If you think that is breaking the rules and as bad as what he did then it proves the point I just made about inability to interpret the facts/data.

On this very thread he just insinuated that he was being censored because Cougar is a mason and therefore (in JHJ’s universe) directly linked to child abuse.

That’s not how I remember it.

I would say that, regardless of paranoia, it does seem odd that a sequence of people chosen to chair this enquiry have all, after a period of time, been revealed as being unsuitable.

I don’t know whether its just a play for time, hoping that those implicated hurry up and die, or whether ‘the establishment’ is all inextricably interlinked, or what. I do know that its looking very unlikely that we’ll ever know the truth of what’s in that report, which is tragic.

I would say that, regardless of paranoia, it does seem odd that a sequence of people chosen to chair this enquiry have all, after a period of time, been revealed as being unsuitable.

That’s one way of putting it. Another is that, as a result of a lot of paranoia, they have been loudly claimed to be unsuitable.

This enquiry will not actually be put to bed, ever. Unless it actually catches several shape-shifting paedophile lizards having tea with Prince Charles and Jewish Zombie Hitler, the lunatics will always dismiss it as a lizard cover-up.

🙂

EDIT: not saying you’re a lunatic btw codybrennan. I don’t know whetehr you are or not.

That’s not how I remember it.

Really? Look at this sequence of posts from JHJ:

Credible and verifiable evidence
How would a moderator such as Cougar define it?
…
Seems free speech is just a flowery ideal.
…
I wonder if Cougar ever went to the trouble of checking all the evidence?
….
Perhaps it’s a simple matter of:

‘Oh Lord, my god, is there no help for the widow’s son?’

And careful application of my thumb n whatnot

That reads to me as JHJ implying Cougar is censoring him because Cougar is a mason.

And of course we know from his handy Triangle Of Truth that all masons are child molesters controlled by the Satanist Pedophile Network High Command.

Was “been revealed” a poor choice of words BD? I didn’t mean “revealed” in any Icke-style way. Just that the process seems to be:

-candidate is selected
-candidate commences enquiry
-some time later, stories regarding candidate’s unsuitability appear in media
-candidate steps down
-iterate

Regarding lunatics: never mind all the lizard stuff- the facts would support the view that, in the mid-80s, an important report was seemingly not treated with the importance it deserved, and doesn’t look like it will ever be. So, regardless of who was to blame, no lessons will be learned. As I say: tragic.

He is certainly have a go /moan I am not sure if hsi irrational lunacy went that far though re Cougar

I don’t know whether its just a play for time, hoping that those implicated hurry up and die, or whether ‘the establishment’ is all inextricably interlinked, or what

It is going to be hard to find someone who is both wise informed and credible in this area and not at all part of the establishment. Granted the two they picked were a little too establishment but it smells of incompetence rather than conspiracy.
They need some sort of maverick outsider establishment figure like say Michael mansfield but it is a very short list.

I do know that its looking very unlikely that we’ll ever know the truth of what’s in that report, which is tragic.

True it does seem unlikely and it also seems unlikely we will know if it was wilful incompetence or just incompetence.
At some level things were known and they were not acted on. I doubt we will ever know the reason why but the triangle of truth seems a most unlikely explanation.

what this needs is

There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so. As with the somewhat transparent conspiracies of the WTC/Pentagon/F93 incidents, the consideration that a highly influential segment of our society are as psychotic and reckless as they would need to be, that they would condone, ignore or cover up atrocious criminal acts in order to preserve their own status, is simply too much for a lot of people to broach. It’s often easier to point the finger, ridicule and make tin-foil hat references than it is to take responsibility for undertaking personal research and investigating the hypothesis that there are some very unpleasant people taking control of the world in which we live.

Not to go back over old ground but I’ve been keeping up with the Australian inquiry into the same thing, the one thing that is lacking is the grand overarching conspiracy so either it’s much bigger or it’s not actually there.

Its like he is back in the room 😕
Its also easier to make weak ad hom straw men attacks on than prove your conspiracy theories with evidence 🙄
We all know, some of the powerful, are amoral **** but that does mean your accounts are true.

What investigations that have been done – independent psychological research show that it is the “believers” with the issues

then agin what do facts matter eh as we cannot handle them eh 🙄

There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so.

The consideration that there is no grand master plan and no shadowy God-like figures controlling every aspect of our lives is simply too much for a lot of people to broach.

It’s often easier to vaguely point the finger and make a tin-foil hat.

FTFY Three_Fish 😀

What investigations that have been done – independent psychological research show that it is the “believers” with the issues

Excellent, the brain control programming is working well.

Only one way to be safe.

There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so. As with the somewhat transparent conspiracies of the WTC/Pentagon/F93 incidents,

Transparent in what way ?

Clearly the conspiracy theories are bollox

Or

Clearly the conspiracy theories are true.

the consideration that a highly influential segment of our society are as psychotic and reckless as they would need to be, that they would condone, ignore or cover up atrocious criminal acts in order to preserve their own status, is simply too much for a lot of people to broach. It’s often easier to point the finger, ridicule and make tin-foil hat references than it is to take responsibility for undertaking personal research and investigating the hypothesis that there are some very unpleasant people taking control of the world in which we live.

So it’s not crossed your mind that anyone has done some personal research and come to a conclusion different to yours ?

Seems conspiracy theorists always presume they are the only ones who care/research etc and accuse everyone else of not caring/being lazy etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/14/westminster-sex-abuse-inquiry-homicide-claims

Wonder if anything will come of this?

Let’s hope so

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/new-bombshell-documentary-set-to-reveal-names-of-hollywoods-child-actor-abusers/

we all hope it will lead to arrest

Most of us think that Icke is not helpful as he is a loon who believes aliens created humans and we all live in the Matrix.

Like a blind man shooting in a gallery he, smith and Jive, will eventually hit something.

As we keep saying every area of human activity will have abusers. this doe snot mean their is a global conspiracy to use it as means of control etc.

That’s not quite true, the allegation is abuse is disproportionately frequent whilst being equally disproportionately unreported or prosecuted in people of privilege power or responsibility.

Power corrupts and all that, the interesting bit for me is do abusers seek power or does power lead to abuse.

Power corrupts and all that, the interesting bit for me is do abusers seek power or does power lead to abuse.

That assumes people in power are more likely to be abusers, I’m not aware of any objective study that shows that to be true. About the only thing you can say about paedophiles is that they tend to look for jobs that allow them access to (often vulnerable) children.

that would be your allegation then and not Ickes. Can i see your stats/evidence to prove it is disproportionately prevalent?

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/tag/child-abuse-2/

the pictures alone will confirm his view

You want me to provide the stats on people in power who commit unreported abuse?

You want me to provide the stats on people in power who commit unreported abuse?

Are we going to have to go through this whole thing again?

If you make an allegation, then you are going to need some sort of evidence to back it up.

Is it really that hard to understand.

If you make an allegation, then you are going to need some sort of evidence to back it up.

Is it really that hard to understand.

I think the answer to this is ‘yes’

Although in the obvious absence of figures you could come to some intuitive conclusions based on mogrims rule that abusers seek power and access and the long held rule that power corrupts to reasonably summise that a greater proportion of police, teachers, clergy, politicians, business leaders, etc are likely to be abusers than would be found in a similar number of bricklayers, plumbers, call centre workers etc.

Kind of logical.

Although how much access to vulnerable children do politicians and business leaders have as part of their job ?

Not sure I understand that one.

But other than that, from what I can gather, you are saying that people with access to children as part of their job, are statistically more likely to be abusers than people without access to children.

I’m not saying that is true but I’m am saying there is sufficient reason to believe it’s possible and what’s more that group/groups are probably more able to evade prosecution than a taxi driver from Rochdale(who seem pretty capable) so perhaps those groups should be open to especially close scrutiny.

In a world were minority report style policing is becoming more common I see no reason why power and influence shouldn’t be considered a indicator of increased risk.

That’s not quite true, the allegation is abuse is disproportionately frequent whilst being equally disproportionately unreported or prosecuted in people of privilege power or responsibility.

1) no, you’re incorrect. The allegation is that child abuse is central to a global conspiracy (of alien lizards, if you’re Ickean). It is not just that power people abuse children and use their influence to cover it up.

2) if you allege something like that, you need to substantiate it. “Intuitive conclusions” is just code for supposition. You actually need facts for this sort of stuff, not just a bunch of sentences that start “yeah, well, it stands to reason that…”.

The whole relevance of the claim that the rich and powerful don’t get prosecuted for child abuse is based on two unproven assumptions: first, that it’s true; second, that that’s in contrast to how poor and powerless people are prosecuted.

In a world were minority report style policing is becoming more common I see no reason why power and influence shouldn’t be considered a indicator of increased risk I shouldn’t wear a tin foil hat.

Minority Report? You are aware of the concept of science fiction, I assume?

Sorry, I forgot. Tom Cruise, that’s the link isn’t it? Scientology. He’s one of THEM! A LIZARD!

(Akshewally, Scientology is a case to ponder – Proper batshitmentalist loony tunes cultywhackjobs)

Although how much access to vulnerable children do politicians and business leaders have as part of their job ?

Not sure I understand that one.

Not sure there’s anything to understand. The assumption conspiracy theorists seem to work on is that politicians (and possibly business leaders) represent a statistically significant number of paedophiles; I’d like to see some evidence that that is really the case.

And let’s not forget: a politician committing child abuse is far more likely to be reported in the press than a plumber or computer programmer doing the same, unless there’s some salacious detail that makes it more interesting. If you only go by press coverage (or Google) you’re highly unlikely to get unbiased, objective data.