• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Prince Andrew (Allegations of Famous People Engaged in Bad Sex Part 57)

Information Analyst said:
No, that would be a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
Have you read Marson's book (JN-T: The Life and Scandalous Times of John Nathan-Turner)? He describes having, as a seventeen year old fan, to fend off JNT's then partner Gary Downie (production manager on Doctor Who) in 1985.
 
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
...snip...

There's more on the general character and reliability of Dickens' "dossiers" at this link. I can't vouch for where that site comes from, but it certainly looks like it includes the reply sent to Dickens by Leon Brittan after receving the allegedly "lost dossier". There's also a nice timeline of Dickens' political career, and his numerous "dossiers".

Dickens apparently wasn't just big on hunting down paedophiles and homosexuals (pretty much the same thing), but also satanists and witches (pretty much the same thing yet again, probably).
Click to expand...

That site seems anything but objective, and the few actual facts it quotes are extended well beyond reasonable levels of speculation. It is very hard to take seriously anything the article states after reading this (in bold on the site):

Any psychologist will tell you that 50% of the underlying motivation of those who believe in the Satan Ritual Child Abuse Myth is an attack by puritans on homosexuality, but much of the press either don't know that, or dare not debate the issue. So the social stress surfaces as allegations of Satanic Abuse, or Celebrity Abuse or People in High Places abuse instead. ​
 
I'm sorta half following this.

Is this thing getting legs?

It implicates a lot of bigshots in a sex scandal. Including Bill Clinton, whose wife wants to be president.

Has some kind of legal process started? Or is this going to remain just a media thing?
 
Darat said:
That site seems anything but objective, and the few actual facts it quotes are extended well beyond reasonable levels of speculation. It is very hard to take seriously anything the article states after reading this (in bold on the site):

Any psychologist will tell you that 50% of the underlying motivation of those who believe in the Satan Ritual Child Abuse Myth is an attack by puritans on homosexuality, but much of the press either don't know that, or dare not debate the issue. So the social stress surfaces as allegations of Satanic Abuse, or Celebrity Abuse or People in High Places abuse instead. ​
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's a weird site (I think anybody who looks at it will spot that for themselves, just the colour scheme is a giveaway), which is why I put in a disclaimer. But I think their timeline of Dickens' numerous, highly publicized yet forever-vanishing "dossiers", of which he never seems to have kept copies, is pretty factual. And I doubt Leon Brittan's letter of reply to Dickens is a forgery.

Let's put it this way: among the sites that contain anything at all about Leon Brittan's alleged links with pedophilia, this still seems to be one of the saner. That's not saying much, among a population of sites that include allegations about Edward Heath throwing small children off his yacht to drown off the coast of Jersey (after raping them first, of course).
 
catsmate1 said:
Have you read Marson's book (JN-T: The Life and Scandalous Times of John Nathan-Turner)? He describes having, as a seventeen year old fan, to fend off JNT's then partner Gary Downie (production manager on Doctor Who) in 1985.
Click to expand...

Not read the book, but do know someone who - at a young but "now legal" age - was personally invited to JNT's room at a convention to see a preview of a new episode, and then had to make it clear that that was the only thing he was there for (Downie had already left the room, smirking). To be fair JNT apparently took that first "no" as one, and didn't pursue the matter.
 
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
Indeed, it's a weird site (I think anybody who looks at it will spot that for themselves, just the colour scheme is a giveaway), which is why I put in a disclaimer. But I think their timeline of Dickens' numerous, highly publicized yet forever-vanishing "dossiers", of which he never seems to have kept copies, is pretty factual. And I doubt Leon Brittan's letter of reply to Dickens is a forgery.
...snip...
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any doubt that the letter is real. As for the various dossiers my own memories support the numbers and many of his lurid claims are ones I was already familiar with so provisionally I'll accept their timeline.

FromBelgiumWithLove said:
Let's put it this way: among the sites that contain anything at all about Leon Brittan's alleged links with pedophilia, this still seems to be one of the saner. That's not saying much, among a population of sites that include allegations about Edward Heath throwing small children off his yacht to drown off the coast of Jersey (after raping them first, of course).
Click to expand...

I purposely avoid all such sites (don't want my LCD running out of purple and yellow) so I'll take your word for it.

But there are still questions about the dossier and I don't think we can just throw it all out as yet another collection of rumours. The reason I say this is that we know there were two cases that might have been prosecuted, and it is rather strange that the investigators couldn't find what happened to those two cases. If you think about if they had been officially passed from the office of the Home Secretary (which is what the Home secretary claimed) there should have been records of those two even if the rest had been filed in the round filing cabinet as being rumours and rants.
 
Darat said:
But there are still questions about the dossier and I don't think we can just throw it all out as yet another collection of rumours. The reason I say this is that we know there were two cases that might have been prosecuted, and it is rather strange that the investigators couldn't find what happened to those two cases. If you think about if they had been officially passed from the office of the Home Secretary (which is what the Home secretary claimed) there should have been records of those two even if the rest had been filed in the round filing cabinet as being rumours and rants.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I can't figure out which two cases those supposedly were. Brittan's 1984 letter to Dickens, after receiving the fabled "dossier", states:

the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that two of the letters you forwarded could form a basis for enquiries by the police and they are now being passed to the appropriate authorities.
Click to expand...


That's two letters, not two cases. They could both be about the same person(s), and written by the same person. And those letters could possibly, on the first impression of the DPP at the time, have been a basis for police enquiries, not for prosecutions. If I sent a letter to the police (or to some crackpot MP) accusing Mr. Smith from three houses down the street of being a child rapist, I'm certain a police enquiry of some sort would ensue. That doesn't mean there is "a case that might have been prosecuted". Nor would it mean there would necessarily be a paper trail to be found decades later.

The two cases Brittan goes into in more detail in the rest of the letter clearly aren't it. These are the cases Brittan states Dickens raised with him initially, so clearly the cream of the Dickens crop. One is about a civil servant being sent porn in the mail. The other one is about a mother complaining to Dickens that, to quote Leon Brittan, her son "had become a homosexual during his period of employment at Buckingham Palace", leading to an estrangement. I'm sure there's an emoticon I could add after a statement like that, but I don't do emoticons.
 
Last edited:
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
The other one is about a mother complaining to Dickens that, to quote Leon Brittan, her son "had become a homosexual during his period of employment at Buckingham Palace", leading to an estrangement. I'm sure there's an emoticon I could add after a statement like that, but I don't do emoticons.
Click to expand...

Thank god those pederast politicians and civil servants are out there seducing and corrupting innocent British youths into becoming ungodly perverted sex deviants, keeping them from being normal heterosexual and christian family men.

Keep on fighting the good fight.
 
zooterkin said:
If you want full-on CT paedo-ring nuttery, this looks like a good place to start.
Click to expand...

The most tantalising revelation on that site:
Cliff [Richard] and Melvyn Bragg share a repulsive hobby that the average person would find sickening.
Click to expand...

I tell you, I'll never be able to listen to a podcast of In Our Time again (I have all episodes made since 1846 stored) without wondering about that hobby.
 
Playing Cliff Richard songs whilst discussing Wittgenstein?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
That site seems anything but objective, and the few actual facts it quotes are extended well beyond reasonable levels of speculation. It is very hard to take seriously anything the article states after reading this (in bold on the site):

Any psychologist will tell you that 50% of the underlying motivation of those who believe in the Satan Ritual Child Abuse Myth is an attack by puritans on homosexuality, but much of the press either don't know that, or dare not debate the issue. So the social stress surfaces as allegations of Satanic Abuse, or Celebrity Abuse or People in High Places abuse instead. ​
Click to expand...
Yes, that is an odd statement. For one, "psychologist" Valerie Sinason would not tell that, but instead vouch that SRA is very, very real. You can find plenty of material about her on the SAFF website, for instance this page, about Sinason claiming that Jimmy Saville was a satanist. :rolleyes: For the rest, the statement could be true but lacks evidence. The connection between SRA belief and fundie Christians is crystal-clear though.

My personal experience with the SAFF website is that it is a great resource on SRA cases and in debunking them, and that they certainly have done their homework in assembling information. But I agree, the presentation can be a bit, hmm, leading. And the lay-out of the pages is atrocious.

ETA: I wonder how long it takes for Sinason or other SRA loons to rear their ugly heads and claim SRA connections in this case too?
 
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
The most tantalising revelation on that site:


I tell you, I'll never be able to listen to a podcast of In Our Time again (I have all episodes made since 1846 stored) without wondering about that hobby.
Click to expand...


It involves small boys and number ones (Brit slang), a rumour I heard about Cliff back in the 90s..always assumed it was an urban myth, like the colostomy bag thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom