Child abuse claims: Paedophile gang 'included 20 ex-MPs'
12 replies, posted
[QUOTE]There is evidence at least 20 prominent paedophiles - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.
Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, said a "powerful elite" of paedophiles carried out "the worst form" of abuse.
He said the network extended into both the House of Lords and the Commons.
The government has already announced two reviews into claims of abuse.
Home Secretary Theresa May told the House of Commons the first review would be a wide-ranging inquiry - similar to the inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster - led by an independent panel of experts on law and child protection.
The second review - which is to be led by head of the NSPCC Peter Wanless - would cover how police and prosecutors handled information given to them, she told MPs.
Following the announcements, Mr McKelvie - giving his first television interview for 20 years - told the BBC he believed there was evidence to link a number of former politicians to an alleged paedophile network.
"I would say we are looking at upwards of 20 (people) and a much larger number of people who have known about it and done nothing about it, who were in a position to do something about it," he said
Mr McKelvie said some of those who were alleged to have abused children had now died.
He told the BBC he had spoken to victims over "many, many years" and that children - "almost exclusively boys" - were moved around like "a lump of meat".
They had been subjected to the "worst form of abuse", including rape, he said.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28203914[/url]
Really makes you think about all the crimes that go unreported and not just the child abuse ones either.
NAMBLA?
[QUOTE=Midas22;45321449]Really makes you think about all the crimes that go unreported and not just the child abuse ones either.[/QUOTE]
I personally know at least a handful of women that've been raped, and none have reported it.
[QUOTE=Ripmax;45321424]He told the BBC he had spoken to victims over "many, many years" and that children - "almost exclusively boys" - were moved around like "a lump of meat".[/QUOTE]
disgusting
Excellent job putting quotation marks around a phrase that wasn't actually used.
There was not "20 ex-MPs". There were 20 pedophiles including ex-MPs.
Most of this occurred when the age of consent for homosexuals was 21. It will be interesting to see just how many of these "children" would be legally able to consent to sex today.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45321744]Most of this occurred when the age of consent for homosexuals was 21. It will be interesting to see just how many of these "children" would be legally able to consent to sex today.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't be saying how horrible it was if these boys where just a bunch of 18 year olds.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45321870]They wouldn't be saying how horrible it was if these boys where just a bunch of 18 year olds.[/QUOTE]
It would still be statutory rape if they were 16-20. No ages have been specified. The journalist don't have access to the actual allegations yet, the story is that there may have been a cover-up. What was covered up, if anything, isn't exactly clear.
I know it seems silly to say that 20 year olds can’t consent to sex but for many years that was a legal reality . An MP having sex with an underage but over 16 boy would be something that could be covered up. As it's legal now it raises interesting questions about the age of consent. Though obviously they very well may all have been younger than even the current age of consent.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45321903]It would still be statutory rape if they were 16-20. No ages have been specified. The journalist don't have access to the actual allegations yet, the story is that there may have been a cover-up. What was covered up, if anything, isn't exactly clear.[/QUOTE]
Look at language in the article, it doesn't seem like statutory allegations at all.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45321921]Look at language in the article, it doesn't seem like statutory allegations at all.[/QUOTE]
The language in these sorts of articles is always the same. If they're underage it is always described as abuse and rape. And in this case a 20 year old could be described as underage.
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;45321938]The language in these sorts of articles is always the same. If they're underage it is always described as abuse and rape. And in this case a 20 year old could be described as underage.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's worth it to risk your entire career and social status to fuck somebody one year under the age of consent. I basically guarantee these underage youths weren't 20, and these guys are actual pedophiles.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45322586]I don't think it's worth it to risk your entire career and social status to fuck somebody one year under the age of consent. [/quote]
People do it now I don't see why they wouldn't have done ti then. I agree it's not worth the risk but people still do it.
[quote] I basically guarantee these underage youths weren't 20, and these guys are actual pedophiles.[/QUOTE]
They probably weren't all 20 but it wouldn't surprise me if some were 16-18. Really it's all just speculation at this point. I just think it would be hilarious if the dossier was released and it was all 16-20 year olds. Can you imagine the muddled media response?
Obviously I don't mean to make light of the situation, if people were raped it should be taken seriously no matter the AOC or ages of those involved. If the boys were now legal it would raise interesting moral questions, ones I think the media would be unable and unwilling to address.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.