Motorists, Equity & Unity Party Published and promoted by the Motorists Equity & Unity Party, 123B Southfield, POLEGATE BN26 5LZ Motorists, Equity & Unity Party © 2004 -2017

The Daily Scapegoat -                 Celebrities

   In recent documents by Mark Williams Thomas, had he considered whether or not some of the complainants may have been stimulated by the publication of Jimmy Savile’s estate ?

   Had he ever considered engaging the services of a psychologist to interview these claimants before dragging TV personalities names through the mud on their (complainants) say-so ?    In the present credit crunch situation it must surely be tempting to make a claim, particularly since, in the case of Jimmy Savile, he is no longer around to defend himself.

   I’m sure that TV viewers would like to see some of these cases, particularly those that were mentioned in despatches relating to Stoke Mandeville hospital.     Surely if the patients could be interviewed off camera by a qualified psychologist (preferably appointed by the government) then the assertions that Mark made would hold more water.    

   In at least two of the recent cases appearing in the newspapers, two of those are deceased and therefore publishing of any material is not likely to lead to libel cases -  much safer ground for the newspaper editors.



     Music Icons of the 40’s and 50’s are now being destroyed by certain members of our society and pursued by  Yewtree , the police watchdogs.   There appears to be an obsession with SEX at the present time.    The latest is a retired priest that apparently had some kind of relationship with boys and girls when he was 23 years old.   It’s taken 50 years for these complaints to emerge.   Why so long ?    

   Whenever sex raises it ugly head there is usually some explanation.    Not quite the BLACK & WHITE that some would have us believe.    Whether it be Man & Women or choir boys etc... it takes two to tango.   The impression given by the ‘holier than thou’ Yewtree brigade is that there is only one guilty party.

    In the case of Choir Boys, why did they keep going back for more ?    Why didn’t they stay away ?

    Is there a financial angle to their complaints.   Do they have difficulty paying their mortgages or outstanding credit card debts ?

    Some recent cases, the police were not naming the individuals accused, but the Home Secretary stated that she wanted absolute TRANSPARENCY, meaning that she wanted the accused named in the media, regardless of whether they were guilty or not guilty.


   With all these case reported in the media, it would appear that people are GUILTY until proven innocent.  The exact opposite of English law which claims Innocent until Proven guilty.    

   It would be impossible to prove a negative, if someone is accused of being a paedophile.   How would they go about disproving it ?   By stopping doing something they have never done in the first place ?

UPDATE - Friday 6th September - 2013

    One of the major problems with these claims against celebrities is that the claimant is protected by our laws to not have their names published [1].   Also, in many of the cases the claimant speaks from behind a curtain, the most recent example being the case being heard against Michael Le Vell (Kevin Webster in Coronation Street).

   We have (the court) been told that the accuser didn’t tell the mother of the relationship until she was ‘16’, ten years after the said relationship started, when she was ‘6’ years old.   A quote from the Daily Mirror, Wednesday 4th September, “The tearful mum of the girl Michael Le Vell allegedly raped told a jury yesterday she believed her daughter had been ‘molested and abused on a regular basis’ “.


   Two questions come to mind - firstly, who told the 17 year old girl to say that she didn’t tell her mother for 10 years.   The prosecuting lawyer, Eleanor Laws Q.C., or the mother.    If the offences took place, it beggars belief that this continued for 10 years without the mother knowing.    If the mother knew of the said relationship, then she is guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal relationship, in which case she should also be in the dock.   If the relationship took place, did she receive any money or presents during this time of the said relationship.    Where is the father in this family, or is the mother a ‘single mother’ ?    Where did the mother and daughter live in terms of distance from the abode of the accused, Michael Le Vell ?    Did they live in a block of flats or houses in close proximity to each other ?    How was this illicit relationship able to prosper without any neighbours or the mother knowing about it, particularly when the girl was ‘6’ years old.

   It would seem to me that the newspapers that like to cover these cases have some work to do to answer my questions which are highly relevant if the abuses took place, since we are expected  (including the jury) to believe the statements of the mother and daughter without any clear idea of how the relationship could have prospered over such a long period unless the mother was implicated.   No doubt some will pipe up and say the mother isn’t on trial.    I would argue that there is an equally strong case for the mother to answer if she knew of this relationship.

Pete Sayers, Psych. Nurse (retired)

[1]  The accusers in these paedophile cases (female) could be the next door neighbours daughter or the pupil sitting next to you at school 40 or 50 years ago (!) and you most probably wouldn’t know because their name was changed when they were married.   Perhaps, in order to have a level playing field, the maiden name of the claimants could be published.    The celebrities who are being accused are being severely damaged whilst the accusers remain totally anonymous; so much for TRANSPARENCY.

    Perhaps it is for this very reason that there are so many claims against the celebrities, particularly if they are deceased.                                            

Page 31

Paedophilia - Cases by the busload