domhnallolubhlai.com/

Same pattern again and again isn't it?
Position of power/influence every time.

Obviously, I hadn't heard of this guy or the allegations, but there are a few stories about this in the press today:

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ca...llegations-1.1361259

I understand how psychopathy works and all that, but it's still hard to understand how people (or should I say 'men'? What percentage of paedophiles / abusers are female?) can do this sort of thing.

We have seen some news about women who also abuse kids although they do seem to be in the minority.
Whether that is actually the case or not is hard to tell as there could be other factors at play.
For starters women are less likely to have had influential positions but thats changing recently ofc.

I often hear offhand comments like 'women drivers' for example, insurance companies offer them cheaper insurance than men, yet the statistics clearly show that men and women are just about equally bad drivers
Women might tend to be involved in slower accidents and ofc fewer accidents (cos theres less of 'em) however when taken as a whole its about the same.
Whats not analyzed is the amount of miles driven to proportion of accidents unfortunately
Only truck/bus companies are going to have any data on that and anyone who can drive a bus or truck regardless of gender is going to be a far far better driver than your average car driver.

I don't know anything about car insurance except that it's a scam! The reason I'm interested in the gender issue is that when the UK riots were happening, lots of commentators came out and made comments about "young people", whereas I would say at least 95% of those involved were male. That's an incredibly conservative estimate, it would probably be nearer to 99% in reality. So my view is that if you're not going to tackle things head on the way that they actually are then you can't get to the bottom of it.

This is a totally different issue, but I would just be interested to see if it's possible to cite significant incidences of female paedophilia. I know there have been some women involved in sexual abuse cases, but I don't want to fall into the same trap of saying 'people', if it's inaccurate. Definitely the power element plays a huge part, and 'people' that are drawn to those roles seem to be more vulnerable to this behaviour. But as far as I'm aware we haven't had a high profile case where the person is female. It's a fair point that in statistical terms you would expect the majority to be male, but I'm not sure that's enough to explain it, and if we want to get to the bottom of it then I think you at least have to acknowledge what you're dealing with.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100401180245AAIVltv

From the above list someones provided there, they all seem to be teachers.
So again, position in society enabling them to take advantage.

I'm guessing the female pedos are invariably teachers because its an easy job to get in to.

There are ofc many male pedos who are also teachers but its interesting to see how only recently media celebs and politicians are getting noticed.

Why did Thatcher meet Savile so often for example? Surely she (it lol) knew all too well what he was all about.

EDIT: Check this out BTW- www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929...ed-2-months-ago.html

Freaky or what?

Yes, it's all very strange. I haven't paid that much attention to this issue in general. I'm not sure why, really, I suppose it doesn't affect me as directly as some other people, and I just feel that we'll never get to the bottom of it, and no-one will ever be held to account over it.

The way I see it, is that authoritarians already have something wrong with their brains.
Its a mental illness and ought to be treated as such.

Normal people just do not give a shit about being in positions of power over others or famous etc.
We just don't get off on it, if anything we abhor it. We avoid it.

I'd like to see a link between authoritarian mentality and pedos
I'll put in a request to Robert Altemeyer lol
home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality
'These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex'

I really do believe this is important and something overlooked.

andyh wrote: You see, I find the anti-intellectualism quite significant, because whenever I've met anyone of that nature it's impossible to reason with them. They actually cannot engage in reasoned argument at all, if they attempt to do so they just end up repeating the same thing over and over again, or getting angry, or both.

It's quite an interesting time to consider this as we're all waiting for 'the authorities' to tell us what's happened in Boston. Naturally, 'the authorities' can be trusted to get to the bottom of it. And it seems that people's trust in 'the authorities' will never dissipate, no matter how much they get fucked over by the same 'authorities'.

Quite correct yep

If you check the thumbed down negative comments on the MaggieT and Savile link news article you'll see some primary examples.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929...ed-2-months-ago.html

DON'T YOU DARE EVEN THING TO TRY AND LINK LADY THATCHER WITH SAVILLE DM, DON'T EVEN GO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- pickle, marlow, 28/12/2012 1:30
Click to rate Rating 465Report abuse
What a colourful character he was though despite his short comings. It's just a pity the way things turned out after his passing.
- bille1319, portrush, 28/12/2012 1:59
Click to rate Rating 320Report abuse
What about all the good things Savile did?
- Stonkintime, Bristol, United Kingdom, 28/12/2012 12:17
Click to rate Rating 188Report abuse
DON'T YOU DARE EVEN THING TO TRY AND LINK LADY THATCHER WITH SAVILLE DM, DON'T EVEN GO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - pickle, marlow

---

Well said.
- Greg, London, 28/12/2012 8:15
Click to rate Rating 171Report abuse
Captain Nonsense is alive and well and living in Gt Britain. What a load of paranoid garbage some people spout. All politicians try to ally themselves with the celebritys of the day. Are some of you seriously suggesting that Thatcher was implicated in some way with what the lunatic So-vile was up to, or condoned a cover up of it. you read too much internet drivel. Try not eating so much cheese before bed time you plonkers.
- jack Union, england or is it, United Kingdom, 28/12/2012 15:45
Click to rate Rating 165Report abuse
Oh come on DM! Savile has been unmasked as a vile abuser who was taken in by most of the population. I am entirely sure that Mrs Thatcher didn't collude in any of his revolting activities and it is entirely disingenuous of you to to suggest such ANY SUCH THING in this article. If parts of the correspondence have been redacted or censored, I am quite sure it is for some other reason! I'm equally sure that nobody is 'raising questions' about the content apart from YOU!
- Chronicler, London, United Kingdom, 28/12/2012 1:05
Click to rate Rating 153Report abuse
Maggie Maggie the greatest
- Martin, Sittingbourne, United Kingdom, 28/12/2012 9:01
Click to rate Rating 136Report abuse
Jimmy comes across as quite a common man who has done rather well for himself but with his head all over the place.
- rosemary, derby, United Kingdom, 28/12/2012 15:27
Click to rate Rating 135Report abuse
Margaret Thatcher was a great woman and any suggestion she had knowledge of SoVILE is merely a reflection of the character of the person(s) making such an assertion/inference !
- Yvonne, Caen, 28/12/2012 7:04
Click to rate Rating 131Report abuse
Poor Maggie, another duped by this truly evil man.
- Dragonhead, Wellington, 28/12/2012 3:33
Click to rate Rating 129

In the past these would have been thumbed up not down but things are changing, even for the hapless daily hate mail.

andyh wrote: There are some plus points then! I have noticed that virtually everyone that is positive about Thatcher will say three things:

"Very formidable woman, blah, blah, blah..."
"She changed Britain...". Yeah, we can agree there, did she change it for the better? If so, in what way?
"She was the greatest post-war political figure, blah, blah, blah..."

It's never anything about what she actually did, it's never any rational arguments, it's just their impression about her power and personality. I heard someone state that you get a virtually equal split between those that are attracted to socio/psychopaths, those that are indifferent, and those that are repulsed by them. Hopefully some of the indifferent ones are becoming less so!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yep thats another important point.
Complete and utter delusion. No facts or figures, nothing to reference just their own inferred opinion...sometimes not even that...just some delusional opinion based on no input whatsoever!

'If parts of the correspondence have been redacted or censored, I am quite sure it is for some other reason!'

^Classic delusion and total faith in authority.

andyh wrote: I really see the Royal family as epitomising this. The people that do the PR for them are geniuses, but it really is beyond me how people could possibly have any positive feelings about them.

I have some positive feelings about the royal family if i am going to be honest, but I suppose those feelings are part of my love of history. Not sure if that describes accurately what I mean. I am not keen on being 'ruled' whether it be a monarchy or president - I also would not swap my life for that of a royal for a second - i like my privacy and what little freedom I have too much.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I guess its a sliding scale, its most effective with people who are already ill educated and disadvantaged and chemically dumbed down (possible feedback loop here with parents+peers who are also effected) .

I think once you are aware of propaganda and alternatives to authoritarianism then there's no turning back.
Its a bit like trying to hold a balloon under water, one slip and it pops right up.

thoreau wrote: I don't have anything against them personally, I just find all the flag waving stuff to be ludicrous, or when someone says something like "the queen's a nice person" as if they actually know her.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Precisely, yep!
/nods vigorously.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
couldnt agree more - we can never 'know' the royal family - the queen could be an utter bastard or she could be a lovely lady same goes for all of them - as an institution monarchy does seem outdated and dare I say it a little like 'performing monkeys'' trooped out to perform to earn money and contracts for the country, nurture patriotism and distract from the shenanigans of parliament. But for some reason I feel the need to preserve them much like I do stonehenge - which does not say a lot for me really as they are fellow humans not an inanimate object.

thoreau wrote: Well, I totally disagree (not about Stonehenge!), but it's much easier to put forward opinions that you know people will agree with than not, so I would disagree that it says not a lot for you.

thoreau wrote:
preserve them all you like,just take all the privileges away,where you have privileged you have under privileged.