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

what does the photo of him with Heath show us?

Do your own research.

Makes you think doesnt it

No. Not really.

The lizards in the hollowed out moon though, they're what REALLY makes me think.

The lizards in the hollowed out moon though, they're what REALLY makes me think.

Well if you ever bump into Buzz Aldrin don't accuse him of not landing on the Moon.

[i]"You're a coward and a liar and ooofff"[/i]

Absolute classic 🙂

Disappointed but not surprised in your response, jhj. I won't post the sign as JY kindly did it already.

My point that you avoided is that if you won't admit that your Big Exciting Conspiracy isn't the only possible (reasonable if you like) explanation then it's utterly pointless discussing anything on this subject with you. I think most people accept that as unlikely as it is, the BEC is theoretically possible or at a minimum that there has been conspiracy to hide/bury illegal activity but that's not the same as being the only reasonable explanation.

Some of you seem to have confused this with a David Icke thread...

I've already admitted on a number of occasions that there is still some question over the full picture, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there was co-ordinated activity involving the intelligence services and some very high level people, many of whom were associated with Jimmy Savile.

Colin Wallace, having being a psychological warfare expert, involved in Kincora (which has been linked to several similar venues such as Elm Guest House (as apparently has Edward Heath)) does tend to ring a few alarm bells... especially when the head of MI6 has also been implicated:

[img] [/img]

there is no doubt whatsoever that there was co-ordinated activity involving the intelligence services and some very high level people, many of whom were associated with Jimmy Savile.

We'll "no doubt whatsoever" is overstating it (again) but I agree that it seems very likely. That however doesn't prove anything about the BEC beyond showing that powerful people have influence which I think we all know. It certainly doesn't provide anything credible about control structures, the Queen or other such wild theories.

Well if (taxpayer funded) MI5 and MI6 have been using children from care homes to blackmail politicians (including the Prime Minister?) over several democratically elected governments, on whose authority have they been doing it?

You repeat that as fact but it's just your theory. You've never provided any proof of that, only that it looks likely that cover ups of dodgy activity happened.

As I stated above, that powerful people have influence and can arrange a cover up or that others arranged it to avoid national embarrassment is hardly surprising nor proof of your control structures or BEC.

It's up to you...

you can choose to think I'm a fruitloop because it's easier for you to dismiss that some properly horrific stuff goes on in the world, or you can trust me, as I've sacrificed a significant chunk of my life to researching the subject.

If you trawl through the forum you'll find that before there was any mainstream news coverage, I mentioned the involvement of:

Leon Brittan
Greville Janner
Lord Mountbatten

among others.

I've been harping on about Jimmy Savile and Edward Heath on Jersey, as mentioned in this mainstream news report for over a year before the story broke:

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1530217/edward-heath-five-police-forces-investigating ]A fifth police force receives allegations against Sir Edward Heath - amid claims the ex-PM took boys from Jersey out on his boat.[/url]

Yes and I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people haven't said that you're wrong that it looks like there may well be cases to answer. What you've never come remotely close to showing is that you can link them all into your BEC about control structures, the Queen, etc.

Just because some of the things you talk about seem likely to be correct (that several famous people were involved in dodgy activity) does nothing to validate your other wilder claims which is where most of us think you're way off the mark.

I think you provide loads of excellent insight from your research and then spoil it by coming up with conclusions that don't bear scrutiny or are so wildly unlikely in comparison to the more likely explanations that you discredit your own work. It's a real shame you can't see that.

It's a real shame I can't easily convey the depth of research I've done...

Without getting too complex...

What you've never come remotely close to showing is that you can link them all into your BEC about control structures, the Queen, etc.

Is answered by:

Well if (taxpayer funded) MI5 and MI6 have been using children from care homes to blackmail politicians (including the Prime Minister?) over several democratically elected governments, on whose authority have they been doing it?

and

who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey?

It's a process of deduction...

No, you're reaching your own conclusion and presenting it as fact. If you can't see that then as I said in the previous page,there really is no point discussing since you're completely closed minded about it.
It's conjecture, nothing more because you have no evidence. Deduction only proves something if there is no other possible explanation.

Far more likely than your BEC to explain that is that it was done to avoid national embarrassment/out of a misguided sense of loyalty as is often the case with other cover ups or because the people involved had sufficient influence that they could make it happen.

If I was closed minded, I wouldn't be discussing it with you...

or because the people involved had sufficient influence that they could make it happen.

Who has sufficient influence over a number of different elected governments and across national jurisdictions?

Who has sufficient influence over a number of different elected governments and across national jurisdictions?

You tell us. Go on.

Do your own research

😀

You see, it's funny when someone else says it. Not when you do.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

You're not discussing. You're telling us your theory and then telling us we're stupid/ignorant/naive if we disagree.

Nothing I say seems that funny to you, but hey ho, them's the breaks...

I've worked it out. Jhj is a transdimensional lizard who lives off energy from deja vu. This thread had provided him with sustenance for years.

I am discussing... who is the one who keeps this thread alive by bringing links for discussion?

You can draw your own conclusions... I'm not suggesting anyone is stupid/ignorant/naive, I've provided a wealth of information~ if you choose to follow the links, I'll be happy to answer any questions

because it's easier for you to dismiss that some properly horrific stuff goes on in the world

Perhaps that is an inherent flaw in human nature~ when we are challenged by someone, we see it as hostile...

you only have to look at the past couple of pages to see the constant onslaught I endure, so excuse me if my passion is evident.

Suffice to say, I don't intend to mislead, and in many respects, it is frustrating, because I'd love to be able to convey every last detail, but it's a vast subject with many avenues.

If you truly have an interest in the subject, read this link, as it gives some insight into what we're dealing with.

http://isgp.nl/2009_11_In_brief_beyond_Dutroux_ties_to_US_CIA

I am discussing... who is the one who keeps this thread alive by bringing links for discussion?

As for happy to discuss your are not you dodge any question put to you, which is basically every question, that threatens your distorted views.

I'm glad to hear you're in the mood for discussing...

What do you think about the practice of intelligence services procuring and training vulnerable children to be prostituted by influential people in front of hidden cameras?

I'm glad to hear you're in the mood for discussing...

Yeah but you don't want to discuss the thread's subject matter, ie, the 1,400 children who were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham.

Basically because it doesn't fit in with your theory of an establishment paedophile ring led by the Queen which is vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite.

You find it impossible to link British-****stani paedophile rings with the establishment so you've changed the subject.

Child sex abuse crimes and the coverups and the ignoring of those crimes is/was widespread in society, tragically infecting every social class and community within, all the more so if society considers the victims to be "worthless", the Rotherham scandal was not about vital control structures of the political and religious elite.

Nice touch of derailing there ernie... you really should read the whole thread:

My previous answers have already addressed how this is a bigger issue than simply the ****stani Abusers, from the local police and council, to the Home Office, the issue was willfully ignored and files went missing.

What do you think about the practice of intelligence services procuring and training vulnerable children to be prostituted by influential people in front of hidden cameras?

you?

Well, being as the Home Office is in charge of MI5 and [url= http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/exclusive-mp-and-home-office-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-grooming-11-years-ago-1-6913834 ]the Home Office took no action on Rotherham in 2003[/url], it could of course be argued that they do have a common factor.

Whether or not those two elements are related is far from clear, but for the sake of discussion...

Well, being as the Home Office is in charge of MI5 and the Home Office took no action on Rotherham in 2003, it could of course be argued that they do have a common factor.

FFS you are really clutching at straws to suggest that the British-****stani paedophile rings in Rotherham were hand in glove with MI5.

CBA anymore.

Cool, you seemed a bit fixated on the Queen anyway to be honest...

Yes if one were detached from reality one could want to discuss that
JHJ earlier

[img] [/img]

Bit slow there and ernie really is the fastest milkman

JHJ I wish you were as funny as you think you are
you just look petty to me.

You're just sore because of where I clutched em from...

[img] [/img]

Now I wish you were even vaguely amusing

Janner fails to turn up at court

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33923041

Ill bet if they let him claim back his travel costs he'd have shown up

Well well... [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1537534/church-leaders-apology-to-abuse-victims ]Yesterday the Catholic church in Scotland apologized to survivors of abuse[/url]:

[url= http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/catholic-church-in-scotland-must-support-and-apologise-to-abuse-survivors-says-review-that-followed-cardinal-keith-obrien-scandal-31459560.html ]Catholic Church in Scotland must support and apologise to abuse survivors, says review that followed Cardinal Keith O'Brien scandal[/url]

Cardinal Keith O Brien... [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/13 ]mentioned him 5 months ago on page 13[/url]

[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/uk-pope-abuse-cardinal-idUKKBN0MG20V20150320 ]Pope accepts disgraced Cardinal O'Brien's resignation from public role[/url]

Hmm, where have I heard that name before?
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-cardinal-keith-obrien-1731376 ]
Jimmy Savile and the Cardinal[/url]

[img] [/img]

Britain’s most senior Catholic cleric wasn't he?

[img] [/img]

Based on a true story, this trailer seems to suggest the Catholic Church is the same the world over:

Still find it a bit odd that the Keeper of Holyroodhouse is the nephew of the head of the child abuse inquiry (who is taking charge of the branch of the inquiry looking into the role of prominent figures and the intelligence services):

[img] [/img]

A scene from Holyroodhouse:

[img] [/img]

You couldn't make it up...

The original head of the Child Abuse Inquiry, [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10963332/Baroness-Butler-Sloss-hid-claims-of-bishops-sex-abuse.html ]Baroness Butler-Sloss hid claims of bishop's sex abuse[/url] (quite aside from her Brother's involvement with many of those now facing allegations, which led her to step down)

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/08/former-bishop-peter-ball-admits-sexually-abusing-young-men ]The Church of England Bishop in question, Peter Ball admitted to sexually abusing young men [/url]

There are a few interesting (and worrying) aspects to this case:

On Tuesday (yesterday), the Crown Prosecution Service allowed two charges of indecently assaulting two boys in their early teens to lie on file. The deal, hammered out in secret with CPS lawyers, means Ball will not face trial on perhaps the most serious alleged offences, which involved boys aged 13 and 15.

[b]It can now be revealed how prosecutors and the police – with the knowledge of the then archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey – allowed Ball to escape criminal charges when allegations against him first arose 22 years ago.
[/b]

One of the two complainants whose case will not be taken to trial, Phil Johnson, expressed anger at the deal. “Throughout the two decades since the original disclosures, none of the allegations against Peter Ball have been examined in court. None of the evidence has been tested or fully examined. At every turn there have been deals and cover-ups.

“The truth has been suppressed and Ball?s offending behaviour and involvement with other abusers … has been minimised.”

When claims against Ball were made in 1993, conversations were held between police, prosecutors and the church before it was decided to caution the bishop rather than charge him.

Ball resigned in 1993 and moved to Manor Lodge in the Somerset village of Aller. The wisteria-clad property is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the private estate headed by Prince Charles.

At the time, Ball said: “[Charles] has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house.

[img] [/img]

jive did you see the comment by the Met police at the weekend, there is no a shred of evidence that three boys where murdered at Sop,his Square and they have major concerns about the credibility of a key witness. This whole campaign looks even more like an "establishment" slur campaign, that anti-Semitic blog gives the game away too.

I see you are posting more photos perhaps hoping to divert attention from the sentencing of an Asian gang convicted of grooming and abusing vulnerable young white girls. This thread is titled with refrence to Rotherham and what went on there is directly linked to this weeks sentencing than to photos of the Pope or the Queen or anyone else you've attempted to slime

I daresay you're referring to this daily mail piece:

[url= http://www.****/news/article-3222908/Grave-doubts-claims-key-witnesses-VIP-sex-abuse-inquiry.html ]VIP child abuse inquiry is staring to unravel: 'Grave doubts' emerge over key witness's claim that he saw boys murdered[/url]
[url= http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5655/analysis-why-police-continue-to-investigate-claims-by-nick ]
The Met Police continue to investigate[/url] as they find the witness credible and despite your claims, they have made no comment questioning the credibility or validity of the investigation.

As regards establishment slurs, you appear to have used the right words in the wrong context...

This criticism of the investigation has arisen as a result of [url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/25/westminster-paedophile-claims-harvey-proctor-accuses-police-of-witch-hunt ]Harvey Proctor's press conference
[/url]

Interesting to note that [url= https://twitter.com/ExaroNews/status/638687801492570112 ]Harvey Proctor has now left the country[/url] and [url= https://twitter.com/ExaroNews/status/638688431338586112 ]will not voluntarily undergo any further questioning[/url]

What is the Anti-Semitic blog you refer to? (and how does it relate to the investigation?)

Please provide further information of what you're referring to regarding 'this week's sentencing'...

I'm confused JHJ, your last post contained no pictures at all. Can you post a few pictures to help me to understand who is guilty of paedophilia?

Sorry ernie, I'd always assumed you could read...

So who have you been posting pictures for then?

Besides, you know that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Everybody~ I'm a caring sharing guy like that...

These ***** didn't seem to be VIPs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34219235