Forum menu
What are you on about?
As I said before, evade, ignore, change the subject. It's been your MO forever, as far as I can tell. God help any journo who gets you on the tip line.
Do your own research
It pretty clear I have, hence the question:
How is it that the Director of BBC Children’s programming responsible for this piece of TV history:
came to be chairing the Parliamentary debate on the Brexit Withdrawal Bill over 40 years later?
No, it's not clear. Humour us in our stupidity. What are you saying about Sir Roger Gale, MP?
It's like trying to nail down jelly.
'Would you like to buy the pork pie?'
'I don't think you really know about why I'm here today.'
'You mean you're not in my shop trying to buy that pork pie you're holding?'
'You don't seem to be aware of the insidious link between lizards, Big Pork Pie(tm) and Prince Andrew.'
'What?'
'Do I need to spell it out for you?'
'No, there are other customers here, I don't have all day and I want to know if you're going to buy that pork pie or put it back on the fridge, actually.'
'Yeah, but the BBC has misreported the location of this pork pie because Jimmy Savile.'
etc etc.
Are you sure jivehoneyjive isn't really Tommy Robinson?
Same standard of investigative journalism and I've never seen both of them in the same room?
What are you saying about Sir Roger Gale, MP?
Well, before he was elevated to Her Majesty's Privy council on 13th February 2019, he had quite a colourful history...
Bit like Sir Edward Leigh I suppose:
https://bigstinks.wordpress.com/2019/04/21/privy-to-what/
Well, before he was elevated to Her Majesty’s Privy council on 13th February 2019, he had quite a colourful history…
Bit like Sir Edward Leigh I suppose:
No, not Edward Leigh, Roger Gale.
What specifically has he done recently that is of concern?
If this was a newspaper I’d be back to page 3. What EXACTLY is the story about Mr Gale?
Spell it out in clear words, no links allowed.
I don't really appreciate your tone; you can after all read, so do so...
No, all I'm reading are vague questions by way of insinuation. What are you actually saying about Mr Gale? And no questions allowed.
When presented with facts, would you make these same outrageous demands of an accredited journalist?
When presented with facts, would you make these same outrageous demands of an accredited journalist?
A straight answer to a very simple question about your 'journalism'? How outrageous!
I don’t really appreciate your tone
Oh my. 🙂
I don’t really appreciate your tone; you can after all read, so do so…
You can't actually answer the question, can you? Are you Michael Howard?
What specifically has he done recently that is of concern?
OK you lazy ****ers, you do the legwork, I ain't being paid after all
https://generalaviationappg.uk/parliamentary-members/
JHJ, that's sort of the point that's been made to you above, and I'm not sure if you are deliberately choosing to ignore it.
Journalists state the position (often / usually) backed by facts, they don't insinuate.
That's why they struggle to cut through sometimes, and why you'll never be a journalist.
It's a bit off to accuse them of something that you consistently fail to do in your output i.e. articulate the direct accusations. And to test my theory...
Specifically, what has Mr Gale done recently that should concern us?
If you ever do get paid, make sure it's by the word rather than on actual content.
they don’t insinuate.
Don't make me laugh... all too often the hired guns of the press will insinuate every which way to nail a character assassination for political ends; meanwhile, some particularly nasty people get off scott free; why is that?
So, to clarify, which of the facts presented in the blog do you dispute?
And why is it that those with years of collective experience in the industry aren't trying to help a guy who's clearly worked his arse off to investigate further?
And why is it that those with years of collective experience in the industry aren’t trying to help a guy who’s clearly worked his arse off to investigate further?
Because your game of unrelated facts, faint innuendo and leading questions contains no hard evidence of serious wrongdoing. Zero. You won't even tell us what this wrongdoing you'd like us to investigate is.
You may have worked your arse off, but there is very little to show for it.
Anyone who has worked in a proper newsroom has encountered plenty of people like you. One of the skills you learn is to spot the difference between genuine news stories you might be able to prove and grandiose conspiracy-buffs who just tell you the mayor is a nonce and you should look into it.
When presented with facts, would you make these same outrageous demands of an accredited journalist?
It is literally the job of sub-editors and editors to make sure that aCcReDiTeD jOuRnAlIsTs can spit out the story and explain what the sweet **** they're on about. If they can't do that (just like you can't) they don't last very long in the industry.
why is that?
You tell us JHJ, and do it without recourse to a blog or a link referencing people who like small planes. And do it without asking another question.
Just spell it out.
And whilst you're at it explain the wrong doings of Mr Gale 😀
JHJ
Tell us what he’s done or shut up.
Anything outside of those bounds will get you a ban for being a deliberate troll
Many cases go to court with no hard evidence
No, they don't. Does not happen.
Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors
It's a massive story that is immensely tricky to piece together; that's why it's easier to present in a blog...
To get up to speed, you really need to be aware of Julian Lewis' role in the cover up of North Wales child abuse, then work back to the 70s and his days working with his mentor Brian Crozier and that bastion of Childrens TV (and Guiness world records) Norris McWhirter, with the Freedom Association
That takes us to Brian Crozier's work with Le Cercle:
Within the leaks revealed by the Langemann Papers (relating to Le Cercle meetings in 1979 and 1980) is a quote a from planning paper by Brian Crozier about a Cercle complex operation “to affect a change of government in the United Kingdom (accomplished)”
Wait, WHAT?
Affect a change of government, isn’t that something the MI6 and the CIA do in far off places like Iran, Chile, or Libya?
Well yes, but as Cambridge Analytica shows, there’s also all sorts of ways that the ‘democratic’ outcomes of Her Majesty’s Government can be influenced
Assuming Brian Crozier’s claims hold true, how did they do it?
Well, given what has since come out about Jeffrey Epstein and his myriad links to the global political elite (not forgetting his hidden cameras), it doesn't seem too far fetched to suggest blackmail operations...
Now, Brian Crozier's claims to have affected a change of Government in the UK would relate to the election of Margaret Thatcher, whom he'd met, whilst she was leader of Her Majesty's opposition, at the residence of the Viscount De L’Isle:
errr, this Viscount De L'Isle:
But back to Margaret Thatcher...
Long before she got into Chequers, whilst still leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, Margaret Thatcher appeared with Jimmy Savile on Jim’ll fix it:
The programme was a primetime broadcast on New Years Day 1977; however, it would’ve been filmed beforehand sometime in 1976.
Who was Margaret Thatcher's private secretary when this was being arranged?
Edward Leigh, son of Sir Neville Leigh head of the privy council from 1974-1984
Leigh also a long time associate of Julian Lewis and Brian Crozier
Edward Leigh is alleged to be a child abuser, though these allegations have never been tested in court
But hold on, you wanted to know about Sir Roger Gale...
well, on the face of it, Gale being elevated to Her Majesty's privy council on the same day as Sir Edward Leigh seems completely innocuous
Now, back to 1976, when Brian Crozier, Norris McWhirter and Julian Lewis were cooking up all kinds of political chicanery, who pray tell was appointed as Director of BBC Children’s Television?
Roger Gale
to delve deeper on this, you really need to know more of Roger Gale's past, from his role as personal assistant to the general manager at universal studios (Beginning in 1962), mafia ties n all, to his role in setting up Radio 270 (1966-67), a pirate radio station broadcast from a ship moored off Scarborough.
Managing director of Radio 270 was Wilf Proudfoot, who having previously been a Conservative MP, wasn't averse to using the station for political broadcasts.
A group of Conservative MPs and activists became involved with Radio 270. These included the MP for Beverley, Patrick Wall. The station gave airtime to a number of political causes including a broadcast by Wall in which he advocated British recognition of the white minority UDI regime in Rhodesia. Radio 270 broadcast advertisements supporting Conservative party candidates in the Scarborough municipal elections of 1967.
As Programme Director, Roger Gale (who had joined the Conservatives in 1964) would've been involved with booking and facilitating these broadcasts; including:
Harvey Proctor, then Chairman of the University of York Conservative Society, made regular half hour current affairs broadcasts.
Proctor went on to have a controversial career as a Conservative MP and prominent member of the Conservative Monday Club.
We'll leave it there for now...
Do I allege that Sir Roger Gale is directly implicated in child abuse?
No, but there can be no doubt he knows far more than he's telling
Your words JHJ (and you still can't avoid using a question):
Do I allege that Sir Roger Gale is directly implicated in child abuse?
No
Best leave it there eh?
Lives get ruined by this tripe.
Lives get ruined
Never a truer word spoken, but I get the feeling you're not too concerned about the lives of the victims of organized abuse.
Or the planet for that matter... as chair of the APPG on aviation, Roger Gale will be lobbying on behalf of the aviation industry, so key to the climate change that looks set to ruin millions of lives in the not too distant future.
Still, at least BAE Systems and the like will be happy; the more planes that fly, the more fuel will be consumed; and the more demand there will be for weapons systems for leverage and security in the extraction of that fuel
The OP had his questions answered. This thread has served its purpose.
Can't be bothered to wade through all of this shit on this thread, but my experience (...and i've worked for ITN/CNN/BBC by whole life) is that the more desperate people are to require bits of paper and cards saying they are bonafide journalists, the more likely they are to be cranks and not journalists at all. They are the kind of people who make a beeline for camera crews at protests in order to show them their press cards (I've never really understood this, but it's quite common) and attend student-union style meetings at groups like the NUJ where great policies are discussed and solidarity is expressed.
The usual suspects are batty old women who want to talk about the fall of the Shah (or some similar historic event often involving their fathers) and men of a certain age with a par chant for DSLR cameras and conspiracy theories. There is a particularly irritating new breed of these neo-journalists who want to talk about common law and the magna carta with anyone who will listen. They sometimes like to represent themselves as "legal observers". It doesn't matter if you are there to film the village fete, there will have been some serious breech of common law which needs urgently investigating - and there will be someone on hand to show you their press card and let you know how their inquiry is going.
Currently the Gurkha Hunger strike in Westminster is a particular magnet for such people.
The country is becoming more and more American - i suspect social media has a lot to answer before. Maybe our proud tradition of eccentricity has exacerbated the problem.
The official press card is a useful tool to get into downing street etc, but beyond that there is no "accreditation" of any form.
Joe knows. Very true what he says.
I did a couple of years reporting, but was way better as a news editor pulling everything together - and I’m so grateful to have minimised my nutter exposure as a result.
Didn’t know where else to put this but it’s a must watch IMO. Monbiot speaking more freely about/away from the MSM re the media’s complicity towards ongoing environmental destruction.
Harvey Proctor, then Chairman of the University of York Conservative Society, made regular half hour current affairs broadcasts.
.
Proctor went on to have a controversial career as a Conservative MP and prominent member of the Conservative Monday Club.
.
See the problem with Harvey is that shock white hair of his. Pretty much distinguishable from anyone else cutting about London in the mid 80's.
And another thread starts interesting and descends into tin foil hat t@#*ery......
And another thread starts interesting and descends into tin foil hat t@#*ery……
Just look at it as making life interesting. Or would you prefer yet another round of What brakes should I buy, Whats the best hardtail or why is my car not starting.
I've unsubscribed from this thread. The pub bores have taken over.
Hmmm, if only there were any accredited journalists with the gumption and will to kick ass, rather than bowing down for reliable paycheck…
There are plenty, however, if they’re not saying what you think they aught to be saying, then how long will it be before you, or others, start muttering ’fake news’…
There is one particular source that I put absolute faith in when it comes to publishing news about the powerful, they have a large number of citizen researchers with a deep knowledge of how to do in-depth searches of out-of-the-way parts of the internet, along with how to do searches for surveillance photography. I’m not going to bother giving their name, you can do your own research, you like doing that sort of stuff.
And there are many who are either in hiding, or dead, as a result of their having the gumption to kick ass in print - it’s just that those whose asses are most in need of a kick are those who have the means and the power to have such journalists murdered, and they don’t care how openly it happens, because they can just deny it. Plays well to the home crowd, you see.
If you want just one example, I’ll give you just one word - Salisbury.
To be fair, you do have a point there... Gary Webb is a clear example of a journalist who dug too deep in the days before the internet gave a far greater degree of protection;
Webb exposed drug smuggling from Central America, so key to the US Crack Epidemic (and the running of arms in return, via Mena airport)... turns out it involved not only the CIA, but also the US president at the time, Ronald Reagan and 2 men who would go on to become US presidents; George HW Bush and Bill Clinton.
And to think, all of that was going on whilst the CIA and MI6 were pumping arms into Afghanistan and aiding Osama Bin Laden's efforts before the Mujahideen became Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
No doubt Bill Barr could fill you in on more details of that period, though of course, more recently he was tied up with the Jeffrey Epstein affair and just why it was his Father recruited Epstein in the 1st place when he lacked the necessary qualifications.
All heavy stuff no doubt, but something tells me that despite GCHQ and the NSA's best efforts, there are still ways to stick it to da man...