Forum menu
How would a moderator such as Cougar define it?
And how would the courts of the land define it?
Both those words have dictionary definitions.
If I were you, I would start my "research" there.
'ow you say in Eeengleeesh,
BANHAMMER.
Sorry, neither of your replies make any sense, could you back them up with evidence?
I think cougar has shot himself in the foot* by closing that thread. At least it was all contained in one place.
*from behind a grassy knoll.
Pics please Jamie
(cos they make me laugh)
[quote=Jamie ]I think cougar has shot himself in the foot* by closing that thread. At least it was all contained in one place.
That
It was easily ignored.
Fred Chloe Zed
Aye, I was trying to compile it all in the one place, so as to avoid minimal inconvenience to my fellow forum users.
Seems free speech is just a flowery ideal.
[img] 
[/img]
Mention of zed got me to thinking:
[img] 
[/img]
And how would the courts of the land define it?
Fortunately the courts of the land have juries, who easily see through spurious arguments made by unreliable witnesses.
Cougar. Reopen the thread. All the cool kids are doing it.
I wonder if Cougar ever went to the trouble of checking all the evidence?
Surely a judge would have that responsibility?
Sorry, neither of your replies make any sense, could you back them up with evidence?
Yes.
The dictionary is a Credible source.
It's definitions are Verifiable.
If you don't understand the Dictionary Definition of either of the words, then it's really no surprise that are so shite at coming up with Credible and Verifiable evidence of your claims is it ?
Going by this, I reckon I might have a case...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence
Perhaps it's a simple matter of:
'Oh Lord, my god, is there no help for the widow's son?'
And careful application of my thumb n whatnot
The dictionary is a Credible source.It's definitions are Verifiable.
Do the police interview the dictionary for evidence and leads?
And he's gone for a bit...
That is a credible report
Your absence/its truth can be verified
HTH.
Did he actually do that much, tho? No swearing/nudity etc.
I assume it's for his own good.
jivehoneyjive is probably the kind of guy who would let bygones be bygones with his tormentors here if/when the details come to light vindicating all his work because it's all about the innocent children really.
how do you feel about rats?
Going by this, I reckon I might have a case...
just because evidence is admissible in proceedings, it doesn't mean it's credible or verifiable.
As an aside...
Seems free speech is just a flowery ideal.
My understanding is that somebody owns this forum and is responsible for the content. Meaning no automatic right to free speech?
Where that line is drawn is another matter.
Can't see what he did wrong.
He had a touch of the TJ's about him (an inability not to argue) and regularly skated close to being outright liabelous.
I [s]followed[/s] [s]observed[/s] squinted at the thread without contributing. There was no libel, he provided a link or direct quote for any accusations. He was doing what journalists do, bringing material provided by others to the attention of a wider public.
If anyone did as he suggested and DuckDuckGoed the "cover ups" then it is indeed strange that given so many "victims" have made statements that so little has been done to bring the authors of crimes to justice. I fear JHJ may be right on some of the points he raised that were so fiercely contested.
Something no doubt needed to be done and the thread was never going to end well. I congratulate the management for letting it run as long as it did. In terms of breaking forum rules some of his adversaries scored higher.
No point asking me questions in this thread, I won't answer and thus confirm your worst fears. The irony of someone posting that image in the thread did make me smile.
*runs away*
Dang. I've clearly missed one of the 'big' threads. Chiz.
I'm guessing: wide-ranging high-level pederasty and reports going missing?
There was no libel, he provided a link or direct quote for any accusations. He was doing what journalists do, bringing material provided by others to the attention of a wider public.
I dunno, Sally Bercrows deffence was that she didn't accuse anyone direclty.
Isn't it normally considered bad form to start threads complaining that your thread got closed after you got a couple of warnings about what would get said thread closed?
So which thread is/was it?
Yes, what? I missed this.
[img] 
[/img]
Shouldn't take a couple of clever fellas like you long to work it out
Dang, I always miss the good ones. Bring back rude boy/Fred I say, its not the same these days 😀
Treated like any spammer.
its not the same these days
He's only been gone a few hours.
Did he actually do that much, tho?
On this very thread he just insinuated that he was being censored because Cougar is a mason and therefore (in JHJ's universe) directly linked to child abuse.
I think that's bad enough without getting into all the other retorts that anyone questioning him doesn't care about child abuse or that certain people [i]must[/i] be involved in child abuse because they know someone who knows a celebrity or they are a member of a profession where they all do it 😕
Bring back rude boy/Fred I say
Big Brother Is Watching You.
You keep a knockin' but you can't come in... 🙂 😉
jivehoneyjive is probably the kind of guy who would let bygones be bygones with his tormentors here if/when the details come to light vindicating all his work because it's all about the innocent children really.
By tormentors you mean people asking for evidence of his claims? Its not like we were calling him names or using sexual based insults or saying he was gay [ and as a insult ] now was it.
If all his claims - in particular that the "elite" use child sexual abuse as a means of control on a massive and systematic scale in an intertwinned link as diverse as the royals, the pope, Thatcher and it seems anyone who has been a Civil servant or mason or pictured with any of the aforementioned then I personally will both be amazed and apologise. I dont think it will happen though.
There was no libel, he provided a link or direct quote for any accusations. He was doing what journalists do, bringing material provided by others to the attention of a wider public.
He was using really poor, and biased, internet sources and then making unfounded claims / unsupported conclusions from the data.
If I link to a site claiming something ludicrous with a source it does not make my claims true , reasonable etc ...posts link to westbro baptist church...post link it ISIL...posts link to anti gay websites etc. It was some way short of journalism unless you watch Fox news or Russia Today
I fear JHJ may be right on some of the points he raised.
I think we would all agree that at some point some high level individuals did turn a blind eye to or cover up some incidents of child abuse. This is some way from proof it is a systematic tool used by lizards to control humans.
Their is a grain of truth to the conspiracy. Child abuse has occured , as it has in every level of society, but this is not proven and not even close
[img] 
[/img]
Your ability to handle the data and intepret it is as good as his...I feel sorry for you bothIn terms of breaking forum rules some of his adversaries scored higher.
Your ability to handle the data and intepret it is as good as his...I feel sorry for you both
Junkyard
If you think that is breaking the rules and as bad as what he did then it proves the point I just made about inability to interpret the facts/data.
On this very thread he just insinuated that he was being censored because Cougar is a mason and therefore (in JHJ's universe) directly linked to child abuse.
That's not how I remember it.
I would say that, regardless of paranoia, it does seem odd that a sequence of people chosen to chair this enquiry have all, after a period of time, been revealed as being unsuitable.
I don't know whether its just a play for time, hoping that those implicated hurry up and die, or whether 'the establishment' is all inextricably interlinked, or what. I do know that its looking very unlikely that we'll ever know the truth of what's in that report, which is tragic.
I would say that, regardless of paranoia, it does seem odd that a sequence of people chosen to chair this enquiry have all, after a period of time, [b]been revealed[/b] as being unsuitable.
That's one way of putting it. Another is that, as a result of a lot of paranoia, they have been loudly claimed to be unsuitable.
This enquiry will not actually be put to bed, ever. Unless it actually catches several shape-shifting paedophile lizards having tea with Prince Charles and Jewish Zombie Hitler, the lunatics will always dismiss it as a lizard cover-up.
🙂
EDIT: not saying you're a lunatic btw codybrennan. I don't know whetehr you are or not.
That's not how I remember it.
Really? Look at this sequence of posts from JHJ:
Credible and verifiable evidence
How would a moderator such as Cougar define it?
...
Seems free speech is just a flowery ideal.
...
I wonder if Cougar ever went to the trouble of checking all the evidence?
....
Perhaps it's a simple matter of:'Oh Lord, my god, is there no help for the widow's son?'
And careful application of my thumb n whatnot
That reads to me as JHJ implying Cougar is censoring him because Cougar is a mason.
And of course we know from his handy Triangle Of Truth that all masons are child molesters controlled by the Satanist Pedophile Network High Command.
Was "been revealed" a poor choice of words BD? I didn't mean "revealed" in any Icke-style way. Just that the process seems to be:
-candidate is selected
-candidate commences enquiry
-some time later, stories regarding candidate's unsuitability appear in media
-candidate steps down
-iterate
Regarding lunatics: never mind all the lizard stuff- the facts would support the view that, in the mid-80s, an important report was seemingly not treated with the importance it deserved, and doesn't look like it will ever be. So, regardless of who was to blame, no lessons will be learned. As I say: tragic.
He is certainly have a go /moan I am not sure if hsi irrational lunacy went that far though re Cougar
I don't know whether its just a play for time, hoping that those implicated hurry up and die, or whether 'the establishment' is all inextricably interlinked, or what
It is going to be hard to find someone who is both wise informed and credible in this area and not at all part of the establishment. Granted the two they picked were a little too establishment but it smells of incompetence rather than conspiracy.
They need some sort of maverick outsider establishment figure like say Michael mansfield but it is a very short list.
I do know that its looking very unlikely that we'll ever know the truth of what's in that report, which is tragic.
True it does seem unlikely and it also seems unlikely we will know if it was wilful incompetence or just incompetence.
At some level things were known and they were not acted on. I doubt we will ever know the reason why but the triangle of truth seems a most unlikely explanation.
what this needs is
[img] 
[/img]
There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so. As with the somewhat transparent conspiracies of the WTC/Pentagon/F93 incidents, the consideration that a highly influential segment of our society are as psychotic and reckless as they would need to be, that they would condone, ignore or cover up atrocious criminal acts in order to preserve their own status, is simply too much for a lot of people to broach. It's often easier to point the finger, ridicule and make tin-foil hat references than it is to take responsibility for undertaking personal research and investigating the hypothesis that there are some very unpleasant people taking control of the world in which we live.
Not to go back over old ground but I've been keeping up with the Australian inquiry into the same thing, the one thing that is lacking is the grand overarching conspiracy so either it's much bigger or it's not actually there.
Its like he is back in the room 😕
Its also easier to make weak ad hom straw men attacks on than prove your conspiracy theories with evidence 🙄
We all know, some of the powerful, are amoral ****s but that does mean your accounts are true.
What investigations that have been done - independent psychological research show that it is the "believers" with the issues
then agin what do facts matter eh as we cannot handle them eh 🙄
There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so.
The consideration that there is no grand master plan and no shadowy God-like figures controlling every aspect of our lives is simply too much for a lot of people to broach.
It's often easier to vaguely point the finger and make a tin-foil hat.
FTFY Three_Fish 😀
What investigations that have been done - independent psychological research show that it is the "believers" with the issues
Excellent, the brain control programming is working well.
Only one way to be safe.
[img] 
[/img]
There is an element of fear involved with many people, and understandably so. [b]As with the somewhat transparent conspiracies of the WTC/Pentagon/F93 incidents,[/b]
Transparent in what way ?
Clearly the conspiracy theories are bollox
Or
Clearly the conspiracy theories are true.
the consideration that a highly influential segment of our society are as psychotic and reckless as they would need to be, that they would condone, ignore or cover up atrocious criminal acts in order to preserve their own status, is simply too much for a lot of people to broach. It's often easier to point the finger, ridicule and make tin-foil hat references than it is to take responsibility for undertaking personal research and investigating the hypothesis that there are some very unpleasant people taking control of the world in which we live.
So it's not crossed your mind that anyone has done some personal research and come to a conclusion different to yours ?
Seems conspiracy theorists always presume they are the only ones who care/research etc and accuse everyone else of not caring/being lazy etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/14/westminster-sex-abuse-inquiry-homicide-claims
Wonder if anything will come of this?
Let's hope so
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/new-bombshell-documentary-set-to-reveal-names-of-hollywoods-child-actor-abusers/
we all hope it will lead to arrest
Most of us think that Icke is not helpful as he is a loon who believes aliens created humans and we all live in the Matrix.
Like a blind man shooting in a gallery he, smith and Jive, will eventually hit something.
As we keep saying every area of human activity will have abusers. this doe snot mean their is a global conspiracy to use it as means of control etc.
That's not quite true, the allegation is abuse is disproportionately frequent whilst being equally disproportionately unreported or prosecuted in people of privilege power or responsibility.
Power corrupts and all that, the interesting bit for me is do abusers seek power or does power lead to abuse.
Power corrupts and all that, the interesting bit for me is do abusers seek power or does power lead to abuse.
That assumes people in power are more likely to be abusers, I'm not aware of any objective study that shows that to be true. About the only thing you can say about paedophiles is that they tend to look for jobs that allow them access to (often vulnerable) children.
that would be your allegation then and not Ickes. Can i see your stats/evidence to prove it is disproportionately prevalent?
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/tag/child-abuse-2/
the pictures alone will confirm his view
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
You want me to provide the stats on people in power who commit unreported abuse?
You want me to provide the stats on people in power who commit unreported abuse?
Are we going to have to go through this whole thing again?
If you make an allegation, then you are going to need some sort of evidence to back it up.
Is it really that hard to understand.
If you make an allegation, then you are going to need some sort of evidence to back it up.Is it really that hard to understand.
I think the answer to this is 'yes'
Although in the obvious absence of figures you could come to some intuitive conclusions based on mogrims rule that abusers seek power and access and the long held rule that power corrupts to reasonably summise that a greater proportion of police, teachers, clergy, politicians, business leaders, etc are likely to be abusers than would be found in a similar number of bricklayers, plumbers, call centre workers etc.
Kind of logical.
Although how much access to vulnerable children do politicians and business leaders have as part of their job ?
Not sure I understand that one.
But other than that, from what I can gather, you are saying that people with access to children as part of their job, are statistically more likely to be abusers than people without access to children.
I'm not saying that is true but I'm am saying there is sufficient reason to believe it's possible and what's more that group/groups are probably more able to evade prosecution than a taxi driver from Rochdale(who seem pretty capable) so perhaps those groups should be open to especially close scrutiny.
In a world were minority report style policing is becoming more common I see no reason why power and influence shouldn't be considered a indicator of increased risk.
That's not quite true, the allegation is abuse is disproportionately frequent whilst being equally disproportionately unreported or prosecuted in people of privilege power or responsibility.
1) no, you're incorrect. The allegation is that child abuse is central to a global conspiracy (of alien lizards, if you're Ickean). It is not just that power people abuse children and use their influence to cover it up.
2) if you allege something like that, you need to substantiate it. "Intuitive conclusions" is just code for supposition. You actually need facts for this sort of stuff, not just a bunch of sentences that start "yeah, well, it stands to reason that...".
The whole relevance of the claim that the rich and powerful don't get prosecuted for child abuse is based on two unproven assumptions: first, that it's true; second, that that's in contrast to how poor and powerless people are prosecuted.
In a world were minority report style policing is becoming more common I see no reason why [s]power and influence shouldn't be considered a indicator of increased risk[/s] I shouldn't wear a tin foil hat.
Minority Report? You are aware of the concept of science [i]fiction[/i], I assume?
Sorry, I forgot. Tom Cruise, that's the link isn't it? Scientology. He's one of THEM! A LIZARD!
(Akshewally, Scientology is a case to ponder - Proper batshitmentalist loony tunes cultywhackjobs)
Although how much access to vulnerable children do politicians and business leaders have as part of their job ?Not sure I understand that one.
Not sure there's anything to understand. The assumption conspiracy theorists seem to work on is that politicians (and possibly business leaders) represent a statistically significant number of paedophiles; I'd like to see some evidence that that is really the case.
And let's not forget: a politician committing child abuse is far more likely to be reported in the press than a plumber or computer programmer doing the same, unless there's some salacious detail that makes it more interesting. If you only go by press coverage (or Google) you're highly unlikely to get unbiased, objective data.