is, if you had touched someone up in a nightclub 30 years ago you probably wouldn't have much to worry about. If you were a world famous DJ however you would be sweating like a Ukranian tank driver.

Edited by aintforever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})