Deeper and deeper the rabbit hole goes. Now it seems that John Simpson tried to out a paedophile broadcaster, not JS, and was thwarted and informed of the appropriate spin to put on things – BBC style spin, that is. It seems this particular BBC paedo may have been Uncle Mac. the children’s broadcaster.
There is surely enough evidence to warrant an investigation into the behaviour of BBC bosses to discover exactly who prevented the stories getting out. We need names. Why was it so important to protect paedos? Did things go much deeper? Did others at the BBC fear being outed themselves? What possible ground would any reasonable person have for protecting paedos?
One online comment referred to the fact that the BBC removes climate change deniers while protecting paedos. A valid point? I think so. And all this being carried out with the use of viewers’ money, the charge we are compelled to pay – for no good reason. The British Brainwashing Corporation has finally lost all credibility.
Meanwhile, a 24 year old man who had sex (oral and anal) with a 13 year old girl is deemed, by a psychologist, to be not paedohile. What is going on?http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/2012/10/14/man-who-had-sex-with-13-year-old-girl-does-not-have-paedophile-tendencies-says-psychologist-sex-at-13-the-new-normal-it-seems/
The average parent is treated with suspicion by government. This goes as far as banning cameras on school outings etc. Yet when high profile personalities are accused of child abuse the system protects them. Why would that be? Could it be because child abuse exists at the highest levels and any investigations could expose high level civil servants, police, members of the judiciary and politicians?
Remember we have been told that governments love child abusers – the perfect puppets. This is why we need thorough investigations into any accusations, Savile, Uncle Mac, whoever.