Yes but for you they would have got away with it 😕
I assume you are being called as an expert witness?
It's almost as if I'm quite selective in what allegations I feel are worth pursuing
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 😆
Being as I (allegedly) just believe allegations blindly, it's quite convenient that all of this has come to light since I mentioned such matters several months ago before they were reported in the news:
Which proves you believe the allegations in the absence of any credible and verifiable evidence.
It's almost as if I'm quite selective in what allegations I feel are worth pursuing due to extensive research on the matter...
And yet this "extensive research* has yet to uncover any credible or verifiable evidence.
(* reading other people websites and watching YouTube videos isn't really "extensive research" it called web browsing)
Yes we have all seen the prudent way in which you pursue only the important stuff like the Queen and her armies.
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...
it's quite convenient that all of this has come to light since I mentioned such matters several months ago before they were reported in the news
To be fair JHJ this thread was started 7 months ago and you were posting direct links to newspaper articles then, so I don't know how this fits in with your claim that you were mentioning it before it was in the news.
And yet this "extensive research* has yet to uncover any credible or verifiable evidence.
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?
reading other people websites and watching YouTube videos isn't really "extensive research" it called web browsing
Does that mean GCHQ just do web browsing and whatnot? On whose behalf do they do it?
As you're no doubt aware ernie, this isn't the only thread I've been mentioning such matters on...
😉
Do you think the police and IPCC are also simply relying on evidence that is neither credible or verifiable
No.
I'm saying that [b]you [/b]are.
And you've posted nothing to convince anyone otherwise.
Does that mean GCHQ just do web browsing and whatnot?
They don't get their evidence of anything from the websites you always post links to.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not in any way an "investigator"
You read websites. It's not the same thing.
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.
Once again. For the hard of hearing.
I'm not trying to prove that paedophiles don't exist. I'm not trying to prove that some of them (a very small percentage though) are not people in powerful positions.
You keep saying I am, but I'm not.
I'm criticising you for believing specific allegations without any proof.
Proof may eventually come. But that won't make your blind belief in any allegation any better.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are in no way qualified to pass such judgement.
I've no idea what "qualification" I would need.
But either way, I sincerely hope you haven't managed to convince anyone that you are, and that nobody is directly relying on you for any sort of justice.
That's just a scary thought.
You probably ought to invest heavily in nappies then...
I'm trying to think of some facetious joke that I can contribute but I'm struggling with the subject matter
(EDIT: aaah yeah.... got one! I'd better not though)
[i]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...[/i]
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 [u]lack[/u]of 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.
I can see your logic nick, but it doesn't tally with the facts that MI5 have repeatedly intervened in Police investigations and shut them down when they involve influential figures.
A good example of this is Cyril Smith:
http://www.channel4.com/news/mi5-child-abuse-cover-up-allegations-home-office
though as the IPCC cases listed a bit further up show, he was far from the only one.
This Newsnight investigation goes some way to uncovering the circumstances surrounding Smith:
similar intervention preventing investigation occurred in Lambeth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28316874
and Kincora:
[img] 
:large[/img]
There are many similar cases across the country.
JHJ
it doesn't tally with the [b]facts[/b] that MI5 [b]have[/b] repeatedly intervened in Police investigations and [b]shut them down[/b] when they involve influential figures.
C4 link provided
As the IPCC announces it is looking into [b]claims[/b] detectives covered up child abuse by politicians and police officers, MI5 faces questions [b]over what it knew[/b] and [b]whether[/b] it tried to suppress evidence.
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.
Your logic is good nemesis, but if Kids were being trafficked between Kincora, Elm Guest House, Dolphin Square, Lambeth etc (as certainly appears to be the case) for abuse by powerful people and in all of those instances investigations were shut down by MI5 or Special Branch, then not only do we have a clear pattern, we also have clear links between the various venues. From that it is reasonable to assume they were all part of the same network.
I appreciate there is little reason to believe the Masonic aspect at this stage, though the fact that some children were introduced to the paedophile rings to be raped and tortured by their parents certainly raises questions as to why the f*ck anyone would stoop so low.
We also have to wonder just how it is that all these high profile figures came together to indulge in group abuse
if, appears, assume.
I agree that it [b]looks[/b] 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?
Some questions we'll need to answer to get to the bottom of this include:
How did high profile people arrange for care homes to provide children to be abused?
How did these smaller rings of high profile people procuring children from care homes to be abused all somehow manage to get Special Branch and MI5 to intervene on any unfortunate snooping by the common everyday police?
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
How did high profile people arrange for care homes to provide children to be abused?
Because they had money and influence and there actually are 'bad' people out there who'll do unspeakable things with the right influence.
How did these smaller rings of high profile people procuring children from care homes to be abused all somehow manage to get Special Branch and MI5 to intervene on any unfortunate snooping by the common everyday police?
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.
If anybody would like to take a short break from this and do something practical about it...
https://www.justgiving.com/Mike-Dudley3/
OK?
Carry on. 😉
If the alternative is to ignore it, I'd far prefer to ask questions.
It's only by asking questions that this much exposure has come about, we should all be asking questions really.
Here's a few:
Who pays MI5's wages?
On whose orders do they cover up abuse?
Is there similar VIP paedophile rings still operating?
I'm sure many of the bright minds in here can think of many more
So you have to either be a conspiracy theorist or a p-do apologist, right? Those are the only two options.
As pointed out numerous times, you aren't doing anything at least not on here. Asking unanswerable questions on a cycling forum and taking conjecture as fact is certainly not helping the cause and may well be harming it.
Of course, for all we know you're the P-do hunter general and you and your band of plucky conspiracy theorists are uncovering the evidence that will unmask the whole masonic circle of child abuse but since you don't share anything useful with us, we can't see that.
But then it's all been said before so I don't suppose you'll heed that.
For those interested, here is the Channel 4 segment.
So you have to either be a conspiracy theorist or a p-do apologist, right?
Like p-dos and p-donts?
Maybe they should have a show of hands in parliament...
Or the house of Lords...
what if prominent people were still being protected from prosecution?
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.****/news/article-2779973/Report-reveals-extent-allegations-against-ex-MP-Greville-Janner.html ]Hmmm...[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.****/news/article-2770235/Police-told-limit-abuse-probe-MP.html ]Police investigations halted from above[/url]:
[img] 
[/img]
Passed the evidential test, yet multiple failures by Police and CPS to pursue justice:
[img] 
[/img]
CPS report [url= http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2015/04/the-decision-not-to-prosecute-lord-janner-statement-from-the-dpp.html ]here[/url]
Theres just been an extensive interview with the mother of one of the Oxford grooming victims on Five Live. It was absolutely harrowing! As a father of two daughters I can't imagine what she went through.
What was consistent throughout was the total and complete failure of social services, who were told over and over and over what was happening, and who did absolutely nothing about it.
In their alternative universe, once a girl is over the age of 11, she is a 'young person' and isn't being exploited, she's making 'lifestyle choices'. The police were apparently very supportive, but it all ended up back in the bonkers politically correct world of social services, who simply refused to address the issue at all.
So if it goes from the grass roots level of Police and Social services, up via the Councils and all the way up to the Home Office (bearing in mind that they knew of Rotherham abuse in 2003), Crown Prosecution Service etc, what the hell is going on?
Political correctness gone mad plus a healthy does of it being "someone else's responsibility"
Front page of the Times and a CPS investigation is hardly evidence of a conspiracy, is it? Unless perhaps it's a double bluff by the Illuminati? The more "the Establishment" investigates the more it is in fact evidence of a cover up?
Front page of the Times and a CPS investigation is hardly evidence of a conspiracy, is it?
The fact the CPS are not going to take it to trial, against the wishes of the police, suggests something is off. As well as the fact it keeps happening:
But "mistakes" made in decision making by the CPS in 1991 and 2007 and Leicestershire Police in 2002 meant he was never charged.
- [url= http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32329924 ]Beeb.[/url]
jivehoneyjive - MemberSo if it goes from the grass roots level of Police and Social services, up via the Councils and all the way up to the Home Office (bearing in mind that they knew of Rotherham abuse in 2003), Crown Prosecution Service etc, what the hell is going on?
maybe they have a [b]Common Purpose[/b] ?
Interestingly, on BBC World at One good friend of Lord Janner Uri Geller mentioned his son (Daniel Geller) works at The Crown Prosecution Service:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/269974
Furthermore, it seems Uri Geller has an extensive history of working with the intelligence services...
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jun/13/nsa-uri-geller-psychic-spy
Sound familiar?
[img] 
:large[/img]
Worth remembering Keith Vaz's contributions...
[img] 
[/img]
See top of Page 12 of this thread:
For years the 'Guardian' newspaper were most vocal in dismissing any suggestion of muslim grooming gangs as racist lies and therefore must share the blame in all this. They also still refuse to handover Snowden data which poses a threat to national security, apparently they insist the data is 'safe' in their hands.
That whole national security thing gets a bit confusing when MI5 protect paedophiles...
Well done you managed to both demonise the guardian and Muslims in one post
Farage like skills of debating there rather than your usual patriotic EDL type delivery
Well done I do so hope that get you your boy scout bigotry badge
Well done you managed to both demonise the guardian and Muslims in one post
Farage like skills of debating there rather than your usual patriotic EDL type delivery
Well done I do so hope that get you your boy scout bigotry badge
Are you a guardian reading Muslim?
enfht - MemberFor years the 'Guardian' newspaper were most vocal in ....
How would you know ?
You've never struck me as a Guardian reader.
binners - Member
...The police were apparently very supportive, but it all ended up back in the bonkers politically correct world of social services, who simply refused to address the issue at all.
Is there a a crime of being an accessory to paedophilia? Sounds like these lot are just that.
Their vitriol peaked around 2011, go check yourself its all online. Or just deny and shout racist.
You've never struck me as a Guardian reader.
They come in various configurations 😆
Interesting piece in enfht's favourite read:
As regards his dementia, it is a bit odd he managed to send the House of Lords a letter just 10 days ago...
[img] 
:large[/img]
What's more, like Leon Brittan, Cyril Smith, Harvey Proctor, Peter Hayman and Jimmy Savile, [url= http://exaronews.com/articles/5544/lord-janner-met-probes-ex-mp-over-vip-paedophile-network ]he has also been linked to the Westminster Paedophile ring
[/url]
i.e. Not just abusing at care homes in Leicestershire, but attending abuse parties with several other prominent people, with children procured from a number of care homes across the country.
As regards his dementia, it is a bit odd he managed to send the House of Lords a letter just 10 days ago...
What's also a bit odd is that the police, which you claim are part of an establishment paedophile ring and vital control structures of the political and religious elite, should be so vocal in their criticism of the CPS decision.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/16/lord-janner-will-not-be-charged-despite-evidence-of-child-abuse ]Police consider challenge to CPS ruling not to charge Janner over abuse allegations[/url]
[b][i]Police are considering an unprecedented legal challenge against the director of public prosecutions (DPP) over her failure to charge Lord Janner of Braunstone following allegations that he abused boys in children’s homes over nearly two decades. [/i][/b]
And an Assistant Chief Constable no less said very publicly and apparently unprecedentedly :
[b][i]Ast Ch Cons Roger Bannister, who has overseen the investigation, said the decision was “perverse” and would do little to support and encourage victims of sexual abuse to come forward. “There is credible evidence that this man carried out some of the most serious sexual crimes imaginable over three decades against children who were highly vulnerable and the majority of whom were in care. We are exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to challenge this decision and victims themselves have a right to review under a CPS procedure.”[/i][/b]
That's a little odd isn't it ?
