Forum menu
Nope, no mention of why he contacted him...
The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, [b]who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster[/b].
Junkyard contacted Brant Richards, who has designed bikes for a number of years
I assume that also tells you what we talked about....face palm
This is really basic comprehension stuff.
Why was it even mentioned in the article then?
[quote=Junkyard ]Junkyard contacted Brant Richards, who has designed bikes for a number of yearsWhat are you getting?
Steady on scotroutes, that could be construed as unreasonable conjecture!!
EDIT: WHoosh JHJ
@ Scotsroutes :After he carefully listened and understood my needs he is making me a chicken curry 😉
[quote=jivehoneyjive opined]Why was it even mentioned in the article then?
I have no idea it as it gives no information. Shall I guess and then praise my awesome reasoning abilities and just repeat the sentence that does not tell us why he spoke to him ?
WE DONT KNOW AS IT DOES NOT SAY SO ANYTHING WE SAY IS CONJECTURE.
This post contains no information, nothing to see here, as you were.
The former MP’s son also said he had contacted Labour MP Tom Watson, [b]who has raised concerns about a paedophile ring around Westminster[/b].
But don't forget about plugholes in the Southern Hemisphere...
JHJ,as you're clearly struggling with this, no one is saying that he didn't talk about the subject in hand. We're all saying that even if that is possible or likely even, it's still conjecture. As jy pointed out, taking to brant doesn't prove that you discussed bikes. It's conjecture. Guessing.
I did not say it contained no information I said it contained insufficient information for us to be able to know what they spoke about. We knoe who spoke but not what about.
Its not even debatable.
You are free to carry on repeating it as if it says something about what they spoke about But it wont convince anyone about you powers of reasoning.
It has to be conjecture as it doe snot explicitly say what they spoke about
its as equally plausible/possible [ this is a guess obviously] that the conversation went like this
Tom was my dad mentioned in the evidence you passed to the Home secretary?
Tom : no
Thanks I never thought he was a paedo.
I have the same amount of incomplete evidence as you do for my conclusion.
Feel free to ignore this and just keep jumping to conclusions...its what you do.
PS only you will think i am saying this is what happened so dont be that daft.
There's a lot to be said for doing your own research...
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10978492/My-father-was-a-sexual-predator-like-Jimmy-Savile-says-son-of-former-Tory-MP.html ]My father was a sexual predator like Jimmy Savile says son of former Tory MP[/url]
On one occasion Anthony Atkinson was told by the relative of a teacher his father was a “paedophile” who had had an affair with a school pupil.“At the very least he is guilty of prolific predatory sexual behaviour. My father was predatory and prolific and we [my mother, my sister and I] all thought that the behaviour attributed to Jimmy Savile of being predatory and prolific also applied to him.”
When Tom Watson, the Labour MP, claimed in the House of Commons in October 2012 that 'a paedophile network’ may have existed in the past at a high level, protected by connections to Parliament, Anthony Atkinson and his mother Susan got in touch with the MP, suggesting their father might have been at the very least on the fringes of the group.
Anthony Atkinson was told by a school friend that a teacher had claimed that the MP was a “paedophile”.
Mr Atkinson also discovered on the internet a claim made by a former American intern of improper conduct by the MP.
Being predatory and prolific do not make a paedophile. Saville assaulted adults too iirc. Again, it's not fact but conjecture. You'll note of course that nothing in that quote is evidence. And even less evidence of what you're claiming as your one big, exciting conspiracy theory.
Oh, right, I thought for the time being we were just talking about this:
[b]When Tom Watson, the Labour MP, claimed in the House of Commons in October 2012 that 'a paedophile network’ may have existed in the past at a high level, protected by connections to Parliament, Anthony Atkinson and his mother Susan got in touch with the MP[/b]
Though the [url= http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/murder-arms-dealing-treason-and-sexual-abuse-the-apartheid-regime-and-the-tory-right ]South Africa links are certainly worthy of further scrutiny[/url], as they also link to Northern Ireland:
Link = conjecture = guess
Link = interaction = maybe you should try reading
Interaction proves nothing. It's still conjecture.
I'll bet you know someone who met Jimmy Saville. Maybe someone who worked in one of the hospitals he abused people in. They interacted. What does that PROVE?
I met Gawd love Er Princess Diana a couple of weeks before she was killed. Guess that probably explains everything.
So I take it you're not taking the time to read or research anything...
(^That's conjecture by the way)
😉
I'll admit that I gave up reading your links some time back as they were so clearly conspiracy BS with no facts or just didn't actually say what you claimed they did. Also you tend to post quotes which are easy to pick apart. Not to mention that I don't have time to watch the videos.
But others clearly do and not one of the resulting comments suggests I've missed a golden nugget that would prove your exciting global conspiracy theory.
Anthony Atkinson was told by a school friend that a teacher had claimed that the MP was a “paedophile”.
So best evidence is 3rd hand hearsay uncorroborated by anything. Given the homophobic prejudice of the time that often suggested links between homosexuality and paedopilia not exactly strong .
Didn't you make a similar gay therefore a paedo assertion about another MP linked to Fashanu a while ago jhj?
Daresay you're referring to what's mentioned [url= http://rt.com/op-edge/180616-british-home-secretary-child-abuse/ ]here[/url]
Homosexuality is not the issue, mysterious deaths are.
Nonetheless, the apparent hostility directed at me for linking to information provided by Atkinson's own son shows just how brave he and even moreso the survivors of abuse are.
What hostility?
Daresay it's open to interpretation, but crankboy's repeated claims I've been seeking to link homosexuality to paedophilia/paedosadism seem a touch hostile...
I appreciate these are very dark and disturbing issues that can sometimes be hard to comprehend.
It's understandable passions are high, but exposure is key to bringing about resolution... something the public inquiry has thus far failed to achieve due to repeated conflicts of interest.
No doubt you can appreciate these are matters I care about passionately as they have absolutely massive implications.
exposure is key to bringing about resolution.
No. Facts, and justice are key. Your version of "exposure" is just mindless conjecture, photos of people with other people who must have known people and more conjecture.
For example, your point that Mountbatten had "young boys" on the boat with him was about as direct a "nudge, nudge, eh? e's one of THEM" moment as possible. You were quite obviously trying to state he was a kiddyfiddler, but had zero fact to back it up with so resorted to innuendo.
It's not hostile. As others have put it -
The cause you are trying to further is noble, the way you try to do it does the victims no favours.
Repeated pointing out that you do link homosexuality to peadofila and did previously not in a link but in your own words.
Jhj you make a life accusing people of horrendous crimes based on innuendo and nudge nudge you have posted a link to a fabricated website .You then claim to be the victim of hostility when people challenge you.
I stand by my assertions of Lord Mountbatten's involvement... you should check the last page and the post about Charles Hornby for an introduction.
It is tricky, as along with many others, I have done a vast amount of research~ I appreciate others on here are unlikely to have the same depth of knowledge on the issue, so I try to present it in the simplest form possible.
Sometimes it takes hours and days to piece together one part of the story and due to the complexity and wealth of information it can't be revealed it all at once.
due to the complexity and wealth of information it can't be revealed it all at once.
I try to present it in the simplest form possible.
You mean "Oooh look, here's someone in a photograph with someone else! You must know what that means, eh? Nudge nudge".
You've been posting your shit for ages. Get on with it.
Was Mountbatten a paedophile? Yes, or no. Backed up with facts, not conjecture, if you don't mind.
Legally, I am obliged to say allegedly...
Cop out, and your usual bullshit.
As before, your cause is laudable, but your approach is laughable.
"The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not"
Do your own research read the case that quote comes from clue it's been covered by your mates in before its news and involves organised child abuse by teachers and police officers .
Do you mean like the Whistleblower who gave Tom Watson cause to raise the issue in parliament?
Though he does make a minor error in the link above, his credibility is strong...
If you want more on Mountbatten Flash, refer to the link I've already mentioned, or better still, do your own research
do your own research
No.
You claim to have all the knowledge, all the facts. You tell us the truth. Go on.
Legally, if it's true, you're not in trouble. So, tell us.
As before, your cause is laudable, but your approach is laughable
Damn you Flash for phrasing it so much better than I did!
MCTD, benefits of a classical edewkayshun, innit?
Of course, that's because I was at "an elite boarding school" and am almost certainly a part of the lizard overlord structure. Or some shit like that.
😉
Legally, I am obliged to say allegedly...
Legally how? You can't libel the dead, that's why people can say what they like about Jimmy Savile without fear of the courts.
And, if Ernest and I agree on something, you can be sure it's right.
You're just going to have to be patient...
daresay you've not taken the time to read the links provided today anyhow, which means much like nemesis, you're relying on idle conjecture.
Bit of politeness wouldn't go amiss either.
Bit of politeness wouldn't go amiss either.
Legally how please?
Speaking theoretically...
If there was a living survivor of abuse by Mountbatten, would they be a victim, or an alleged victim?
At what point did survivors of Jimmy Savile's abuse stop being alleged victims and start being victims?
At and if the point is reached where the allegation is demonstrated to be true ?
[quote=crankboy ]At and if the point is reached where the allegation is demonstrated to be true ?See, that normally happens in a courtroom where the accused has a chance to defend themselves. I think JHJs point is that we skipped that bit with Saville (on account of him being dead and all)
Well JHJ seems to want to skip that bit with Mountbatten too. Only he won't for unspecified 'legal reasons'.
For contrast to what has now been established, due to extensive investigation, have a read of this from 2012, just before the Savile exposure was 1st aired...
Scotroutes that is why we have yewtree and the vexed independent inquiry into sexual abuse.
The existing inquiry is more than adequate.
No. No it isn't, especially when the personal details (names, addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the alleged victims have been accidentally leaked.
At best we're talking criminal negligence.
I've no doubt that there has been something rotten at the heart of politics for a very long time and that children written off by society have been used as toys by privileged people. These people only ever seem to be uncovered years after they die, yet the news is full of quotes along the lines of "the signs were obvious".
That said, in all the research I've read there have been a few things that trouble me. Certain websites are hyping the most tenuous of associations as statements of guilt, language like "Savile was associated with..." cheapen the whole thing. I don't like the continued whispered insinuation that it's all a massive Jewish conspiracy either.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust Michael Gove to head an inquiry into why my bus was ten minutes late, there needs to be an independent commission outside the influence and remit of any political party.
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.