General Chat

David Mellor was one of Mrs Thatcher's blue eyed boys, for several years he was her youngest minister. I believe she appointed him Minister of State for Criminal Justice at the Home Office - that says a lot as to why I don't think he will be very forthcoming with any revelations related to this issue - unless made to under oath ;-)

Errrrrrr no! lolol

Would anyone believe Mellor about anything?

I'd believe Tebbit over Mellor any day!

" Lord Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it."

I must admit, the more times I read that, in 'cold blood' as it were rather than catching part of it on tv, the more chilling it is. This is 'recent' past to me, that a former government minister ( not that I ever liked him lol) is saying "most people" thought like that is horrific. I don't think I am particularly naive, but I do thnk most of the people I knew then, 70s/80s, would have prefered honesty even at the expense of the 'system' being rocked. .

I totally disagree about the 'evidence' being lacking. I do agree it was suppressed.

A journalist friend exposed JS more than 2 years before the case and it was on the www for all to see.

You cannot deny that a victim who was abused as a boy committed suicide because of the shame and disgust he suffered for years. Nobody would action his complaint!

Try communicating with the victims directly as I do, it's heartbreaking.

A lot of it is conjecture and supposition concocted by pitchfork sharpening lynch mobs. If a man or woman is genuinely suspected of committing such heinous acts then they should be given a fair trial and, if found guilty, pay the consequences as laid out in English law and in a manner that is comparable to how they would have been dealt with at the time. A person is not guilty merely because "somebody said so on a website".

from the "Missing Dossier" thread

There is credible testimony in the public domain regarding a late PM, that has been quashed PDQ.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort !

When Tebbit uses the term "establishment" he obviously is not referring to a political party in power but using it as a collective term which encompasses a number of different groups, hierarchies and situations.

eRRolSheep - are you saying they could not have been involved?

As I posted on my "Missing dossier - sexual abuse by MP's & Peers" thread, - I find what Lord Tebbit said on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday about the missing dossier of an alleged paedophile ring at Westminster interesting - Lord Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it."

The establishment at that time was Margaret Thatcher's government, Margaret Thatcher was very much "the public image of the establishment" she was revered by many senior ministers and senior officials. Those ministers and officials who revered her would have done what ever was necessary to bring to a halt anything that might damage her position.

Bit of a difference between PM and MP

I don't think so.

perhaps she meant MP

Gins

4 Jul 2014 18:54

"I feel there will be more, including a 70s PM"

Gins - are you suggesting on a public message board that Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson or Margaret Thatcher could be implicated in cases of historic sexual abuse?

Well said Sirius. I used to deal with Attendance Allowance claims and can verify it's not something you would want to be entitled to.

We all walk among paedophiles in our daily lives. We work for them or they for us, they may be our friends or we may be married to one, they don't wear a badge. Most abuse to children is committed by family members or someone known to the family, but they aren't famous and don't have money so don't make the headlines, so their families don't have additional suffering caused by the public.

His wife is an elderly and frail looking lady who has done nothing, yet has no privacy from this. I feel quite worried for her having to deal with the shock and horror of it all, let alone being villified and considered unfit to receive anything she may be entitled to. The poor woman must be fearful to go out among the public.

I fear he may be radicalised by his fellow Muslim inmates.

This is all mere supposition and conjecture and I totally agree with Sirius.

Attendance allowance, not DLA, and you only get it if you claim for it, carers allowance wouldn't apply unless the person doing the caring is under pension age and if that were the case it means someone is spending over 35 hours a week looking after her .

Personally, I would prefer not to need attendance allowance, it means if you get it you have real problems with doing the simplest things...it isn't some kind of 'luxury', and she as far as we know has committed no crime, she is therefore as entitled to it as anyone else in her situation.

add, she is 82, for her any money she is entitled to, will probably be less important than the pain of knowing about her husband, and the loss of him as her carer....even if he did little of that practically, it will be a huge difference for her, she is clearly vulnerable and I feel sorry for her.

Not sure why his wife will be getting DLA? You only get it if you claim for it and quite often ends when you reach retirement age. As Rolf has a few million would she have bothered to put in for it?....Maybe ??

I suppose Buckingham Palace must get free TV licence.