But if you can’t articulate any proof

Proof is a tricky one… unless caught in the act, or on a film which would be unsuitable for broadcast here.

Plenty of victim testimonies surrounding a number of politicians, but if I name names, then doubtless folk will jump down my throat.

After all, we wouldn’t want to assume anyone guilty until proven innocent.

When you have cover ups involving the secret services, things become much more complex on that front~ without exposure and publicity, justice will never be done, as per Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith.

If you want an insight into some of the names allegedly involved, google:

‘Elm Guest House List’

also look into

‘Jeffery Epstein’ as some of his contacts have been implicated

Your point?

Already clearly stated as per:

Regardless of any of that, given the allegations surrounding Westminster, would it not be wiser to look further afield for someone to head up a charity such as the NSPCC?

Equally for sufficient independence and objectivity, perhaps someone further removed from the circles which may be placed in the spotlight would be a better choice to investigate the conduct of the Home Office?

If the government wants to ensure full public confidence in independent reviews of their past conduct, they have a long way to go.

Junkyard – lazarus

That only applies if you are Kaesae

It’s not Kael. Massively less interesting, and far more convinced of his superiority. But also the whole style of writing’s different

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

No we don’t, do you?

<mod>
I’m incredibly bored now of this “pointless whataboutery” (thank you, CFH), so here’s how this thread is going to proceed.

You want to discuss a subject, fine. You want to tell us your opinion, fine. You want a debate, fine.

But the very next time you post some handwavy ephemeral toss about “links” or “why do you think…” without actually explaining anything beyond making vague tenuous suggestions based on nothing more concrete than people who have met each other, I’m closing the file without further warning. The very next time you come out with some sort of “witty” condescending put-down of another user, I’m closing the file without further warning.

And in the interest of balance, anyone who thinks it’s now open season to be as obnoxious as possible to JHJ without fear of retaliation will receive a minimum two day ban.

Them’s the rules. Think you can do it?
</mod>

far more convinced of his superiority

Thanks, I rule 😆

If I was convinced of superiority, why would I put up with all this abuse?

I’m just some dude who’s been injured for a long while, done a lot of research and wants to share it, in the hope it can help some vulnerable people who are being exploited and work towards exposing some powerful abusers…

If that makes me a knobend, then so be it, it’s pretty clear I’m not doing this for popularity.

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

Seems to have been strategic; whether that was an attempt to have the news buried by Rememberence day, or perhaps to avoid further scrutiny whilst Fiona Woolf was still chair of the inquiry, who’s to say, but certainly seems a bit odd.

You’re welcome, Cougs. Please feel free to use it, royalty free.

Them’s the rules. Think you can do it?

well said Cougar. That sums up what I was thinking.

So, reading the mod rules, I believe that I’m still allowed to post pointless whaaaboutery, right? 🙂

“Cougars” was a US TV series… makes you think doesn’t it… ?

And I can still call you names 🙂

Damn. I should’ve added a clause about exploiting loopholes.

I’m just some dude who’s been injured for a long while, done a lot of research and wants to share it, in the hope it can help some vulnerable people who are being exploited and work towards exposing some powerful abusers…

Which makes me wonder why you chose to air these revelations on a David Icke thread. I would have thought if you were sufficiently concerned you would have started a specific thread. Or, did all this “new shit” just “happen to come to light” about the time this thread started?

Which makes me wonder why you chose to air these revelations on a David Icke thread. I would have thought if you were sufficiently concerned you would have started a specific thread. Or, did all this “new shit” just “happen to come to light” about the time this thread started?

Good question… I’m sure you know yourself, things in life aren’t always planned; it’s just the natural progression of events.

On a similar level, though I could be wrong on this, there often seems to be a misunderstanding surrounding ‘conspiracies’ as if it’s all immaculately planned out in advance, which seems to be the basis of much disbelief.

It’s more due to the interactions which occur, though there may be methods and goals planned beforehand, for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.

As I’m sure you’re aware, this is a developing story, just over 2 years in the making so far, beginning when the documentary exposing Jimmy Savile was 1st aired in October 2012.

During the course of this thread, amongst other things, Fiona Woolf stepped down as chair of the inquiry, Norman Baker resigned and the Wanless report has been released, doubtless there is more to come.

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue, but it remains to be seen if anyone would engage with such a thread?

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue, but it remains to be seen if anyone would engage with such a thread?

You could give it go. Mind you, it would kill this thread stone dead.

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue

To be honest, the way in which you approach the subject is the thing that ruins its credibility.

So unless a new thread title would somehow improve your understanding of what the word “evidence” means, I honestly don’t think it would help.

So unless a new thread title would somehow improve your understanding of what the word “evidence” means, I honestly don’t think it would help.

By that logic, where is the divide between gossip and victim/careworker/police officer/whistleblower testimony?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

Your link that implicates wanless in mysterious deaths says he was high up in the nspcc jimmy savile used to wear an nspcc badge he worked for Michel portillo . It also has a photo of Wanless with ester ransen. Not sure that is any evidence of a link to mysterious deaths ..
Do you understand what an inquiry involves . the hours of work the requirement to take on board a vast raft of material to weigh the credibility of that material and its relevance to draw it all into a cogent reasoned report that will withstand hostile scrutiny. It does require a particular skill set . It is extremely unlikely that anyone with that skillset will not have found a position in life that could be described as establishment.

PS because you missed it first time reports are normally released after a delay to allow interested parties the oportunity to respond to any errors.

By that logic, where is the divide between gossip and victim/careworker/police officer/whistleblower testimony?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?
Point us to the testimony rather than the gossip.

Here’s an example that’s been made public:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5396/video-nick-tells-of-how-mps-liked-to-inflict-pain-during-abuse

for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.

Okay…so the Queen, the catholic church, the masons, the cops, the secret service, the lizards, all of that stuff you talked about waaaaaayy back there [points] isn’t, as you first tried to tell us, a massive corporate, religious, establishment plot to control everything and everyone, but is in fact not orchestrated or conspired at all?

so what then?

A set of random co-incidental events linking public figures both public and religious, often under the cover of charity, with the occasional paedophile thrown in as just a part of the demographic?

that?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

Credible and verifiable please
we need more than eye witness testimony without anything to back it up or I could accuse anyone of the all those crimes and you cannot prove a negative. The something else must be actual proof rather than look he went here once with this person who did something mysterious near this person who once met Jimmy Saville as that is innuendo , smear and guilt by association

I’d like to congratulate Jive for his outstanding work on this thread – especially the Darth Vader pic – that had me in stitches. And also for remaining fairly level headed throughout despite attacks from the permagrim brigade.

Keep’er lit you crazy diamond 😀

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

To be honest (again), if you need to ask that question, you have wasted many hours of your life on this.

The word “Evidence” pretty much defines itself for most people.

If you really need me to define it for you, I think we are both wasting our time discussing this (or anything else for that matter)

injured for a long while, done a lot of research

A none so subtle reference surely?

“Permagrin
A long lasting smile usually caused by the frivolous feel after a great session of sex. A great partner is required to achieve this higher plane of sexual satisfaction. “
I had to Google it but it ain’t really a put down or insult is it.

Credible and verifiable please

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

Of course, I can’t guarantee all my sources; even with all the time and resources in the world, there will always be some red herrings within investigations.

However, just why is it that so many people around the world, victims, careworkers, police, journalists etc etc, all have similar stories to tell?

That aside, in all honesty, how many of the links I’ve provided have you read/viewed in their entirety?

for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.

Okay…so the Queen, the catholic church, the masons, the cops, the secret service, the lizards, all of that stuff you talked about waaaaaayy back there [points] isn’t, as you first tried to tell us, a massive corporate, religious, establishment plot to control everything and everyone, but is in fact not orchestrated or conspired at all?

I concede, my choice of words may not be the best, though there is doubtless a formula of sorts in place, it’s not rigid… what I’m trying to convey is that it’s not all intricately planned to the last detail in advance, but comes together organically within a basic framework.

So the pyramid is more of a vague collective, more like some people who like to do this sort of thing sort of stick together but really are not all that connected?

Yes and no…

You might have a ring in London who in person have nothing to do with a ring in Amsterdam, who in turn have nothing to do in person with a ring in Portugal but all share a contact in a trafficker/procurer, may share images and videos and are all known to high level intelligence personnel.

Credible and verifiable please

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

So you will believe any accusations made, providing the person shows you a couple of photo id’s to prove
who they are ?

Proof of identity of the accuser does make your evidence Credible or Verifiable.

So define credible and verifiable please…

in my understanding, even when a case has got to court, it’s rare evidence is absolute

So this may be overstating the case a little?

If you drop off the all known to a high level intelligence officer then you get to where most people are in agreement. That there are groups who are separate who cross over via 1 or 2 members. This does not make a global network.

That there are groups who are separate who cross over via 1 or 2 members. This does not make a global network.

That’s an argument of definition… if you have the same people procuring and distributing children and the same people observing and manipulating, all in service of the top tiers, that is a global network.

Much as we are interacting now, we could walk past each other in the street, or even meet in person and not know we’d been in contact, but we’re in contact through a global network, due to a shared interest in bikes…

Another example: Not everyone who rides a Giant bike knows each other, they may not have even come from the same factory, but they are all under the umbrella of Giant’s global distribution network.

A pyramid may not be the best way to illustrate this as it conveys a wholly interlocking rigid structure; think more in terms of a spiders web; there’s plenty of gaps and flexibility, but there’s still a functioning structure.

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

WOOSH
as noticed its the proof they need to verify not who they are. I have ID but not everything i say is true you wise, informed and erudite thinker and leader of men 😉

So define credible and verifiable please…

It’s evidence that is credible and verifiable.

Another example: Not everyone who rides a Giant bike knows each other, they may not have even come from the same factory, but they are all under the umbrella of Giant’s global distribution network.

What the actual….?

Are Giant part of it now as well?

Further epic waffle. What if someone had bought one second hand, or even stolen one, eh? What a strange way of trying to wriggle out of earlier statements. Strange, and rather poor.

Oh, and Exaro? 😀

I have ID but not everything i say is true you wise, informed and erudite thinker and leader of men

Aw, thanks JY, it’s like a 2nd honeymoon; for all our passionate debate, I generally think you’re all right really, I can be a knob sometimes, but I’m not a nasty pasty.

Of course it won’t just be a matter of ID, there’d be checks as to prior addresses/institutions of both victims and alleged abusers… you can’t merely rely on testimony without some depth of research to establish the likely validity.

Further epic waffle. What if someone had bought one second hand, or even stolen one, eh? What a strange way of trying to wriggle out of earlier statements. Strange, and rather poor.

Cool, you’re welcome to improve on my analogy… probably not the best, but it’s what I came up with at the time and I’m sure most people could grasp what I mean, without being too picky…

Oh, and Exaro?

Yep, the same Exaro who work with MPs and the police and were involved with the campaign that got the CSA inquiry rolling in the 1st place.

You could click the about us tab on the website if you have any concerns on their validity…

You might have a ring in London who in person have nothing to do with a ring in Amsterdam, who in turn have nothing to do in person with a ring in Portugal but all share a contact in a trafficker/procurer, may share images and videos and are all known to high level intelligence personnel.

Ah, so more Venn diagram than pyramid?

“Them’s the rules. Think you can do it?”

However, just why is it that so many people around the world, victims, careworkers, police, journalists etc etc, all have similar stories to tell?

No, then.