[Closed] "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

I don't like the continued whispered insinuation that it's all a massive Jewish conspiracy either.

There's nothing to suggest it's confined to any specific religion or race, but there is often a common theme of involvement by the intelligence services.

We should bear in mind the multiple strands of investigation linking organized abuse to not only politics, but also the military.

Furthermore, in cases such as Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and Greville Janner, there has of course been repeated interference into investigation.

The same holds true with Rotherham, where not only have files gone missing, but the Home Office (which runs the intelligence services) was informed in 2003

It seems hard to conceive the intelligence services hold so much sway over so many aspects of the justice system, unless aided by other factors such as Freemasonry.

unless aided by other factors such as Freemasonry.

Now we're getting to the bottom of it......secret society, dodgy handshake, conspiracy paradise here we come.

Some people think this is all just a coincidence :

[img] [/img]

Right.

We all know now what Savile was. But this gives no credence to other conspiracy theories; saying "well, I was right about Savile" (assuming you were) doesn't prop you up as a master investigative reporter with l33t skillz that we wouldn't understand, rather it's playing the law of averages. If you accuse a hundred people and one turns out to be guilty, you can't stand there proclaiming a massive success, that's just cherry-picking and conveniently ignoring the 99 you got wrong.

All this "associated with" and "friends of" is just special pleading, it's utterly meaningless. I was stood in a field the other day, it doesn't make me a ****ing tractor. Here's a FACT for you: celebrities know other celebrities, politicians know other politicians, people in higher echelons of society (or indeed, any subset of society) meet each other occasionally. Take the Queen as an example; it's practically her job to meet people. I'd hazard if you picked any two famous people at random and hit google you could find them shaking hands with the Queen. MY GOD THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED!!

You're not good at research, despite your claims. You are [i]dreadful[/i] at research. You regurgitate hoary conspiracy theories from dubious sources and then when challenged on it you say "do your own research" (because you've not actually done any yourself) or "it's too complicated to explain" (because you can't explain to an audience not filled with cotton-headed idiots) or rapidly change the subject. On this very page, after being challenged repeatedly to provide something to substantiate your claims about Mountbatten beyond "he was on a boat once", once you realised you had absolutely nothing beyond conjecture you ignored the question and started talking about whistleblowers and Tom Watson.

Put up or shut up.

Steady on, next you'll be saying there was similar activity in the Whitehouse!

Oh:

[img] [/img]

Wasn't [url= http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/book-review-franklin-scandal ]The Franklin Scandal[/url] also linked to Bohemian Grove and CIA Project MK-ULTRA?

C
O
N
J
E
C
T
U
R
E

Does it make it any clearer spelling it out differently?

Oh, and the worst thing?

For someone so keen on research, [i]you don't bloody listen.[/i] You've had holes poked in your ideas time and again, repeatedly challenged, and it's like talking to a brick wall. When people are foolish enough to engage with you, you pull your smoke and mirrors act and post a picture of Jimmy Savile in the same room as someone. It's like debating with a religious extremist.

"Makes you think, doesn't it." Yes, it makes me think that you're an elaborate troll.

You may have missed this post Cougar:

Claims of high profile paedophile rings involving politicians, judges, senior police and military figures have sufficient credibility for BBC World at One to do a detailed report over several days...

here is the 1st part:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qmvpm

Like Jimmy Savile and Peter Ball, Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten is also alleged to have been involved:

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-playland-cover-up/

Or perhaps you've listened to the whole program?

Did you read [url= https://www.scribd.com/doc/90215651/Kincora-Scandal-by-Chris-Moore ]this book[/url] too?

There does seem to be a little of this creeping in. The focus on this Westminster ring at the expense of Rotherham and Oxfordshire also smells of being politically motivated.

Ha, that's a bit rich coming from you - mr 'terrorism is ok as long as it's done by jewish people not the nasty muslims'

So nemesis, have you read any of the links, watched any of the Channel 4 footage or listened to any of the Radio 4 programme, or are you relying on conjecture based on denial?

Wasn't The Franklin Scandal also linked to Bohemian Grove and CIA Project MK-ULTRA?

I don't know, was it? You tell us, are you asserting that it was or just vomiting words onto your keyboard?

And what do you mean by "linked"? That's another meaningless weasel word.

Seriously, I'm running out of patience. If you have something to say then say it. Stop asking gormless questions.

Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles,

And? So what?

Can the mods put a swear filter on the word 'linked' for jhj please? Maybe replace it with 'has maybe met once upon a time';)

jivehoneyjive - Member
So nemesis, have you read any of the links, watched any of the Channel 4 footage or listened to any of the Radio 4 programme, or are you relying on conjecture based on denial?

I have read various links, probably none of the recent ones for reasons I explained above. The point is you still clearly have no proof or evidence or you'd be making it very clear instead of insinuation, 'linking' and avoiding the question. Once you provide some proof or hard facts, I'll read further. I expect it's going to be a long time coming.

Yet again, to state my position it's clear there's dodgy things been happening. What isn't clear despite you claiming otherwise is that they're all part of your one exciting global conspiracy that would prove how clever and insightful you are.

Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles,

And? So what?

Read the link... I've provided the information, don't get antsy with me because you're too lazy to read it.

I can't convey all the information provided in one go, seriously, follow the links,

Here is BBC Radio 4's world at one investigation David's Story in full:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qslrj

Once and [u]only once[/u] you've listened to that, feel free to come back with any questions.

No, you provide the facts and then we'll look into it. If you can't provide a summary of facts, I think we're all fairly sure that there aren't any that actually back up your story.

What, like the information I've been providing throughout that you are too lazy to read/listen/watch?

No, information that you post that when people have read up on it don't PROVE what you claim or are just conjecture.

Tell us what the link PROVES then. If it really proves something that will immeasurably improve your credibility.

Yet again, to state my position it's clear there's dodgy things been happening. What isn't clear despite you claiming otherwise is that they're all part of your one exciting global conspiracy that would prove how clever and insightful you are.

I think that's worth restating.

No-one, I don't think, is denying that there's some seriously Wrong things gone on. Some frankly evil people have done some nasty things, and I don't doubt that there's a degree of "not talking about it" gone on. It would have been very difficult to accuse someone like Savile of anything in the height of his popularity, victims would struggle to get anyone to believe them. I also have little doubt that more will come to light as the investigations progress.

However. Randomly casting aspersions about anyone who's ever met anyone else ever is not helpful. "Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles," - this may be so, I don't know (or overly care) but think about it. How many friends do you have? (Ok, bad example perhaps.) Now, how many friends do you reckon someone as prominent as Prince Charles is likely to have? How many people "associated" with him? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? It would be frankly incredible if some of those friends [i]didn't[/i] turn out to be dodgy just by dint of numbers involved.

I was at an event at the weekend with 30,300 other people; based purely on numbers a few of them are statistically likely to be wrong 'uns. That does not, back over here in the real world, mean that I'm now "linked to a paedophile ring."

No, information that you post that when people have read up on it don't PROVE what you claim or are just conjecture.

Tell us what the link PROVES then. If it really proves something that will immeasurably improve your credibility.

This.

Because experience would suggest that if we did read all this stuff, it'd say something completely different from what you're alluding to, at which point you'll start talking about alien lizards or something and we'll have lost an hour of our lives.

I'll do you a deal, one time only offer. You tell us what you believe the link proves, and then I'll go and read / watch it to see if I agree. If the best you can do is "links" and "associations" and "was on a boat once" then I'll spend my lunch watching Babylon 5 instead. I'm up to season 4 now, Sheridan's just visited Z'ha'dum.

As an example, regarding [url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/justice-lowell-goddard-establishment-links-child-abuse-inquiry-truth-reconciliation ]Judge Lowell Goddard[/url]

The New Zealand high court judge who is to chair the independent inquiry into child sex abuse has said she has no links to the establishment, telling MPs: “We don’t have such a thing in my country.”

Doesn't quite tally with this:

Let us not forget that New Zealand is a commonwealth realm and as such is a monarchy, with the Queen as head of state... in itself this is cause for concern, however, Judge Goddard's ties to the British Establishment run far deeper than that.

For one, [url= http://www.ipca.govt.nz/Site/about/people/People-Justice-Goddard.aspx ]she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years[/url]:

for example
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council#New_Zealand ]
even though...[/url]

it was not until October 2003 that New Zealand law was changed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in respect of all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand after the end of 2003, in favour of a Supreme Court of New Zealand. In 2008, Prime Minister John Key ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council.[37]

Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:

Judgment was delivered on 3 March 2015 in the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Quite aside from that, we also have the small matter of Lowell Goddard's first husband, with whom she had a daughter and with whom she remains on good terms, Sir Johnny Scott, who is well acquainted with none other than Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Now, aside from the obvious:

[img] [/img]

We should also bear in mind that Camilla (as well as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, David Cameron etc etc) is a good friend of [url= http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/murder-arms-dealing-treason-and-sexual-abuse-the-apartheid-regime-and-the-tory-right ]Derek Laud, who along with dodgy deals in South Africa is also allegedly[/url] deeply linked to abuse at Dolphin Square and the procurement and trafficking of kids from carehomes across the country.

Still not convinced?

Remember there was talk of the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/when-do-we-get-to-elect-the-head-of-state ]Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse having an Auntie with a funny plughole recently[/url]?

[img] [/img]

The Southern Hemisphere does funny things to the vortex...

Is it 100% black and white?

No, as is often the case, there is room for error, as can sometimes be seen in courtrooms (leaving out the Freemasonry aspect for the time being) a notable example being the OJ Simpson trial.

But there can be no question that there are grounds for reasonable doubt, given her failure to disclose such associations.

Jewish conspiracy? Have to say I hadn't heard that angle. Then again, I have Jewish family and I met Diana so I'm probably linked to it and therefore a mole and guilty.

There's a well known blogger out there documenting the whole Dolphin Square thing and they keep adding details such as "Margaret Hodge (nee Oppenheimer, Jewish)", or "Tony Blair (well known zionist)..." etc and it really irks me. It's as if they are insinuating a Jewish conspiracy.

Kind of destroys any credibility really.

As an example, regarding Judge Lowell Goddard

So.

She claims to have no links to "the establishment" (whatever that is, Westminster presumably) and was once a high court judge. Oh, and someone she is no longer married to has met someone who's married to Prince Charles. For good measure here's a picture of Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile in the same room.

Is that about the size of it or am I missing something?

So in summary of your waffle, jhj, people high up in society/politics are "linked", may have met each other or may have worked together. Shock!

Can you tell me what you think it PROVES? Are you suggesting that because Goddard doesn't consider herself part of the establishment (which is a pretty vague term in itself - a bit like some people consider themselves working class despite clearly not being so to most other people) that this somehow PROVES there's a conspiracy? I honestly hope not.

Yes, but someone she used to know once met someone who is married to someone else who has met Jimmy Savile. You need more proof than that? Do your own research.

[i]she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years:[/i]

She was a high Court Judge in NZ, the Privy Council were; up until recently the last port of call for appeals in NZ courts, it's not really a conspiracy to suggest that the Deputy solicitor General might have "worked closely" with them.

If that makes her "establishment" then that description would cover most people involved in criminal law in a good percentage of courts around the globe...

Fair point well made. Now of course don't forget that Tony Blair once met Tony Benn who was of aristocratic birth. Now, Tony Benn was linked to Radio 1 when he closed down various pirate radio stations (immortalised in the film The Boat that Rocked - proof if ever it was needed!) and Radio 1 is clearly linked to Jimmy Saville. Unfortunately Tony Benn is also linked to the Guardian newspaper through several different journalists, editors, interviewers and proprietors which clearly indicates that the guardian article you posted is in fact subterfuge and covering up a wider plot to discredit the establishment that you, jhj are part of. You'll note also that jhj is very active on this and can be linked to each of the disclosures about the various scandals at westminster through this and other threads on stw.

So in conclusion jhj is linked to everything that's been going on.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

That link you provided about Derek Laud doesn't mention him at all.

Top drawer research

What is it with you guys and reading?

Another important asset quickly recruited to the staff of [b]Strategy Network International was Derek Laud[/b], London’s best-known black, gay Conservative. Laud recommended that SNI bring several of his Westminster friends onto the payroll as parliamentary consultants, including Neil Hamilton and Michael Colvin, who later ran into trouble for failing to record their payments from the South African propagandists in the Register of Members’ Interests.

my bad

Ha, that's a bit rich coming from you - mr 'terrorism is ok as long as it's done by jewish people not the nasty muslims'

If it's proven that the same political correctness / fear of being called racist (antisemitic) was behind any cover up of abuse by Janner if such abuse is indeed proven (as was clearly the case in Rotherham and Oxfordshire) I will be just as critical of that. Trust me on that one.

How was Babylon 5, Cougar?

I posted on a crime/terrorism committed by Jews and Israel recognising it as such.

If it's proven that the same political correctness / fear of being called racist (antisemitic) was behind any cover up of abuse by Janner if such abuse is indeed proven (as was clearly the case in Rotherham and Oxfordshire) I will be just as critical of that. Trust me on that one.

You've repeatedly claimed to be fervently and unequivocally against terrorism - but you've consistently refused to acknowledge that the Israeli state was founded by terrorists and lauds terrorists as heroes (and that the Israeli state continues to commit acts of terrorism). Anyway, this isn't the thread for it I suppose.

I read this thread from time to time and am becoming increasingly concerned that I may be implicated. You see about 15 years ago, I was dealing with Sade's (the 1990's pop singer) house (it had subsidence and I was investigating the cause). Well, she had a song called "your love is king". Jonathan King was convicted for child sex offences, and his surname is obviously linked to the Royal Family - Prince Charles - who will one day be king. Have we got to the bottom of how many Armies the Queen has yet? My guess is five. Or six. Not quite sure.

You're a smooth operator @bob nice logic

Grum you are gith it's a diversion but just to be clear many countries have been formed and boundaries shaped as a result of conflict, Israel is no different in that regard. Also no doubt some bad or extreme things have been done by Israelis/Jews. Would I go as far as to call it "state sponsored terrorism", no I don't think I would.

@PJM do you have a link to the blogger, coleman experience?

Would I go as far as to call it "state sponsored terrorism", no I don't think I would.

Well this is why you are such a massive hypocrite and why your condemnations of Islamic terrorism and claims that you are unequivocally against terrorism are so hollow.

[b]Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin[/b]. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.[19] On 29 May 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activist members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,[20] an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[21] Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. [b]In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon.[22] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

And that's not even going into all the Mossad assassinations and murders/home destruction by the IDF.

So when you say you condemn terrorism unequivocally - what you actually mean is you condemn terrorism unless it's done by Jews/Israelis in which case it's perfectly justified.

Thank you for at least responding to this for the first time ever though.

What is it with you guys and reading?

Ah, Irony.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and find out where Garibaldi's got to.

Look, I need to know. How was Babylon 5?!

And can you link it to Garibaldis?

EDIT - oh, Garibaldi is a character in Babylon 5. Or is that a conspiracy as we can now link biscuits to Babylon 5 and we all know that the establishment are linked to garibaldis through soggy biscuits... 😯

"In 1992, she was appointed Deputy Solicitor-General for New Zealand and in that role supervised the prosecution of indictable crime and criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal and Privy Council." does not equal "she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years" in fact quite the opposite as she was involved in presenting cases to be decided by them .
Do you not read your own links JHJ "Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:"
Judgment was delivered on 3 March 2015 in the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.Relates to :-
Privy Council Appeal, Pora (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (New Zealand), judgment [2015] UKPC 9
" Susan Burdett was raped and murdered in her home in March 1992. In May 1994 the appellant was convicted of both crimes (and of aggravated burglary of Ms Burdett’s home) following a jury trial. In 1999 the New Zealand Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a re-trial. On his re-trial before Williams J and a jury in March 2000 he was again found guilty. The appellant again appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court dismissed the conviction appeal in October 2000. This appeal lies from that decision."
So a case that pre dates the change in the law not despite the change in the law.

Just saw this

"Conspiracy theories are
how idiots get to feel like
intellectuals" - David Baddiel

Which made me lol but then I realised that Baddiel is Jewish so is linked to, well, just about everyone so it's clearly a cynical attempt to discredit jhj and his ilk.

I miss Skinner and Beddiel, we have to make do with Lineker and Charles now 🙁 Just saying

"In 1992, she was appointed Deputy Solicitor-General for New Zealand and in that role supervised the prosecution of indictable crime and criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal and Privy Council." does not equal "she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years" in fact quite the opposite as she was involved in presenting cases to be decided by them .

I don't know about you, but generally when I work with people, we tend to build up a rapport. This often leads to socializing, friendships, mutual favours.

Of course, the membership of the Privy Council is extensive and Judge Goddard may or may not be acquainted with some of the key players linked to abuse and/or cover up

"Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:"

I stand by that, taking pedantic issue with the wording doesn't alter the facts... despite the change in the law, cases which predate the change in the law mean on occasion there is still significant interaction between the Privy Council and New Zealand's legal system.

In isolation that may not be sufficient grounds to refute Judge Goddard's claims of no ties to the establishment, but it certainly raises questions.

However, when you combine prior contact with the Privy Council with her daughter being the 1st cousin of the Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, her claims of no establishment ties seem quite similar to the same case put by Fiona Woolf:

[img] [/img]

That is before you take into account that Judge Goddard did not even apply for the role, but was approached by Ben Emmerson, the counsel to the inquiry, who aside from members of the secretariat seconded from the Home Office ([url= http://www.****/news/article-2934815/Yet-blow-child-abuse-inquiry-s-revealed-Home-Office-coached-independent-experts-answer-difficult-questions.html ]some of whom have worked at the Home Office under Leon Brittan[/url]), is one of the few members who has been on the inquiry from the start.

Who aided Fiona Woolf in the redrafting of letters regarding her relationship to Leon Brittan has still not been disclosed.

Check your browser settings. I think you've got yours set to write-only.

Check your browser settings. I think you've got yours set to write-only.

*applause*

Check your browser settings. I think you've got yours set to write-only.

I've had mine set to "read only" on this thread for a while. It's like trying to teach a brick to do tricks.

But that comment deserves a break in the embargo 🙂

Cheap shots and abuse eh?

If it wasn't so late in the week I'd think this was the Monday Club.

Systematic abuse at that. Maybe it's a conspiracy.

Ivanova looked really sad, I hope they're ok.

Now we have a moderator cracking gags on the child abuse thread. Awsumz.

Being as you're so engrossed in Babylon, surprised you find the time to read, let alone comment on something that you have no interest in...

Grum, feel free to report it. I read it as Cougar making a very valid point.

Speaking of valid points, silly me, on the last page, I forgot all about this:
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-family-member-was-investigated-as-part-of-paedophile-ring-before-coverup-excop-says-10126864.html ]
Royal Family Member was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover up[/url]

Probably quite relevant all things considered...

So it is claimed a Royal was involved and it was covered up.

It needs investigating. If true, it is shocking and those involved in all aspects need to be charged and tried.

But at this stage it is a claim. And needs investigating. Then we can find out if it is true.

jivehoneyjive -
I don't know about you, but generally when I work with people, we tend to build up a rapport.

Speaking of valid points, silly me, on the last page, I forgot all about this:

Royal Family Member was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover up

Probably quite relevant all things considered...

Haven't you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff? They're only interested in telling you you're wrong, over and over and over and over again.

But at this stage it is a claim. And needs investigating. Then we can find out if it is true.

Do you have any confidence that it will be properly investigated?

Seems that way... ah well, there's nowt so strange as folk.

Surely pondo knows you should never judge a book by it's cover:

[img] [/img]

Haven't you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff?

I'm not interested in wading through hours of YouTube videos and webpages containing unsubstantiated rumours and guesswork. Not in the slightest.

Can't speak for anyone else though.

They're only interested in telling you you're wrong, over and over and over and over again.

If he keeps posting things as fact, without seeming to understand what "evidence" is.

I'm sure people will keep pointing it out.

As has been said before, it's not a lack of interest in the overall subject matter.

It's a lack of interest in listening to the ramblings of an "internet detective"

Cool, so what did you think of the Radio 4 programme?

You don't meant to say you've posted a pearl of evidence amongst all the other unfounded dross?

Is that your idea of building rapport?

I'm not the one who made claims about the importance of building rapport. It's been instructive to see how effective you are at it with all your long years of professional experience, though.

grum - Member

Haven't you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff? They're only interested in telling you you're wrong, over and over and over and over again.

While you on the other hand rather than tell JHJ that he's wrong prefers to take a more subtle approach :

grum - Member

You're not going to persuade JHJ to start thinking rationally, and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

I'm sure JHJ prefers to be told that he's irrational and full of shit than to be accused of being wrong.

Everyone makes mistakes every now and again, but from what I've seen, grums a pretty decent guy.

Not really sure what you're trying to achieve though ernie?

Well obviously you are going to think he's "a pretty decent guy" whilst he's backing you up.

I just like to remind grum that while he constantly criticises other people for not agreeing with you he was happy to say that you can't think rationally and are full of shit when it suited him.

This isn't about you JHJ it's about grum's self-righteous and apparently rather selective indignation.

It's understandable everyone is a bit disturbed at the moment, this is some serious and heavy shit, but at the end of the day, we're all in the same boat.

How's about we stop picking away at each other and work on making sure the matter is adequately pursued...

I'm not sure what boat you mean. I'm just pointing out that people are perfectly entitled to dismiss your conspiracy theories if they want to.

How's about we stop picking away at each other and work on making sure the matter is adequately pursued...

As I, and plenty other people, have said before. ..

Your scattergun approach to making accusations based purely on conjecture, and nothing that can be considered as actual evidence, does nothing to help.

In fact it does the opposite, as it puts what is actually a serious matter lumped in with all the other conspiracy theories.

You won't listen though, so what's the point.

If it turned out the Royal family had indeed been complicit in the procurement and trafficking of children from carehomes by the security services, for the purposes of blackmailing politicians, would you accept it?

How about if a member of the Royal family had been directly involved in the sadistic abuse of children?

I think it would be accepted if there were irrefutable evidence, and the odd incoherent youtube vid and veiled reference doesn't really cut it for me. We can say "how about..." anything we like, but if it lacks proof, there's not really much point, kind of like your "I like to build rapport" claims.

If it turned out the Royal family had indeed been complicit in the procurement and trafficking of children from carehomes by the security services, for the purposes of blackmailing politicians, [b]would you accept it?[/b]

How about if a member of the Royal family had been directly involved in the sadistic abuse of children?

I'm not even sure what you are asking.

Would I accept it ?

If it was proven that it happened, then of course I would accept it. It would be a fact.

No offence meant, but that's a ****ing stupid question.

More pertinent is will you ever accept that you were wrong.

Everyone here can be swayed by proof and evidence...ironically everyone but you.

Given the current makeup of the inquiry into child abuse, do you think such matters will be thoroughly investigated?

Hang on, have you moved on from your first stupid question without explaining why you asked it ?

I just like to remind grum that while he constantly criticises other people for not agreeing with you he was happy to say that you can't think rationally and are full of shit when it suited him.

This isn't about you JHJ it's about grum's self-righteous and apparently rather selective indignation.

I think a lot of the stuff that JHJ points is unhelpful because it makes people dismiss it all as conspiracy theory.

Even though I agree with most of the points that most of you make about how illogical and irrational a lot of it is, it really baffles/infuriates me how you all choose to ignore the fact that within all the conspiracy nonsense there is a lot of fairly pertinent and credible information about serious and horrific crimes.

I think it's utterly, utterly pointless to keep on nitpicking at everything he says, and this thread would be a lot more interesting if people just talked about the credible stuff.

Yes I was rude about JHJ and probably shouldn't have been - but I left it at that, rather than posting endless tedious and pointless rebuttals of every single conspiracy theory he comes out with.

Why is everyone so much more interested in picking apart every single thing JHJ says than talking about the actual issue? Seriously?

I tried a few times but it genuinely seems like no-one here is really interested, yet you all keep coming back again and again to pick apart JHJ's posts.

ironically everyone but you.

Me ?

Just to ascertain that I'm speaking to people who have adequate understanding of what is being discussed, rather than relying on conjecture and denial, what did you think of the Radio 4 programme?

it really baffles/infuriates me how you all choose to ignore the fact that within all the conspiracy nonsense there is a lot of fairly pertinent and credible information about serious and horrific crimes.

Who says anyone ignores it ?

Maybe we just don't bleat about it on bike forums.

For all the good it would do what's the point ?

Just thought i'd throw this in to the [i]ring[/i] to back up jhj, the royal who was investigated was Prince Philip and he used/owned a black cab to drive around in at the time.

Not about to say how/why i know of such an accusation but there you go, I have absolutely no doubt that the individual who mentioned it to me is 100% genuine as to their belief……ah what the hell - it was known in certain London criminal [i]underworld[/i] organisations.

There…i have just totally made myself the laughing stock of stw and nothing i ever say again will be taken seriously 😉

Who says anyone ignores it ?

Maybe we just don't bleat about it on bike forums.

For all the good it would do what's the point ?

What's the point of any discussion on a bike forum? Why do you keep coming back to this thread?

Just to ascertain that I'm speaking to people who have adequate understanding of what is being discussed,

Most of the time, what you discuss is rumour and conjecture.

As is constantly pointed out to you, and constantly ignored.

rather than relying on conjecture..

That's just beyond my irony limit I'm afraid.

Not even sure if you are joking or not.

I've not listened to the radio 4 program. (Here comes the claim that I don't care 🙄 )