JJ FYI the judge in the US has ordered that any reference to Prince Andrew be removed from the record regarding the “under-age prostitution” allegations. It was always just a publicity stunt from the lawyers.

@kimbers, all part of it. A bit harsh of me to describe the victims groups in that way but there you go. So we get someone from New Zealand instead. May was very forthright in setting up the enquiry, she didn’t have to do it, she elected to do so. May has been outstanding in this regard.

I did ask for evidence “all those months ago” and as usual you failed to provide anything at all.

And a newspaper article asking lots of questions like “was this man murdered to cover up….etc”
still doesn’t constitute evidence

If they ask a question in a headline, it means that the article won’t contain any evidence that will prove the answer.

You do realise that don’t you ?

I’m not saying nothing happened. But you don’t have any evidence that it did either.

That’s your problem, you are happy to make accusations of individuals without understanding what real evidence actually looks like.

It undermines your credibility and makes people believe everything you claim is incorrect. If there is enough of you doing the same thing, That weakens public opinion that these things actually need investigating.

Coming from someone who said that about May that is pretty damning JHJ as even the fringe voices of STW think your views are bonkers

Pretty sure we all said these words meant what the dictionary said when you asked us what they meant….imagine not remembering something 😯
Were you pictured with the Queen earlier today by any chance?

Hmm, perhaps you can dig up the thread to prove your claims…

Also seem to remember you both went a bit conspiracy mental and accused me outright of being kaesae…

either way, that is a minor point, what is evident is that today’s allegations have sufficient gravity to pass the verification required for broadcast on a credible news programme, and is also sufficient to receive the backing of many Northern Irish Politicans (thankfully, not everyone is bad) as well as Amnesty International.

This from Channel 4 shows there is growing evidence for the involvement of MI5 in these matters Which, combined with similar accounts surrounding Cyril Smith, Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square among others, certainly has sufficient gravity for further investigation.

As regards the Lambeth case, there is much to suggest Bulic Forsythe was killed because he was set to reveal those involved in abuse in Lambeth, abuse on a very disturbing scale, said to be linked to a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet.

Though there may not be material evidence linked to the killing (evidence of the abuse, as discussed and refuted in the initial thread is clearly sufficient for it to be reported), the other evidence is sufficient to make national news… whether the same level of evidence would stand up in a courtroom would depend on many variables, such as the judge, the defence, the prosecution, the jury.

As cases such as OJ Simpson show, even a vast amount of evidence can be manipulated away with sufficient financial influence…

(As an aside, that reminds me, Alan Dershowitz, who has been named as an abuser in the Jeffrey Epstein case was on OJ Simpson’s defence team… why didn’t Prince Andrew take the opportunity to refute the claims against him under oath?)

I struggle to recall any instance where an article alone has been sufficient to prove beyond all doubt the culpability of a case and pass sentence, but they often have sufficient background to spur further inquiry.

Yes. Here it is.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/credible-and-verifiable-evidence

You asked what Credible and Verifiable Evidence meant.

I told you, that the words you don’t understand can be found in a dictionary, that would give the definitions you needed.

Do you need any other help remembering things ?

What is evident from that, is that the Credible News Program have verified that allegations have been made.

They are not commenting on wether those allegations have “sufficient Gravity” to be true, because they can’t verify that.

I think that’s the bit you don’t understand.

Really? Just like the allegations made against Paul Gambaccini? ‘Gravity’ means nothing, they’re allegations and confirm nothing as fact.

Like the allegations made against Jimmy Savile then, or the allegations made against Rolf Harris… yes, some will be without firm basis, but many others will be factual~

If allegations such as this are made:

1) Allegation of a potential cover up around failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offences in South London and further information about criminal allegations against a politician being dropped.

2) Allegation that an investigation involving a proactive operation targeting young men in Dolphin Square, was stopped because officers were too near prominent people.

3) Allegation that a document was found at an address of a paedophile that originated from the Houses of Parliament listing a number of highly prominent individuals (MPs and senior police officers) as being involved in a paedophile ring and no further action was taken.

4) Allegation that an account provided by an abuse victim had been altered to omit the name of a senior politician.

5) Allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring, in which a number of people were convicted, did not take action in relation to other more prominent individuals

6) Allegations that a politician had spoken with a senior MPS officer and demanded no action was taken regarding a paedophile ring and boys being procured and supplied to prominent persons in Westminster in the 1970s.

7) Allegation that in the late 1970s a surveillance operation that gathered intelligence on a politician being involved in paedophile activities was closed down by a senior MPS officer.

8 ) Allegation that a dossier of allegations against senior figures and politicians involved in child abuse were taken by Special Branch officers.

9) Allegations that a surveillance operation of a child abuse ring was subsequently shut down due to high profile people being involved.

10) Allegations of child sex abuse against a senior politician and a subsequent cover-up of his crimes.

11) Allegations that during a sexual abuse investigation a senior officer instructed the investigation be halted and that that order had come from ‘up high’ in the MPS.

12) Allegation of a conspiracy within the MPS to prevent the prosecution of a politician suspected of offences.

13) Allegations against a former senior MPS officer regarding child sex abuse and that further members of the establishment including judges were involved. It is claimed that no further action was taken.

14) Allegation that police officers sexually abused a boy and carried out surveillance on him. Further allegations of financial corruption in a London borough police force.

Or these…

An allegation that a child abuse investigation in central London gathered evidence against MPs, judges, media entertainers, police, actors, clergy and others. The file was submitted to start proceedings against those identified and, it is alleged, two months later an officer was called in by a senior Met officer and told to drop the case

Two allegations about police actions during a child abuse investigation in the 1980s. Further details of these have not been given

The IPCC is also assessing a further six referrals it has received from the Met Police relating to “similar matters”.

It certainly seems prudent to pursue them…

what’s more, given the extent of alleged prior cover up, it seems wise to ensure as many people know about it as possible, to ensure sufficient scrutiny to prevent further cover up.

Discussing these matters may be unsavoury, but it’s necessary if we are to expose the truth, whatever it may be.

Well this is very true but your comment on the previous page :

“May was very forthright in setting up the enquiry, she didn’t have to do it, she elected to do so. May has been outstanding in this regard”

is rather bizarre.

You claim that Theresa May has been “outstanding” with regards to setting up the inquiry and yet Theresa May herself has felt the need to apologise :

Theresa May Apologises For Resignation Of Fiona Woolf, Second Chairwoman Appointed To Child Sex Abuse Inquiry

Kimbers might have exaggerated the point but your claim that the person responsible for something which has proved so far to have been a shambles has been “outstanding” clearly isn’t in step with widely held opinions, including it would appear with the opinion of the person in question.

Yes but for you they would have got away with it 😕

I assume you are being called as an expert witness?

Yes we have all seen the prudent way in which you pursue only the important stuff like the Queen and her armies.

These are strange threads and part of me wants to rip the piss* whilst the other part fears we are witnessing some sort of mental breakdown/delusional behaviour and we should not mock but pity and help you save yourself from yourself.

I am leaving these threads as I fear the later and pity the former.

* i cannot achieve the heights set above by ernie on jamby though 😆

Strangely though, every time you say you ignore my posts, or won’t post on the threads as it’s all clearly delusional bobbins (despite reports by the media corroborating what I’ve been saying for months) you then come back and spout shite…

Of course, the Queen and her armies and intelligence services have some relevance here…

After all, MI5 and Special Branch have to be acting on someone’s behalf and they clearly outrank Police and even it would seem military intelligence in some cases…

Hmm, obvious troll is obvious, or living in a bubble…

Do you think the police and IPCC are simply relying on evidence that is neither credible or verifiable?

Would the media report cases which would bring their credibility into question?

Does that mean GCHQ just do web browsing and whatnot? On whose behalf do they do it?

No.

I’m saying that you are.

And you’ve posted nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are in no way qualified to pass such judgement.

Of course, the fact these things are being revealed in the real world are secondary to your clear desire to prove me wrong, no matter how much evidence mounts up to the contrary.

You probably ought to invest heavily in nappies then…

After all, MI5 and Special Branch have to be acting on someone’s behalf and they clearly outrank Police and even it would seem military intelligence in some cases…

One of the reasons I believe that these sorts of cases come to light is in my view probably the complete opposite of what you understand. I’ve no real problem with believing that “intelligence services” knew about various groups or individual child abusers. The reason nothing is done, is because of lackof oversight, rather than some overarching controlling cabal.

Their job (intelligence officers) is gather to leverage over people and information, and given the paranoid world in which the intelligence service operate I can well imagine a scenario where something like Child abuse would be observed rather than acted upon, I bet they’re doing the same with MPs and others who are using drugs and prostitutes and pretty much anything else you can think of.

It goes on probably because there isn’t enough critical oversight and control over individual officers cases (probably because those bodies don’t really exist, who watches the watchmen etc etc)

It’s appalling for the innocents captured in the centre of these “scandals”. It probably won’t stop.

JHJ

C4 link provided

allegation is not fact until proven and even if it turns out to be correct (which I believe is quite possible or likely even), as set out by nickc, it’s only conjecture for now. Unless of course your ‘research’ has uncovered proof/evidence in which case we’d all love to see it.

And even if it does turn out to be proven (with real evidence!), it doesn’t then prove that there’s an overall conspiracy. That would require further evidence (reminder – NOT just allegation or “A links to B links to C”). Again, as nickc pointed out, while’s it’s not as exciting as this big masonic conspiracy of CONTROL STRUCTURES, there are plenty of other explanations which are at least as credible and probably others that are similarly wild.

if, appears, assume.

I agree that it looks like something dodgy was going on. It’s what conclusions you draw about the reasons for that happening IF it is proven to be the case that’s the issue. It could be as pointed out any number of reasons, some far fetched, some conspiracies, some not.

And the thing with high profile people is that they tend to have money and influence so can arrange to fulfill their desires in a way that normal people can’t. They don’t need to be linked to a bigger conspiracy for that to happen. In fact, it’s far more likely that there were several smaller rings of influential people doing similar things that sometimes overlapped.

But then that’s not as exciting for the conspiracy theorists as a big, global, masonic conspiracy, is it?

No. We can’t get to the bottom of this. We don’t have the evidence. All ‘we’ can do is put forward theories which we will find credible to differing degrees.

For example, off the top of my head

Because they had money and influence and there actually are ‘bad’ people out there who’ll do unspeakable things with the right influence.

All? Are you sure? It seems to me that some didn’t get away with it. And it’s several separate allegations that MI5 stopped investigations so if for example one allegation is found to be false does that then ‘prove’ that they’re all false or does it just offer the possibility that MI5 felt (probably in a misguided way) that it was in their interest to stop an/some investigation for reasons we don’t know.

It’s all conjecture. I could come up with any number of wild theories too but without evidence, it’s just a p-do crime solving fetish and nothing to do with actually stopping it happening.