Westminster paedophiles: the ridiculous link to Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts
Westminster peadophiles: a look at news and views on the story of ‘VIP paedos’ in the 1970s and 1980s:
Breitbart: “THE BRITISH PEOPLE MUST NOW TAKE CONTROL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PAEDOPHILE SCANDAL”
Ben Harris-Quinne, Chairman of the Bow Group and Director of Conservative Grassroots, writes:
As Prince Andrew becomes the latest figure to be named in an establishment paedophile scandal, the British nation has woken up today to face, yet again, the uncomfortable possibility that they are governed by an elite political and media establishment that has, for at least the past 50 years, engaged in, covered up, and ignored institutionalised paedophilia.
Whoah! Prince Andrew is alleged to have had sex with a 17-year-old ‘masseuse’? He denies it. The ‘victim’ (Virginia Roberts) was underage in the State of Florida, where she alleges the “erotic massaging” took place. The story of Westminster paedophiles is that people in power had sex with pre-pubescent children and minors (under 16s) and killed three of them. It was then covered up. To link Randy Andy to that is a giant leap. You might as well link Jimmy Savile and his “secret” to Prince Charles and give the big sideways eyes.
Unbowed by fact, Harris-Quinne gets to his point:
I spent the month of November in the United States, whilst there the UK Home Office’s “Independent Investigation” into historical child abuse in Westminster hit new levels of absurdity when the SECOND appointed head of the investigation resigned due to links to those implicated in a paedophile ring.
The issue has historically been ignored as much as possible in the UK, and has barely yet reached the mainstream US media, but in discussing the matter with those in American politics and media, no-one could understand how the government of the United Kingdom could have harboured, covered up and failed to investigate consistent claims of organised child abuse within the British Establishment for 50 years, with damning evidence of sexual abuse in Parliament past and present still being dismissed, without something tantamount to a public revolution and citizen’s coup occurring to tear down any establishment that would allow this behavior to flourish unchecked.
Well, we’ve yet to see the smoking gun. We’ve yet to see proof of a cover up. We’ve yet to have a trial. Hell, we’ve yet to see anyone charged with a crime. And what with health and safety, you need a license to light the torches and march on Parliament.
Ida B Wells, the early twentieth-century African-American journalist and civil-rights activist, put it well:
“The word of the accuser is held to be true… the rule of law [is] reversed, and instead of proving the accused to be guilty, the [accused] must prove himself innocent.”
Dare to question accusations and be accused of attacking on the accuser’s ‘virtue’.
The rule of law is not an inconvenience.
A ‘VIP peado ‘ring’ unties knots. But as much as we might want to see a top name on a spit, we have no evidence. The rule of law must prevail, with all its barriers to justice adhered to.
But to Breitbart’s man, everyone is guilty:
Having come across much of this information as a Parliamentary intern in 2005, where it was described to me as “just what goes on here”, I cannot believe that anyone with a long-term political career in Britain has not only not heard the rumours, but has come across or witnessed enough consistent information to believe they merit investigation.
Members of Parliament past and present would therefore fall into three categories: those who participated in child abuse, those who directly assisted in covering it up, and those who were aware of the issue but decided to do nothing.
Glenn Reynolds adds:
There’s a big difference between sex with an underage, but sexually mature, teen and true pedophilia. But if the latter appeals to politicians, I suspect it’s because the methodology bears such a close relationship to that employed in dealing with the electorate.
Meanwhile, the rest of us might wonder not about the past but about the here and now. What news of Rotherham?