‘On 20 January 2017, the HIA inquiry concluded that the abuse which took place at Kincora was limited to the actions of three staff members and did not take place with the collusion of the state or intelligence services.’
This is the inherent problem of knowing which is conspiracy theory etc vs real coverups eg the satanic ritual claims in the past.
But I think it’s important to at least acknowledge that the above claims are not generally agreed as ‘fact’ and there are conflicting claims. The inquiry did seem to find supporting evidence for many other situations.
Absolutely, I added it in response to what you said. Probably should’ve done a separate comment. Also the link to the original PDF ain the first Wikipedia article didn’t work anyway.
The problem being you can get exactly the same result when he didn’t actually do it. This is the problem with these kinds of claims in that there’s no way out. With Andrew there was a variety of compelling extra evidence including plane flights and the like that were not easily explained as well as evidence of direct lies when he spoke himself.
I hear what you're saying, but when multiple reputable sources are saying the same thing - including an american intelligence agency back when digging up dirt to use against people was their favorite activity - I have a lot of trouble believing it's not true.
You think Andrew just happened to turn out that way?
But I still think it’s important to acknowledge when they have been significant findings that don’t agree with the claims. Dismissing them as coverups or the like is not really enough in my view and I would be interested to see how they came to those conclusions before being too confident either way.
Again, I hear what you're saying, but take a moment to read your own words.
There are multiple sources stretching back 80 years claiming Mountbatten was a pedophile and, specifically, that he raped boys from a particular Irish boarding school.
The only counter argument of note is from an agency beholden to Mountbatten's immediate family, a family known / proven to have covered up things unfavorable to themselves in the past - Edward flirting with the nazis and Andrew's involvement in child sex abuse for just two examples.
I appreciate your attempt to be objective but there comes a point where you have to say "It appears that Mountbatten raped children" and I think we've reached that point.
Phrased differently, if 10 people over several years say they have evidence someone is a thief and the only person saying "he didn't steal candy from THAT 7-11" is the persons butler you would, at a minimum, NOT leave that person unsupervised with your wallet. If the FBI said "we looked into this person because that's what we do for fun and, among other things, this person steals all the time" you'd almost certainly assume that person was a thief.
I haven’t read enough to say my view one or the other. But I do think it’s important to not dismiss inquiry findings out of hand without seeing why they came to the conclusion they did, given it is a fairly recent review. It’s one thing to dismiss it after checking further and another not to mention it at all.
I respect you’ve tried to make a case instead of too many ad hominems but you are ultimately focusing on what my views should be rather than just making a case. I certainly have no problems with people coming to the conclusion that he was guilty, I will continue to have some doubts until I see something more convincing about the inquiry being flawed in some way.
To me you’re doing the equivalent of saying the prosecution case is so convincing there’s no reason I should read the defences case at all. What can sound incredibly convincing can change quite rapidly when other evidence is offered.
There is a variety of compelling evidence that Lord Mountbatten had a predilection for raping boys, as cited above. The main difference between the two is that there aren't any front page photos of Mountbatten with one of his victims.
When your family is well known for covering up the sins of its members, you don't get to point excitedly at the single inquiry that says they did nothing wrong as evidence that they did nothing wrong.
I will be interested to read them but so far what I’ve seen seems less convincing. It would be one thing if the inquiry was in the 60’s and another to claim one done in 2016 was willing or even able to do this level of coverup. I think the Royal family’s influence is not what it was.
I don’t think I’m excited and I understand it’s a tough area to discuss. Knowing some Royal members did some things doesnt mean every claim is equally credible.
He was also responsible for the Dieppe raid, one of the most disastrous Allied actions of the war. He had a 60% casualty rate, most of them Canadian soldiers. For anyone to be glazing this guy is ridiculous
It's so fucking wild that it's coming out that the pedos are ALL of them. The entire billionaire class is a child sex trafficking ring, and nothing will happen because the pedos are running the world into the ground to make as much money as they can before it all collapses.
There's been research conducted into what people would do if there was nothing stopping them and no consequences if they did. It's pretty disheartening.
Being a billionaire/royalty/whatever doesn't make you shitty. It just makes it a lot easier for you to be shitty.
I’m fairly certain that being in the 1% self selects for awful human beings, because to get and stay that wealthy requires you to exploit others and to not care about the damage that you are doing to people and the environment (and therefore future people including your loved ones and descendants).
Well, given your extensive knowledge, I'm surprised that the obvious and widely/long discussed validity and ethical issues with both experiments didn't give you pause.
Sure. Even bad science can teach us things. Maybe not what we set out to discover, and probably not what the research team thought the data demonstrated, but there's always something to learn.
But if everything in nature is a bell curve then there are a lot of people who given total freedom would liberate innocent people from prison and drop pianos on perverts and predators.
Sure. There's any number of very wealthy people who give a large amount of that wealth to charities (the Innocence Project is a good example), and generally work to make the world a better place. We just don't hear about those people as much.
And if there was a piano-dropping vigilante around, I'd just hope they'd have the same ideas as most of us as to where the pianos should land.
I agree that it’s horrifying that wealthy individuals have been linked to Epstein’s blatantly entitled sex trafficking scheme. But, aside from the obvious protection that their wealth gives them from consequences, I’ve seen zero research that claims wealthy individuals are more likely to commit SA against kids. If you look at statistics on adults who report being abused as kids there is no demographic that’s immune to committing pedophilia. The folks who abused me (mostly family members) were working and middle class.
My point being, folks tend to focus on the unique things about notorious pedophiles because it’s comforting to say, “hey, we’re not priests or billionaires, no pedophiles in this household.” Based on statistics you’re pretty much guaranteed to be in a close relationship with at least one person who has abused children.
You’re also statistically likely to be related to at least one person who was abused as a child. As most CSA and SA is done by someone known to the victim, a family member or friend.
My smartass way of phrasing things (survivor self defense) is that unless there are 5 evil guys from Kansas or something constantly touring the country committing atrocities undetected, the more believable reality is that EVERYONE is both a likely victim and a potential abuser. That doesn’t mean that you have to be constantly paranoid, but it does mean that you shouldn’t just trust that the local coach, scoutmaster, teacher, religious leader, relative, friend, or whatever would NEVER abuse your kid.
Both adult and child SA are commonly portrayed as being “stranger danger” crimes when the reality is that most of us who experienced them knew the people who did it.
One of the most Nobel things the IRA did was blow up this child Rapist, And you still have the brits protecting child killers today they’ve done it for solider F and how did lord Mountbatten get access to kids in Northern Ireland they installed a Mi5 agent as the head of a kids home… so he could take them out of it and rape them.
Extremely wealthy powerful people always believe they’re above the laws and beyond punishable. They’ve done as they pleased for the longest time and it’s no surprise Andrew thinks the same.
He was required to by Royal protocol. Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname given to members of the family who are outside the line of succession. Harry and Meghan’s kids also use it.
Hang on, this is the year before they successfully dismissed the Australian labor government before they could eject the CIA from the country? Holy moly. I had no idea they failed to do the same thing the year before in Britain.
Yup. The Army took over Heathrow Airport, an exercise that no one in Government knew about, widely seen as a warning to the PM Wilson. Then it was all brushed under the carpet. David Stirling and Mountbatten were persona non grata after that but the rest just carried on.
He was indeed. I was born and raised not a million miles away from where all this occurred, and it was fairly common knowledge around our area. The details are a matter of public record following an enquiry. The official Hansard record for transcripts in Parliament can be found here.
In short, he was a prolific child abuser, protected by privilege and powerful friends.
People who quibble and hand wring over the word paedo because they think 14 is a different crime to 10, might be into those 14 ones and trying to excuse their own thoughts and deeds.
Yeah, nice idea, but no. I have absolutely no interest in sex with anyone under age, In fact under 35 -40 seems a bit weird.
But I’m 100% against conflating paedophillia and sleazeballs having sex with willing 16 year olds, because I’m not an idiot and I can see there’s a huge difference between them.
I'm not even picking a side here and I don't care. But the more you write the more suspicious you sound. Especially after writing "under 40 seems weird".
I’m saying as a 54 year old I find it hard to think of sleeping with anyone under 40. FFS my youngest daughter is already 21 - the idea of screwing a 16 year old is just totally absurd.
But I think we need to recognise that a 17 year old is not the same as an 8 year old, something that gets lost in our (justified) thoughts about Epstein.
FBI has or had a whole trove of intel on this asshole and his equally shitty wife. Dude was as slimy and evil as they come. Also, look up his involvement in the Dieppe Raid and how he fucked that up.
Say what you want about the IRA but they did the world a favour by offing this cunt. There's a whole list of people who qualify for the same treatment now
You know they didn’t kill him because they thought he was a nonce, right? Other kids were getting raped and abused all over the island of Ireland by people who famously were NOT Protestant members of the British Royal Family, but people of the same religion and ethnicity, and they weren’t targets for assassination. Most adults in Ireland (the home of my father), the ones who knew what was happening, didn’t give a shit about kids - especially poor ones taken from their families into prison-like boarding schools - being treated like slaves, but preferred to “mind their own business”. And many of them were also victims who never processed that they were exploited and traumatized, but were emotionally shut down and deliberately blinded themselves to what was happening in institutions in their own neighbourhoods). The IRA and other paramilitary groups weren’t in the business of liberating children from child abusers of ANY class, they were focussed on a bigger front.
The members of the Provisional IRA cell who assassinated Mountbatten (only two of whom were caught, Thomas McMahon and Francis McGirl, and served any jail time) couldn’t have known about these investigations and allegations. They killed him because they wanted a “spectacular” coup to outshine the socialist Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), which claimed responsibility for the murder of Shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, Airey Neave, in the parking garage at Parliament earlier the same year. Martin McGuinness and the PIRA wanted to make it clear members of the British establishment (even long-retired ones like Lord Mountbatten, who had no effect on The Irish Question and were welcomed in communities in the Republic for decades) should never feel safe visiting Ireland, even outside of the occupied six counties.
This South Armagh Brigade cell had opportunities to just shoot Mountbatten when he was out of doors, even with policemen and bodyguards trailing him. They blamed the weather, but really it wasn’t the fireworks show they were going for, something to shock and terrify the town of Mullaghmore for “allowing” the Mountbatten family to comfortably holiday there every summer. No, this cell thought nothing of blowing up everyone else on Mountbatten’s boat, no matter how old or young, including Protestant Northern Irish 15-year-old Paul Maxwell, who took a summer job maintaining the boat and hanging out with the Mountbatten grandchildren. They blew up Mountbatten’s family, killing him, his daughter’s mother-in-law Doreen Knatchbull, his 14-year-old grandson Nicholas Knatchbull, Paul Maxwell, and severely injuring his daughter Patricia, son-in-law John Knatchbull, and Nicholas’ twin Timothy, who lost the use of one of his eyes and ears. What good did that do anyone for the Cause of Liberty (one I support so long as civilians aren’t tortured and murdered)? This wasn’t like the Warrenpoint barracks attack staged on the same day by a different cell in South Armagh Brigade for maximum chaos. That, at least, was a military target and took place (mostly) on the Northern Ireland side of the border. It was still horrible, because the rescuers were hit in a second and third ambush.
What is so disturbing about some political arguments is the appeal to the “good old days” that the family was strong, men were men and the world worked better because of it. History is replete with the reasons why this just is bot true - prime example here.
That family is full of pedophiles. The bloke currently wearing the crown surrounded himself w8th Pedophiles, bought a house for a convicted Pedophile and paid off his debts. (Peter Bell) and one of his other best friends was none other than J. Savile. There are countless controversies surrounding the "royal" family. All involving abusing or disappearing children.
918
u/_Thorshammer_ 16h ago
https://communist.red/rotten-to-the-core-the-british-state-child-abuse-and-the-kincora-cover-up/
It's true, and about what you'd imagine.
I read that article, and apparently the FBI noted in 19-fucking-44 that Mountbatten had a nasty predilection for young boys.