Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[dave]

Well just when you thought I had p*ssed off for good here I am again - a catastrophic hard drive crash and a truly toasted PC notwithstanding...

I have read Matt's posts with great interest and I doff my cap to his researching skills. There is certainly a great deal of information out there to counter the theory that Hollie was abused by powerful figures in the Scottish establishment, and he has very diligently brought this to our attention.

I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?

Let me ask you another question. A rumour had been circulating on the internet, some years before this issue had become mainstream news, to the effect that there was a group of vulnerable children who were being routinely and systematically abused by a cabal of well known and respected parish priests. Given that, at the time, there would have been no 'hard evidence', and, for this reason, the media wouldn't have been involved and the Police may not have deemed it necessary to instigate an investigation, and on the basis of most of the comments on this thread, I think it fair to say that most of you would have sat on your hands, quite glibly stating that there must be some 'loony David Icke fan' out there stirring up a lot of 'nonsense' (a word that has cropped up again and again on this thread) or worse, that the story has been propogated by, and I quote, "a sicko who fantasises about child abuse."

With the benefit of hindsight we can all surely see that this narrow minded and dogmatic approach to the investigation of subjects that fall under the banner of 'conspiracy theories' does have some potentially fatal flaws.

I notice that Matt is rather fond of citing the conundrum of Russel's Pisspot (or something of that nature) to demonstrate the fallibility of believing in something that we cannot see and for the existence of which there could be no empirical evidence. I have another quote from the great Bert himself which I would like to propose as a challenge to those Skeptics who appear to cleave to the notion that a reliance upon the dogma that the establishment of empirical fact is the only dependable path to the establishment of the existence of a crime (or shall we say 'conspiracy'), notwithstanding the fact that, in all probability, all of the supporting evidence for these facts, and all of the witnesses too, would have been systematically undermined or destroyed by the perpetrators.

He said "‘‘If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’’

Could it not also be argued that a wilful disregard of common sense when it comes to the plausibility of 'uncomfortable truths', has its origin in the same mindset?

[Admin]

I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?

You really can't grasp this point can you?

It has been explained to you several times but you just keep coming back with the same daft argument!


He said "‘‘If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’’

Can't you see that this quote actually describes you?

Think about how much evidence you actually have and how easily you accept it as proof of guilt.

Russell is describing what's known as Confirmation Bias - something you display in droves!

[panama]

I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?



Look, you ******* *****, you cannot believe anything to be true without SOME sort of evidence. Removing or obscuring evidence from any record leaves it's own trail and makes it HARDER to achieve the object.

REALITY CHECK: No substantive evidence = no case to answer under the law of the land.

[Dubious Dick]

Frankly, with no evidence, I get the impression that this poster, or should I say poseur, is talking bs when they say computer problems. It looks like a deliberately thought out retort to the usual uskskeps wisdom (special respect to Matt).

I reckon there is a sriou srebuttal effort here. Good thig is, since do not believe in conspiracy theory without evidence, we do not live in China. This means that teh official rebuttal units are pathetic and slow here.

Here's my response to the response. Do stop talking such pure and unrefined anal output!

[tolman]

Let me ask you another question. A rumour had been circulating on the internet, some years before this issue had become mainstream news, to the effect that there was a group of vulnerable children who were being routinely and systematically abused by a cabal of well known and respected parish priests. Given that, at the time, there would have been no 'hard evidence', and, for this reason, the media wouldn't have been involved and the Police may not have deemed it necessary to instigate an investigation, and on the basis of most of the comments on this thread, I think it fair to say that most of you would have sat on your hands, quite glibly stating that there must be some 'loony David Icke fan' out there stirring up a lot of 'nonsense' (a word that has cropped up again and again on this thread) or worse, that the story has been propogated by, and I quote, "a sicko who fantasises about child abuse."

If a rumour was founded in reality, there'd ultimately have to be people prepared to give evidence to the police in order for it to advance beyond a rumour.
In fact, there'd have to be someone prepared to talk to someone in order to justify a rumour being more than just an invention.

If such people exist, the extent to which a rumour is blieved or not by random people seems pretty unimportant, since whether you, I, or any other random citizen wonders if a rumour is true makes sod-all difference to what actually happens.

Were there actually an investigation and then a media report based on an actual criminal case, that seemes far more likely to encourage people to come forward than some vague rumour about unnamed individuals and priests.

There are some people who get pleasure out of having been one of the first people to believe a rumour if that rumour actually turns out to be true.
There are some people who get pleasure out of believing a rumour even before the time when they know whether it's true, since they have a need to look down on other people which they can't actually satisfy by being a particularly worthwhile person in real life.

Personally, I don't see that there's a great deal of credit in believing in rumours before evidence is available. To the extent I wonder about things, it's more a matter of keeping options open rather than closing them down.

But then, I suppose I don't feel a burning need to demonstrate my genius by how quickly I can jump to conclusions in advance of evidence, since doing that doesn't actually require any kind of skill, merely recklessness and (frequently) a lack of concern for the effects of one's actions on other people.

If I want validation, I get it from doing something useful that actually requires intelligence or skill, rather than competing to see how quickly I can think the worst of people in the hope I'll be proved right.

If there were rumours around about abuse by clergy, and then a police investigation started, even if the investigation had started due to a couple of people going to the police for personal reasons (like their child getting to a particular age), or because they'd seen news reports on court cases abroad, or due to a general atmosphere where abuse was discussed more in the media, I don't doubt that many of the people quick to believe rumours would try to claim credit for the power of rumour, since the kind of person eager to jump to conclusions is often going to be the kind of person who isn't exactly objective or pessimistic when it comes to assessing their own significance.

[Matt]

Well just when you thought I had p*ssed off for good here I am again - a catastrophic hard drive crash and a truly toasted PC notwithstanding...

I have read Matt's posts with great interest and I doff my cap to his researching skills. There is certainly a great deal of information out there to counter the theory that Hollie was abused by powerful figures in the Scottish establishment, and he has very diligently brought this to our attention.

Since you appreciate my researching skills I'll happily share my techniques. What I was interesteded in was the quality of sources. A basic reading of this thread tells us that the source for most of this is Robert Green. It's quite standard to check on the quality of sources so I googled his name. Unfortunately he shares his name with a supposedly professional international footballer. So I narrowed the search a little: Robert Green Hollie Grieg.

If you do the search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Robert+Green+Hollie+Greig) right now you'll see the page I found, first in the list. Unfortunately it's now just a holding page but click on cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zN-wzi_PS_AJ:www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green-hollie-greig/+Robert+Green+Hollie+Greig&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) and you'll see.

It's just basic checking of sources.


I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?

What we have to consider is the quantity of evidence available vs the quality of evidence we should expect.

It's all very well to say that we wouldn't expect any evidence at all but that's not quite what we see.

We have Hollie's reported testimony. Now I have no right to walk into a police station and ask to see the case file. However Hollie and Anne do have the right to see their own statement. They do have the right to copy that to anyone who they think should see it. For example Mark Daly the respected BBC Journalist. (Now Mark says he dropped the investigation because there wasn't enough evidence to make a case. But then again If he had been threatened or coerced to drop the case that's what he would say wouldn't he. You just have to decide if the journalist behind this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3210614.stm) is easily intimidated by corrupt authorities.)

Then there's the medical evidence. We're told one thing and again we have no right to access the medical records ourselves. However Hollie and Anne can. And they can reveal that to whoever they like. What Lance Greg Watkins says was revealed actually flat out contradicts what we're told.

What else might we expect?


Let me ask you another question. A rumour had been circulating on the internet, some years before this issue had become mainstream news, to the effect that there was a group of vulnerable children who were being routinely and systematically abused by a cabal of well known and respected parish priests.

Sadly you're not narrowing this down. There have been many such stories. In most of them we actually have more than a roumour. We have multiple corroberating statement from independent witnesses.


Given that, at the time, there would have been no 'hard evidence', and, for this reason, the media wouldn't have been involved and the Police may not have deemed it necessary to instigate an investigation, and on the basis of most of the comments on this thread, I think it fair to say that most of you would have sat on your hands, quite glibly stating that there must be some 'loony David Icke fan' out there stirring up a lot of 'nonsense' (a word that has cropped up again and again on this thread) or worse, that the story has been propogated by, and I quote, "a sicko who fantasises about child abuse."

No I don't think so. I think we would have examined the evidence and reached our own conclusions. If there was indeed corroborating evidence you can see that this is far more persuasive than a single witness.

So should we expect corroborating witnesses from such a wide ranging conspiracy?


With the benefit of hindsight we can all surely see that this narrow minded and dogmatic approach to the investigation of subjects that fall under the banner of 'conspiracy theories' does have some potentially fatal flaws.


Yes your straw man is fatally flawed. NOt however the argument of assessing evidence on it's merrits or placng the burden of proof where it belongs.


I notice that Matt is rather fond of citing the conundrum of Russel's Pisspot (or something of that nature) to demonstrate the fallibility of believing in something that we cannot see and for the existence of which there could be no empirical evidence.

Haha pisspot very good. Russel's argument may yet crumbles against the force of your scatological sarcasm if you just keep at it. Not yet however. Keep trying though it shows your class.


I have another quote from the great Bert himself which I would like to propose as a challenge to those Skeptics who appear to cleave to the notion that a reliance upon the dogma that the establishment of empirical fact is the only dependable path to the establishment of the existence of a crime (or shall we say 'conspiracy'),

Not only, just a tested and reliable way. If you have another methodoly just as good I'll listen.


notwithstanding the fact that, in all probability, all of the supporting evidence for these facts, and all of the witnesses too, would have been systematically undermined or destroyed by the perpetrators.

Sounds like a lot of effort to go to just to sleep with children. How much is a ticket to Thailand these days?


He said "‘‘If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’’

I agree entirely. I'm familiar with that and similar warnings against confirmation bias. However you might have fallen into the trap of assuming what is in my instincts. I have no problem with the idea that institutions may be corrupt, or that pedophiles rings exist. The problem I have is with large pervasive organisations that are perfectly proficient at eliminating all evidence for their existence and activities. It's not even that I insist that all such groups are necessarily fictional. Bletchley Park did a damn good job of covering up operation ultra for three decades whilst employing a staff of thousands and involoving hundreds of ancillaries into the conspiracy.

NO the problem I have is that once such an organisation has been posited it allow people free reign to propose anything, unencumbered by a complete lack of evidence.

It's not that I demand hard evidence. It's that I demand at least some credible evidence and will only infer from the evidence provided what is actually implied rather than the rest of a story which may well be manufactured.

Since there are literally infinitely more manufactured stories possible than there can be true conspiracies whilst I recognise that this approach may occasionally be wrong the odds are that it's far more accurate than simply accepting any self consistent story which waves away the need for evidence with tall tales of long shadows.

As for this story. I'm afraid it no longer even looks self consistent.


Could it not also be argued that a wilful disregard of common sense when it comes to the plausibility of 'uncomfortable truths', has its origin in the same mindset?

You're still asserting that we reject this story because it's uncomfortable, rather than because the evidence that supports it is of a lower quality then we'd expect to see even with the most competent of conspiracies working to obscure the facts.

[dave]

Can't you see that this quote actually describes you?



Errm my point is that it may also describe people like you, or didn't you get that?

In fact, what this quote describes is anyone who can't allow for any alternative viewpoints to those that they hold to be true, because they are so utterly entrenched in their own belief systems.

IN my view, Skeptics are just as fallible as all the rest of us, in fact all the more so, because so many of them appear to have a rather self serving belief that the way that they look at the world is the only correct and viable one...

[dave]

I reckon there is a sriou srebuttal effort here. Good thig is, since do not believe in conspiracy theory without evidence, we do not live in China. This means that teh official rebuttal units are pathetic and slow here.

Are you drunk?

[dave]

If a rumour was founded in reality, there'd ultimately have to be people prepared to give evidence to the police in order for it to advance beyond a rumour.
In fact, there'd have to be someone prepared to talk to someone in order to justify a rumour being more than just an invention...If such people exist, the extent to which a rumour is blieved or not by random people seems pretty unimportant, since whether you, I, or any other random citizen wonders if a rumour is true makes sod-all difference to what actually happens.

You're missing the point. It's not about how many people are 'prepared to talk' it's about how many people are prepared to listen, and how many are willing to give some credence to something that may be uncomfortable to countenance, or may 'go against the grain' in some way


Were there actually an investigation and then a media report based on an actual criminal case, that seemes far more likely to encourage people to come forward than some vague rumour about unnamed individuals and priests.

SO you are quite happy to allow the 'Powers that be' (i.e. Police, Politicians, Media etc.) to be your arbiters of what is a 'cause for concern' and rest assured that if it doesn't appear on the 10 o' clock news there's nothing going on and nothing to worry about? How credulous is that?



There are some people who get pleasure out of having been one of the first people to believe a rumour if that rumour actually turns out to be true.
There are some people who get pleasure out of believing a rumour even before the time when they know whether it's true, since they have a need to look down on other people which they can't actually satisfy by being a particularly worthwhile person in real life.

Pure conjecture - sorry, I thought Skeptics were supposed to be a bit more intellectually rigorous that this


If such people exist...there are some people who get pleasure out of having been one of the first people to believe a rumour if that rumour actually turns out to be true...I don't doubt that many of the people quick to believe rumours would try to claim credit for the power of rumour, since the kind of person eager to jump to conclusions is often going to be the kind of person who isn't exactly objective or pessimistic when it comes to assessing their own significance. etc etc

more conjecture



If there were rumours around about abuse by clergy, and then a police investigation started, even if the investigation had started due to a couple of people going to the police for personal reasons (like their child getting to a particular age), or because they'd seen news reports on court cases abroad, or due to a general atmosphere where abuse was discussed more in the media,

yawn


If I want validation, I get it from doing something useful that actually requires intelligence or skill, rather than competing to see how quickly I can think the worst of people in the hope I'll be proved right.

You do realise, I take it, that children were being systematically and horrifically abused by Catholic priests over decades and decades and this was perpetuated because, although the victims, and others who were aware of what was going on were 'prepared to talk' people who didn't want to 'think the worst' were not prepared to listen; in fact they were employing exactly the same lazy and complacent 'reasoning' as you are in this post?

If we're talking about Skeptics being capable of 'confirmation bias' then I rest my case....

[tolman]

You're missing the point. It's not about how many people are 'prepared to talk' it's about how many people are prepared to listen, and how many are willing to give some credence to something that may be uncomfortable to countenance, or may 'go against the grain' in some way
In the case where something actually has happened, and there are one or more victims:

If no-one is going to talk to the police, my rushing to believe rumours seems unlikely to make a difference.
If people are going to talk to the police, my rushing to believe rumours also seems unlikely to make a difference.
It doesn't seem likely that my believing a rumour or not is likely to affect the chances of a victim talking to the police or other agencies.


SO you are quite happy to allow the 'Powers that be' (i.e. Police, Politicians, Media etc.) to be your arbiters of what is a 'cause for concern' and rest assured that if it doesn't appear on the 10 o' clock news there's nothing going on and nothing to worry about? How credulous is that?
I'm happy to let the people who have actually experienced crime be responsible for reporting it, rather than hoping that nth-hand rumours will somehow magically kick the authorities into action.
Especially in the cases of things like sexual abuse, it seems likely that the authorities will do a better job than gossips, especially given the number of people out there with a burning desire to think badly of and look down on other people, and retarded attitudes such as 'no smoke without fire'.


You do realise, I take it, that children were being systematically and horrifically abused by Catholic priests over decades and decades and this was perpetuated because, although the victims, and others who were aware of what was going on were 'prepared to talk' people who didn't want to 'think the worst' were not prepared to listen; in fact they were employing exactly the same lazy and complacent 'reasoning' as you are in this post?
I take it that you realise that the people who weren't prepared to listen were in the first instance, family who assumed priests could do no wrong, coupled with a general attitude in society that didn't realise the extent of abuse that happened?
That's rather different from people hearing some n'th-hand rumour.

If someone comes to me and said they'd personally been abused, I think advising them to report it would be more valuable than starting a rumour.

If I heard an n'th hand rumour that someone I didn't know had been abused, I'd have no basis for working out even very roughly how likely it was to be true unless there was good accompanying evidence, which would make it rather more than a rumour, and also render my belief in it likely rather unimportant, since evidence sufficient to convince me should be able to convince others without needing the support of my Mighty Opinion.

I'm not aware that rumour and gossip was actually the thing that caused things to change in the child abuse area, more the realisation among professionals of what could happen, general media publicity and growing awareness of abuse making it easier for more people to come forward.
After all, when it comes to growing awareness of child abuse, we are rather talking about the time before the masses accessed the internet.

My point is that I don't see the particular value of rumour in most situations.

I don't see rumour as some kind of sport, where I can get a nice warm glow if it turns out that I've been quicker to jump to negative conclusions about someone than the average person was.

I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think that my believing something or not is likely to influence whether someone I've never met goes to the police to report a crime.
I also don't have such a high opinion of myself that I trust myself to reliably jump to conclusions based on evidence rather weaker than might cause proper media to be interested in a story.

A large part of being a skeptic is not having an excessive confidence in one's own judgements.

As for any particular case of an alleged crime, if there isn't sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal investigation, let alone have a trial, and there isn't likely to be, or to justify media coverage, what's the point in my making guesses about the guilt of individuals I'm never likely to meet?
What do I gain, and/or what does anyone else gain?

Assuming it's not just entertainment, or a quest for feelings of outrage and superiority, of course.

[dave]

I think for this debate to go much further it should probably be broadened to encompass the modern social phenomenon of ‘conspiracy theories’ as much of what is being discussed here can be extrapolated into this arena, but for the purposes of discussion, let's stick to the Hollie Grieg case for now.


What we have to consider is the quantity of evidence available vs the quality of evidence we should expect. .

I can agree with that to a point, and much of what you say regarding the Hollie Grieg case in terms of the available evidence, although I still doubt whether the playing field is level…who is to say whether this evidence is what "we should expect"? What criteria are you employing in making your judgment?


It's all very well to say that we wouldn't expect any evidence at all but that's not quite what we see. .

That’s not exactly what I’m saying. Where a conspiracy exists to keep something secret, logic and common sense would lead us to expect to see less reliable evidence, (but not none at all) because the nature of the allegations make it likely that such evidence will have been compromised. My point is that a reliance purely upon the existence of such evidence is inherently fallacious.


We have Hollie's reported testimony. Now I have no right to walk into a police station and ask to see the case file. However Hollie and Anne do have the right to see their own statement. They do have the right to copy that to anyone who they think should see it. For example Mark Daly the respected BBC Journalist. (Now Mark says he dropped the investigation because there wasn't enough evidence to make a case. But then again If he had been threatened or coerced to drop the case that's what he would say wouldn't he. You just have to decide if the journalist behind this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3210614.stm) is easily intimidated by corrupt authorities.) .

So you are asking me to assess this as evidence? It seems to me that this is based purely on conjecture and innuendo. What evidence do you have to prove that there was no coercion? Isn’t this the kettle calling the pot black?


Then there's the medical evidence. We're told one thing and again we have no right to access the medical records ourselves. However Hollie and Anne can.

The medical evidence is in the public domain and has been roundly condemned as circumstantial by all of those who are predisposed to disbelieve the story.

What else might we expect?

Indeed

IN response to my point regarding the nascent stories of child sexual abuse by priests you said…

Sadly you're not narrowing this down. There have been many such stories. In most of them we actually have more than a roumour. We have multiple corroberating statement from independent witnesses.

My point was that these stories were *initially* disbelieved and discredited by those in positions of power who had a vested interest in keeping it all hushed up -ooh look everybody a conspiracy theory! -

*Waits for knock on the door by the men in white coats...doesn't hear anything - carries on typing*

The point I was trying to make is that during the time that this story was emerging, the pattern of denial and ‘confirmation bias’ (to coin a phrase), was well and truly established. It was only the sheer weight of numbers of victims who eventually came forward that made it unviable for the pretence that nothing was awry to be perpetuated any longer. My argument is that the kind of reasoning that is being propagated in some of these posts is uncomfortably similar to that which would have been at play amongst people who were afraid initially to acknowledge that such evil could exist amongst people within whom they had such an enormous emotional investment. The analogy plays out in all sorts of scenarios, including the wider ‘conspiracy theories’ that are so often and so vehemently castigated by people who call themselves Skeptics but are really just terrified of the thought that certain rumours that surface from time to time may just have some grain of truth in them. Even though it should be patently obvious that categorical evidence has not been, and will never be, served up on a platter for all and sundry to analyze and evaluate at their leisure, this fact is never taken into account during the evaluation process of the Skeptic, in fact it is used as a means of denigrating and casting scorn upon such ideas. This is a logical fallacy.

Further to that, I questioned the notion that the establishment of empirical fact is the only dependable path to the establishment of the existence of a crime (or shall we say 'conspiracy'), and you said


Not only, just a tested and reliable way.

I disagree. How do you evaluate this as a means of testing the validity of an accusation of a “Crime or conspiracy” where evidence is scant or such that there is has been compromised or otherwise rendered contentious? In a court of law (and dare I say, in the real world) your methodology would be completely useless.


If you have another methodoly just as good I'll listen. .

As a matter of fact I do; it’s known as basing your judgment upon ‘the balance of probabilities’ - a well established legal convention.


Sounds like a lot of effort to go to just to sleep with children. How much is a ticket to Thailand these days?

For an obviously intelligent individual this is a rather crass thing to say, not to mention very glib and rather naïve.


It's not that I demand hard evidence. It's that I demand at least some credible evidence and will only infer from the evidence provided what is actually implied rather than the rest of a story which may well be manufactured.

But who are you expecting to provide this evidence for you? Aren’t you being overly reliant upon the mainstream media which may possibly be controlled by people who have a vested interest in keeping this quiet? What are your sources for the information that you are so dependent upon to make these judgments? Doesn’t this come to the heart of the matter?

I am intrigued by the inherent dichotomy in the following:


The problem I have is with large pervasive organisations that are perfectly proficient at eliminating all evidence for their existence and activities. It's not even that I insist that all such groups are necessarily fictional. Bletchley Park did a damn good job of covering up operation ultra for three decades whilst employing a staff of thousands and involoving hundreds of ancillaries into the conspiracy.

So are you saying that you believe that “large pervasive organizations…are perfectly proficient at eliminating all evidence for their existence and activities” or that you believe that they are not?

This is important and I would appreciate a considered response.


You're still asserting that we reject this story because it's uncomfortable, rather than because the evidence that supports it is of a lower quality then we'd expect to see even with the most competent of conspiracies working to obscure the facts

Well you have already very helpfully pointed out with the example of Bletchley Park that “the most competent of conspiracies” are capable of repressing information for decades, and quite feasibly, for ever if they so wish. Project ‘Ultra’ did not come out because somebody had too many G&T’s one night and happened to spill the beans, it was leaked into the public domain because it was deemed safe and expedient to do so. So how are you formulating your belief that “the evidence that supports (the Hollie Grieg story) is of a lower quality then we'd expect to see even with the most competent of conspiracies working to obscure the facts.” That doesn’t make sense. If you can concede that a secret organization can be competent enough to remain hidden “whilst employing a staff of thousands and involoving (sic) hundreds of ancillaries into the conspiracy” how do you know that the evidence (or lack thereof) that you cite to support your theories is not merely a manifestation of the pervasiveness and competency of this particular conspiracy? You are basing your judgment purely upon the available evidence, which at face value seems quite conclusive, but how can you be so sure that this is reliable?

All that can be said for certain is that nobody can really know, and that basing your conclusions upon the quality of the available evidence (or evidence that has been made available), and nothing else, can, in my view, be just as short sighted , credulous, and agenda driven as the modus operandi of the so called ‘conspiracy nuts’ who come in for so much stick in these forums.

[tolman]

Well you have already very helpfully pointed out with the example of Bletchley Park that “the most competent of conspiracies” are capable of repressing information for decades, and quite feasibly, for ever if they so wish.
Though, of course, in that case, the people involved:

a) Were [legitimately] threatened with having the full weight of the law fall on them if they spoke out.

b) Had no moral reason to speak out - they could sleep at night with a clean conscience about what they did. They hadn't broken the law or done anything immoral, and had indeed achieved a great deal of good for their country, to a large extent as a result of keeping what they were doing under wraps.

c) Unless they hoped to write a book and expected to get it published, they had nothing to gain from being the first to speak, and might potentially lose the respect of any number of past colleagues (which could be extremely important to them), while having nothing to fear from not being the first to speak out.
By contrast, in criminal cases, someone speaking out early may well benefit from favourable treatment, and would (especially in a large conspiracy) always be worrying that the truth would come out one way or another, and/or that someone else would be the first to rat on their mates, either spontaneously, or after grilling from one or other arm of officialdom. Ex-intelligence workers aren't likely to worry about the police forcing an ex-colleague to tell them everything.

d) Would initially have been highly likely to keep the secret because they knew it was important and that enforcement of secrecy would be vigorous. By the time the war ended, they'd already had lots of practice at not telling people what they were doing. Over time, the importance of the secret may seem to diminish, but by then they'd really have got used to not talking about it, and might also assume that other people's interest would have faded along with the importance of keeping the secret secret.

Indeed, it seems harder to come up with an example that's further away from a sickening criminal conspiracy than an organised top-secret effort to help save one's own country from devastation.

If I knew secrets of Ultra-level importance, what might keep me awake at night would be worries I might have let something slip, not worries that someone else might be spilling the beans before I got a chance to.

Also, there's the recruitment issue.
How many people in WWII would have found the idea of helping their country win the war to be repulsive?

By contrast, if you were trying to forcibly recruit significant number of police or journalists to cover up child abuse, how confident could you be that even one person could be persuaded to help, let alone large numbers?
How do you possibly 'sound someone out' for that kind of function?
How do you keep them loyal, if you've forced them to do things that go against their nature - can you even try and reward them, if any reward you give may well make them feel even dirtier?

If you somehow managed to coerce people into joining the conspiracy, how confident could you ever be that none of them would crack and try to spill the beans before they got too involved, while they could still claim to have not done anything significant?

[Pebble]

The medical evidence is in the public domain and has been roundly condemned as circumstantial by all of those who are predisposed to disbelieve the story.



The medical evidence has not been condemed. Two points have been noted - first that the evidence presented is entirely reassuring - suggesting no evidence of abuse. Second, that the documentation of repeated 'vulvar' examination of a young woman at school indicates that someone was concerned that there might be visible pathology (perhaps evidence of trauma) - but none found.

What is clear from this is the supposed supporting evidence for a Sexually Transmitted Disease - the lynch pin of the case - is not evidence based.

[dave]

Though, of course, in that case, the people involved:

a) Were [legitimately] threatened with having the full weight of the law fall on them if they spoke out.

b) Had no moral reason to speak out - they could sleep at night with a clean conscience about what they did. They hadn't broken the law or done anything immoral, and had indeed achieved a great deal of good for their country, to a large extent as a result of keeping what they were doing under wraps.

c) Unless they hoped to write a book and expected to get it published, they had nothing to gain from being the first to speak, and might potentially lose the respect of any number of past colleagues (which could be extremely important to them), while having nothing to fear from not being the first to speak out.
By contrast, in criminal cases, someone speaking out early may well benefit from favourable treatment, and would (especially in a large conspiracy) always be worrying that the truth would come out one way or another, and/or that someone else would be the first to rat on their mates, either spontaneously, or after grilling from one or other arm of officialdom. Ex-intelligence workers aren't likely to worry about the police forcing an ex-colleague to tell them everything.

d) Would initially have been highly likely to keep the secret because they knew it was important and that enforcement of secrecy would be vigorous. By the time the war ended, they'd already had lots of practice at not telling people what they were doing. Over time, the importance of the secret may seem to diminish, but by then they'd really have got used to not talking about it, and might also assume that other people's interest would have faded along with the importance of keeping the secret secret.

Indeed, it seems harder to come up with an example that's further away from a sickening criminal conspiracy than an organised top-secret effort to help save one's own country from devastation.

If I knew secrets of Ultra-level importance, what might keep me awake at night would be worries I might have let something slip, not worries that someone else might be spilling the beans before I got a chance to.

Also, there's the recruitment issue.
How many people in WWII would have found the idea of helping their country win the war to be repulsive?

By contrast, if you were trying to forcibly recruit significant number of police or journalists to cover up child abuse, how confident could you be that even one person could be persuaded to help, let alone large numbers?
How do you possibly 'sound someone out' for that kind of function?
How do you keep them loyal, if you've forced them to do things that go against their nature - can you even try and reward them, if any reward you give may well make them feel even dirtier?

If you somehow managed to coerce people into joining the conspiracy, how confident could you ever be that none of them would crack and try to spill the beans before they got too involved, while they could still claim to have not done anything significant?

This is just more conjecture and 'what ifs'. If Skeptics expect those who wish to explore the existence of a hidden agenda, for want of a better term, insist on the provision of solid irrefutable evidence before they will even consider a given point of view, how can you attempt to contribute to this debate with this undiluted stream of speculation and totally subjective theorising about what people might do in a particular situation, what their motivations may or may not be, what measures may be in place to coerce or motivate them, and so on and so forth.


Indeed, it seems harder to come up with an example that's further away from a sickening criminal conspiracy than an organised top-secret effort to help save one's own country from devastation.

Just exactly what is it that you feel gives you such a thorough and wide-ranging understanding of the deep seated motivations of, and the pressures to conform upon individuals who may be acting within a 'conspiracy', the very existence of which is by definition shrouded in doubt and mystery? You can't - it's pure speculation! For all we know, the whole thing is indeed "nonsense" after all. If you don't actually know (which ultimately none of us on the outside could) at least have the humility to admit it.

[tolman]

This is just more conjecture and 'what ifs'.
So you're ignoring the clear differences between the workers at Blecthley park and an alleged paedophile ring, not because they're unimportant, but because they're not helpful to your argument.

That's pretty sad, but not entirely unexpected.


Just exactly what is it that you feel gives you such a thorough and wide-ranging understanding of the deep seated motivations of, and the pressures to conform upon individuals who may be acting within a 'conspiracy'
Obviously, you're upset by what I wrote, because you don't actually have anything meaningful to offer in response.

It's clear to anyone who stops to think that conspiracies have to recruit people in order to grow, and to grow to the size that conspiracy theorists get all hot and sticky fantasising about, they have to do a huge amount of recruitment.

It's also clear to anyone who stops to think that while, for example, a 'straight' criminal conspiracy, such as putting together a bank job could be organised by choosing from people already on the wrong side of the law, who share the same goals as the would-be planners, the situation for the conspiracy-theorist's kind of conspiracy is entirely different.
People have to be recruited who are law-abiding, and who don't seem likely to share the aims of the conspirators.
Not only that, but the conspiracy frequently doesn't even have much choice as to who to recruit - if the conspiracy demands that a particular prosecutor or police oficer is involved, they have to be recruited even if they're exactly the wrong kind of person.

That's one of the things which makes the ideas of Grand Conspiracies seem somewhere between implausible and laughable - they have to stay secret, yet be composed of people of whom many not only didn't want to be involved, but who have personal goals which are entirely at odds with the goals of the conspiracy.

Something else that the conspiracists seem to ignore is that since many (most?) people don't think that huge conspiracies exist, that makes it rather harder to coerce those people into co-operation by using the threat of the Power Of The Grand Conspiracy.

[Croydon Bob]

This is just more conjecture and 'what ifs'. If Skeptics expect those who wish to explore the existence of a hidden agenda, for want of a better term, insist on the provision of solid irrefutable evidence before they will even consider a given point of view, how can you attempt to contribute to this debate with this undiluted stream of speculation and totally subjective theorising about what people might do in a particular situation, what their motivations may or may not be, what measures may be in place to coerce or motivate them, and so on and so forth.



Just exactly what is it that you feel gives you such a thorough and wide-ranging understanding of the deep seated motivations of, and the pressures to conform upon individuals who may be acting within a 'conspiracy', the very existence of which is by definition shrouded in doubt and mystery? You can't - it's pure speculation! For all we know, the whole thing is indeed "nonsense" after all. If you don't actually know (which ultimately none of us on the outside could) at least have the humility to admit it.

I don't entirely agree that this is "pretty sad" but it is, typically of this troll, very stupid. A desperate attempt to twist reality and conflate working for the Govt with an evil crime.

I used to know where the SIS and MI5 HQs were in London before the information became publically available, I knew where all the nuclear bunkers were. Thousands of other people like me knew. Probably the press knew and wouldn't have published the information if I had tried to tell them about it. No comparison at all to covering up a paedophile ring. Only a pathetic clueless troll would suggest that there was and then whine about it even after being shown how stupid the comparison was. If you haven't got any arguments or evidence then admit that you are wrong and move on, it's what a skeptic would do.

[tolman]

I must say, the dismissal as 'mere conjecture' of any inconvenient points questioning how ideas of a Grand Conspiracy fit with obvious human nature does seem remarkably reminiscent of a previous instantiation here of a conspiracy nut.

[dave]

So you're ignoring the clear differences between the workers at Blecthley park and an alleged paedophile ring, not because they're unimportant, but because they're not helpful to your argument.

Obviously, you're upset by what I wrote, because you don't actually have anything meaningful to offer in response.

No I'm not upset at all, I'm just pointing out your double standards. If it's not okay for 'conspiracy nuts' to go around making such sweeping assumptions, it is certainly not okay for people like you, who try to portray themselves as members of a lucid, logical and intellectually rigorous group of people who, by virtue of their 'Skeptical' view of the world, are supposed to be able to rise above such nonsense.

Oh dear here we go again...


It's clear to anyone who stops to think that conspiracies have to recruit people in order to grow, and to grow to the size that conspiracy theorists get all hot and sticky fantasising about, they have to do a huge amount of recruitment.

It's also clear to anyone who stops to think that while, for example, a 'straight' criminal conspiracy, such as putting together a bank job could be organised by choosing from people already on the wrong side of the law, who share the same goals as the would-be planners, the situation for the conspiracy-theorist's kind of conspiracy is entirely different.
People have to be recruited who are law-abiding, and who don't seem likely to share the aims of the conspirators.
Not only that, but the conspiracy frequently doesn't even have much choice as to who to recruit - if the conspiracy demands that a particular prosecutor or police oficer is involved, they have to be recruited even if they're exactly the wrong kind of person.

You just can't help yourself can you?


That's one of the things which makes the ideas of Grand Conspiracies seem somewhere between implausible and laughable - they have to stay secret, yet be composed of people of whom many not only didn't want to be involved, but who have personal goals which are entirely at odds with the goals of the conspiracy.

Really? Who told you this? Did you go around interviewing people who believe in 'Grand Conspiracies' or did you make it up all by yourself?


Something else that the conspiracists seem to ignore is that since many (most?) people don't think that huge conspiracies exist, that makes it rather harder to coerce those people into co-operation by using the threat of the Power Of The Grand Conspiracy.

Blah blah blah etc etc etc. These are just assumptions that you are making about the psychological make-up of a group of diverse individuals. Some may be cranks and others may have an insight into the way the world works that you simply cannot begin to understand. The problem here is that you have no way of knowing, you are merely making a series of huge wide-ranging generalisations about a group of people that you know nothing about. Is this the Skeptical approach that we are all supposed to look to as some sort of paradigm of intellectual reasoning? I hope not.

[dave]

Only a pathetic clueless troll would suggest that there was and then whine about it even after being shown how stupid the comparison was.

I think I have already addressed this 'point' in my last post. I will rise above your childish insults as I can't really see how descending to the rhetoric of the school-yard is going to facilitate a rational discussion


If you haven't got any arguments or evidence then admit that you are wrong and move on, it's what a skeptic would do.

I think you're missing the point, particularly regarding the question of evidence. As regards admitting you're wrong, evidently, this is not what many skeptics here would do.

[dave]

I must say, the dismissal as 'mere conjecture' of any inconvenient points questioning how ideas of a Grand Conspiracy fit with obvious human nature does seem remarkably reminiscent of a previous instantiation here of a conspiracy nut.

So what you're actually saying is that somebody else has pointed it out too!

Maybe that's just because that someone else has noticed that the use of such terminology as "obvious human nature" is just that...conjecture based on half-baked generalisations.

It seems to me that the vast majority of what you write is just that...

Perhaps you should think about that before getting all defensive and paranoid.

Or maybe they are all genuinely out to get you!

It could be a conspiracy...

[tolman]

No I'm not upset at all, I'm just pointing out your double standards.
So when you try and claim support for an idea of a large and sickening criminal conspiracy staying secret by asserting similarity with secrecy in national security, it's actually wrong to point out the fairly obvious differences because that relies on 'speculation', even if the speculation is actually making challengeable observations about human nature.

You say 'I think these things are the same', and in your eyes that's a good argument.

I say 'I think these things are different, for these clearly explained reasons', and apparently that's just speculation.
You're quite welcome to explain why my reasons are wrong, giving your take on human nature if you wish, but the fact that you don't seem to want to do that suggests that you don't think you're capable of putting a decent case.


Really? Who told you this? Did you go around interviewing people who believe in 'Grand Conspiracies' or did you make it up all by yourself?
Obviously, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote.
I was explaining one of the reasons why many (most?) people find the idea of Grand Conspiracies to be implausible or laughable.
Fairly obviously, I don't need to interview any conspiracy nuts in order to do that.


These are just assumptions that you are making about the psychological make-up of a group of diverse individuals. Some may be cranks and others may have an insight into the way the world works that you simply cannot begin to understand.
Once more, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote, instead you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
Again, I wasn't talking about conspiracy believers, but about conspiracy non-believers, and the fact that it may be rather hard to use the threat of the power of a Grand Conspiracy to force someone to join in if the person doesn't believe that such things actually exist.

If your performance here is any indication of your skill at reading and assessing evidence, why do you think anyone should actually take you seriously?

You can't even follow a simple conversation without getting confused about what people are saying, or jumping in to criticise people for things they didn't say.

You seem to be one of the last people anyone could trust to give a fair or honest account of an investigation.

If there really are conspiracy believers who have insights into the way the world works far greater than mine, why is it always the useless berks like you that seem to end up trying to argue the case for Great Conspiracies?

[tolman]

Perhaps you should think about that before getting all defensive and paranoid.
I'm not getting paranoid - merely pointing out that your particular response isn't actually novel.

Whether that's because you're a sock puppet of a past loser with no better response than to run away from an argument, or a new loser with the same inability to respond meaningfully, it's not easy to say.

Still, thanks for giving me a laugh.

It's about all people like you are good for.

[Croydon Bob]

Although this troll is apparently far too stupid to understand its own position; it is worth summarising it as it is a good example of the way a typical loony believer operates:

1. Believe something for which there is no evidence on the grounds that there is no evidence against. [An obvious fallacy, as pointed out to the troll, but of course it ignores that.]

2. On being presented with lots of evidence against, dismiss it as not being good enough.

3. Repeat belief in the fiction despite there still being no positive evidence presented.

4. Continue to deny that the evidence against is strong enough to create any doubt in a zero evidence made up story.

5. Whine, lie, ignore, repeat nonsense even after it has been exposed, accuse others of everything that you are doing.

6. Repeat stages 3 to 5 until the smart people get bored.

[Don]

I am impressed by the logical approach taken by Matt, but he is mistaken when he states that Greg Lance-Watkins is "a seasoned paedophile campaigner". He is nothing of the sort.

Watkins is either an attention seeking Walter Mitty figure or else something altogether more sinister. His claims of years fighting against paedophilia are as bogus as his claims of being educated at Cambridge and Sandhurst. His cv consists of a long running vendetta against UKIP leadership (whom he formerly supported), publicly applauding the assassination of Swedish politician Anna Lindh and bizarre claims that Gordon Brown has "an enthusiasm for under-age rent boys" and that Brown's wife was paid £250K to marry him.

[Don]

A few facts on the Hollie Greig case.

Within days of Hollie naming prominent citizens among her abusers her mother, Anne, was sectioned. Anne engineered a release within a few days and shortly afterwards was pronounced perfectly sane by an independent psychiatrist.

Following the police "investigation" Anne complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Below are some extracts from their report.

The CICA wrote to Detective Inspector V on 12 September 2003 requesting information prior to the hearing. Detective Inspector V wrote back to the CICA on 24 September 2003 stating that X had been examined by Dr P who had found evidence of penetration of X’s private parts. He stated:
"The investigating officer at this time, and others who have conducted further enquiry since, were all of the opinion that [X] had been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse at some point in the past…Although further enquiries were carried out, there was never a sufficiency of corroborative evidence to make prosecution of any viable person…I have now reviewed [X’s] case in some detail, and have spoken to officers concerned. The position, as far as I can determine it, is that there seems a sufficiency of evidence to accept, on the balance of probability, that [X] was sexually abused, and that this has included penetration of her private parts. Given that [X], because of her disabilities, has been closely supervised throughout her life, the perpetrator is most likely to have been someone close to her who had regular, unsupervised access."

Complaint 6 - That Detective Sergeant F failed to carry out proper enquiry into allegations of sexual abuse of X.
The complainer asserted in her statement of complaint taken on 23 March 2006 that Detective Sergeant F did not pursue any proper enquiry into the individuals identified by X as having sexually abused her. The complainer stated that she informed Detective Sergeant F of the connections between the individuals X had named but that he did not appear interested.
Superintendent J stated that he had contemporary checks carried out on police systems regarding the individuals named by X and confirmed that at the time of Detective Sergeant F’s check there was nothing present on the systems to support any of the complainer’s suspicions.
Superintendent J concluded in the Subject Report that the force had a consistent and transparent rationale for not pursuing enquiries into the allegations made by X about a range of individuals, which was documented in reports to senior officers and to the Procurator Fiscal, who could have instructed further enquiries to be conducted.