[Closed] David Icke at Wembley last Saturday

I'm not the one posing pointless whataboutery questions.

My take on it? I don't know why he may or may not have spent NYE there. I would imagine that as he was, at that time at least, a popular and well respected figure, it would have seemed a perfectly normal thing to do.

So, what's your take on it?

Tell you what, to allay your fears of sexism, perhaps I'll use items of flora instead, my tulip.

I didn't ask what you were going to do in the future.

I asked why you used being female as an insult (up to the point someone pulled you up for it)

Obviously you will deflect rather than just answering the question.

We have all realised you aren't capable of answering questions

(Not with actual answers anyway)

Listen Missus, I don't know what you're on about; flowers can be pretty, as can baby otters. Sugar, lollipops and the smell of freshly cut grass are all sweet and not a lady in sight, shapely or otherwise.

So in summary, I was merely being affectionate, don't worry, I won't go so far as to offer you a hug, but let us all reflect on the wonders of summer and all the glorious things this world has to offer.

Dolphins are good too.

I wonder if they square dance?

I was merely being affectionate*

Whoa there Junky, don't get jealous, there's love enough for us all!!

Though the rubber glover has a certain brusque charm, I'm not sure his genes are up to my requirements.

You're welcome to each other though, don't let me cramp your style.

Nighty poos, you sparkly souled imps, may we dance the merry fandango once more in the near future.

Well, after all that bullshit and question evasion, one can only assume it's another reincarnation of RudeFred.

[img] [/img]

and in new worrying developments
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

My take is what does that have to do with the Home Office losing files which relate to an alleged high level paedophile ring within parliament and the surrounding offices which are the heart of the countries government?

You all seem quite pleased with yourselves about being cleverer and better at arguing than the nutty conspiracy theorist - you seem a lot less interested in whether any of the stuff he's saying might have an element of truth to it. Not everything that loons say is necessarily bullshit.

Eg this

And just why was it that Jimmy Savile regularly spent New Years Eve with Maggie Thatcher?

Is true is it not? And may well form part of the explanation of why he got away with what he did for so long - because he was so firmly entrenched in the establishment.

Its clear that being seen as influential, well connected and powerful protected him and he therefore cultivated relationships with the rich and powerful. These included the Royals, the Police and the PM.
Much as I hate Thatcher , and I dont like the Royals [ as an institution] it is some leap to say she knew about what he did and covered for him.

Eg this

And just why was it that Jimmy Savile regularly spent New Years Eve with Maggie Thatcher?

Is true is it not?

I won't post the video again but there is an interview where a former Tory chief whip admits that they used to get MPs to do what they wanted in return for covering up incidents involving 'young boys' etc. Given that level of cynicism/corruption has been admitted who knows what's not been admitted to. I doubt Thatcher/Prince Charles knew exactly what he was up to but they probably heard dodgy rumours. They seem to have been fairly widespread.

I just think a lot of you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But in this case grum the bath water is getting on for the size of the Atlantic. If you make enough claims statistically in the end you will get some right.

For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, 'I'm in a jam, can you help?'.

‘It might be debt, it might be... a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which... a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they'd come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did.

‘And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points... and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it's one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.’

However Jive claim is

child abuse is central to the control structures of the political and religious elite.*

For sure things need to be found out and their should be a broad reaching inquiry that leaves no stone unturned. I doubt it will prove Icke or Jive correct and that will "prove" the conspiracy.
* the full quote FWIW though jive hads led a merry dance about whether he meant i , said it , agreed etc for 20 pages

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is central to the control structures of the political and religious elite.

 

Its clear that being seen as influential, well connected and powerful protected him and he therefore cultivated relationships with the rich and powerful. These included the Royals, the Police and the PM.
Much as I hate Thatcher , and I dont like the Royals [ as an institution] it is some leap to say she knew about what he did and covered for him.

remember that Savile barely his his abuse: he would show up the night before personal appearances (opening small town halls and fun runs) and openly tell organizing committees that he wanted an "honour guard" of young girls to sleep in a tent outside his caravan.

this is where the conspiracy theory comes into play: the question is "how can someone have been allowed to abuse children in the most awful ways and not be punished?". conspiracy theories provide an answer that we can live with l: "because there was a global network to protect him and the Queen and Thatcher told the cops not to arrest him". the awful truth is "mostly because no-one gave a shit or empowered the kids".

if you ask people in child protection what was unusual about Saviles offending, it's not the character of what he did it that he was not convicted, it's that the offender was famous. look at the "Muslim rape gang" - those dickheads got away with it for years in the present day, and they were not rich, powerful or famous.

Whoa there Junky, don't get jealous, there's love enough for us all!!
You're welcome to each other though, don't let me cramp your style.

So first you attempted to belittle me by talking to me as if I were female.

And when you were pulled up for that, and someone else agreed, now you try and belittle us both by suggesting we are gay.

So that's being female and being gay that you see as suitable insults for people.

Nice

Any other personal prejudices you want to let us know about ?

Any other personal prejudices you want to let us know about ?

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating...

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-edinburgh-defence

No one was doing anything about him - and no-one did anything about most abusers who weren't famous either.

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating...

Blah blah, righteous indignation

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating...

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-edinburgh-defence

Used to be joint toughest Rickshaw rider in Edinburgh.

Wrestled 3 men at once and won.

That's my Edinburgh Defence.

What about the Kinsey research projects - funded by the Rockefeller institute..? You can't get much darker than Kinsey and you can't get more elite than Rockefeller... Just saying ...

noltae - Member
Just saying

Urgh

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating.

IME it is at its worst when they think they are funny and keeping telling their hilarious "jokes"

If this is the punchline:

As per last time I am not prepared to engage given your , clearly, fragile personal state.
I shall leave and leave you to insult others.

What's the joke?

boring

You're right, all this bickering is achieving nothing and is a foolish distraction from some genuine and important issues.

So, to reduce incredulity, let's make a simple change to this phrase:

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is [s]central to[/s] a part of the control structures of the political and religious elite.

Perhaps now we can have a sensible conversation once more, without such intensive vitriol.

MY lord do I have to explain again? Ok once more - is that the fourth time or the third time?
That only applies if you are Kaease
The mods, you and ernie say you are not.
So its fine to "chat" with you.

Is there a number of times I have to say this for you to get it?
PFtt you and evidence you dont even flirt with each other do you?

PFtt you and evidence you dont even flirt with each other do you?

I'm balls deep in evidence and prepared to share my hareem

by contrast,

you seem to be under the thumb of denial.

Post some links, show some evidence, your conjecture alone is insufficient.

Becoming more convinced that it's another Fred ID. And about as funny.

Well, it's a start, at least you're forming 'conspiracy theories'...

Please let me in your clique, I want the chance to be nasty and judgmental without actually inputting anything worthwhile to the thread

That said, be nice if we could all just get along:

all this bickering is achieving nothing and is a foolish distraction from some genuine and important issues.

So, to reduce incredulity, let's make a simple change to this phrase:

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is [s]central to[/s] a part of the control structures of the political and religious elite.

Perhaps now we can have a sensible conversation once more, without such intensive vitriol.

thank god you are not delivering any

intensive vitriol.

Flash I know you did not like him but he would have been both funny and wise [ and caught by now] rather than just irritating

EDIT: And he has edited again 🙄

Yes lets discuss something else completely different without you admitting an error Oh can we please...its been ages since we did that

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

Good question. Given government red tape and bureaucracy, I'm amazed it came out so quickly. CONSPIRACY!

"I want the chance to be nasty and judgmental without actually inputting anything worthwhile to the thread" you have had it and taken it .
Have you any way of explaining why Wanless is linked to mysterious deaths? I wont bother repeating any of the other unanswered questions.

report released after publication standard practice to allow concerned parties to whom it is circulated prior to release to comment and ask for clarification corrections. happens all the time with written judgements in court.

boring

This is part of the basis of the claims made in the article:

however, I've spoken to separate sources who also claim the same story is well known within Westminster and media circles.

Regardless of any of that, given the allegations surrounding Westminster, would it not be wiser to look further afield for someone to head up a charity such as the NSPCC?

Equally for sufficient independence and objectivity, perhaps someone further removed from the circles which may be placed in the spotlight would be a better choice to investigate the conduct of the Home Office?

You only have to have a quick look at his [url= http://www.civilserviceworld.com/interview-peter-wanless ]career path[/url] to see that he is deeply ingrained in the same establishment which needs thorough investigation:

[b]1986[/b] Enters the civil service as fast streamer, working in HM Treasury and Cabinet Office
[b]1992[/b] Appointed principal private secretary to the chief secretary to the Treasury
[b]1994[/b] Becomes the principal private secretary to the secretary of state for employment, and later the department’s head of information
[b]1995[/b] Moves to the Treasury as the head of its Private Finance Unit
[b]1998[/b] Appointed director of strategy and communications at the Department for Education and Skills
[b]2003 [/b]Promoted to director of secondary education; later becomes director of school performance and reform

If the government wants to ensure full public confidence in independent reviews of their past conduct, they have a long way to go.

Right. I've dipped in an out of this, and don't have it in me to read it all.
Is it all just innuendo, whispers, and potential gossip, or has JiveHoneyJive made any direct accusations yet? i.e. a particular politician is a paedo?
JHJ - if there are members of the establishment that are wrong 'uns, then I'd love to have their heads in a basket. But if you can't articulate any proof then at p22 we don't seem to be any further forward!!
Do I need to keep reading the thread?

You only have to have a quick look at his career path to see that he [s]is deeply ingrained in the same establishment which needs thorough investigation[/s] had a career in the Civil Service:

Your point?

But if you can't articulate any proof

Proof is a tricky one... unless caught in the act, or on a film which would be unsuitable for broadcast here.

Plenty of victim testimonies surrounding a number of politicians, but if I name names, then doubtless folk will jump down my throat.

After all, we wouldn't want to assume anyone guilty until proven innocent.

When you have cover ups involving the secret services, things become much more complex on that front~ without exposure and publicity, justice will never be done, as per Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith.

If you want an insight into some of the names allegedly involved, google:

'Elm Guest House List'

also look into

'Jeffery Epstein' as some of his contacts have been implicated

Your point?

Already clearly stated as per:

Regardless of any of that, given the allegations surrounding Westminster, would it not be wiser to look further afield for someone to head up a charity such as the NSPCC?

Equally for sufficient independence and objectivity, perhaps someone further removed from the circles which may be placed in the spotlight would be a better choice to investigate the conduct of the Home Office?

If the government wants to ensure full public confidence in independent reviews of their past conduct, they have a long way to go.

Junkyard - lazarus

That only applies if you are Kaesae

It's not Kael. Massively less interesting, and far more convinced of his superiority. But also the whole style of writing's different

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

No we don't, do you?

<mod>
I'm incredibly bored now of this "pointless whataboutery" (thank you, CFH), so here's how this thread is going to proceed.

You want to discuss a subject, fine. You want to tell us your opinion, fine. You want a debate, fine.

But the very next time you post some handwavy ephemeral toss about "links" or "why do you think..." without actually explaining anything beyond making vague tenuous suggestions based on nothing more concrete than people who have met each other, I'm closing the file without further warning. The very next time you come out with some sort of "witty" condescending put-down of another user, I'm closing the file without further warning.

And in the interest of balance, anyone who thinks it's now open season to be as obnoxious as possible to JHJ without fear of retaliation will receive a minimum two day ban.

Them's the rules. Think you can do it?
</mod>

far more convinced of his superiority

Thanks, I rule 😆

If I was convinced of superiority, why would I put up with all this abuse?

I'm just some dude who's been injured for a long while, done a lot of research and wants to share it, in the hope it can help some vulnerable people who are being exploited and work towards exposing some powerful abusers...

If that makes me a knobend, then so be it, it's pretty clear I'm not doing this for popularity.

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

Seems to have been strategic; whether that was an attempt to have the news buried by Rememberence day, or perhaps to avoid further scrutiny whilst Fiona Woolf was still chair of the inquiry, who's to say, but certainly seems a bit odd.

You're welcome, Cougs. Please feel free to use it, royalty free.

Them's the rules. Think you can do it?

well said Cougar. That sums up what I was thinking.

So, reading the mod rules, I believe that I'm still allowed to post pointless whaaaboutery, right? 🙂

"Cougars" was a US TV series... makes you think doesn't it... ?

And I can still call you names 🙂

Damn. I should've added a clause about exploiting loopholes.

I'm just some dude who's been injured for a long while, done a lot of research and wants to share it, in the hope it can help some vulnerable people who are being exploited and work towards exposing some powerful abusers...

Which makes me wonder why you chose to air these revelations on a David Icke thread. I would have thought if you were sufficiently concerned you would have started a specific thread. Or, did all this "new shit" just "happen to come to light" about the time this thread started?

Good question... I'm sure you know yourself, things in life aren't always planned; it's just the natural progression of events.

On a similar level, though I could be wrong on this, there often seems to be a misunderstanding surrounding 'conspiracies' as if it's all immaculately planned out in advance, which seems to be the basis of much disbelief.

It's more due to the interactions which occur, though there may be methods and goals planned beforehand, for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is a developing story, just over 2 years in the making so far, beginning when the documentary exposing Jimmy Savile was 1st aired in October 2012.

[b]During the course of this thread, amongst other things, Fiona Woolf stepped down as chair of the inquiry, Norman Baker resigned and the Wanless report has been released, doubtless there is more to come.[/b]

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue, but it remains to be seen if anyone would engage with such a thread?

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue, but it remains to be seen if anyone would engage with such a thread?

Perhaps a thread dedicated to the child abuse scandal would be a better idea to improve the credibility of a very serious and disturbing issue

To be honest, the way in which you approach the subject is the thing that ruins its credibility.

So unless a new thread title would somehow improve your understanding of what the word "evidence" means, I honestly don't think it would help.

So unless a new thread title would somehow improve your understanding of what the word "evidence" means, I honestly don't think it would help.

By that logic, where is the divide between gossip and victim/careworker/police officer/whistleblower testimony?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

Your link that implicates wanless in mysterious deaths says he was high up in the nspcc jimmy savile used to wear an nspcc badge he worked for Michel portillo . It also has a photo of Wanless with ester ransen. Not sure that is any evidence of a link to mysterious deaths ..
Do you understand what an inquiry involves . the hours of work the requirement to take on board a vast raft of material to weigh the credibility of that material and its relevance to draw it all into a cogent reasoned report that will withstand hostile scrutiny. It does require a particular skill set . It is extremely unlikely that anyone with that skillset will not have found a position in life that could be described as establishment.

PS because you missed it first time reports are normally released after a delay to allow interested parties the oportunity to respond to any errors.

By that logic, where is the divide between gossip and victim/careworker/police officer/whistleblower testimony?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

Here's an example that's been made public:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5396/video-nick-tells-of-how-mps-liked-to-inflict-pain-during-abuse

[i]for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.[/i]

Okay...so the Queen, the catholic church, the masons, the cops, the secret service, the lizards, all of that stuff you talked about waaaaaayy back there [points] isn't, as you first tried to tell us, a massive corporate, religious, establishment plot to control everything and everyone, but is in fact not orchestrated or conspired at all?

so what then?

A set of random co-incidental events linking public figures both public and religious, often under the cover of charity, with the occasional paedophile thrown in as just a part of the demographic?

that?

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

I'd like to congratulate Jive for his outstanding work on this thread - especially the Darth Vader pic - that had me in stitches. And also for remaining fairly level headed throughout despite attacks from the permagrim brigade.

Keep'er lit you crazy diamond 😀

Exactly what kind of evidence do you require?

To be honest (again), if you need to ask that question, you have wasted many hours of your life on this.

The word "Evidence" pretty much defines itself for most people.

If you [b]really[/b] need me to define it for you, I think we are both wasting our time discussing this (or anything else for that matter)

injured for a long while, done a lot of research

A none so subtle reference surely?

"Permagrin
A long lasting smile usually caused by the frivolous feel after a great session of sex. A great partner is required to achieve this higher plane of sexual satisfaction. "
I had to Google it but it ain't really a put down or insult is it.

Credible and verifiable please

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

Of course, I can't guarantee all my sources; even with all the time and resources in the world, there will always be some red herrings within investigations.

However, just why is it that so many people around the world, victims, careworkers, police, journalists etc etc, all have similar stories to tell?

That aside, in all honesty, how many of the links I've provided have you read/viewed in their entirety?

for the most part a conspiracy is not orchestrated to a set formula.

Okay...so the Queen, the catholic church, the masons, the cops, the secret service, [s][b]the lizards[/b][/s], all of that stuff you talked about waaaaaayy back there [points] isn't, as you first tried to tell us, a massive corporate, religious, establishment plot to control everything and everyone, but is in fact not orchestrated or conspired at all?

I concede, my choice of words may not be the best, though there is doubtless a formula of sorts in place, it's not rigid... what I'm trying to convey is that it's not all intricately planned to the last detail in advance, but comes together organically within a basic framework.

So the pyramid is more of a vague collective, more like some people who like to do this sort of thing sort of stick together but really are not all that connected?

Yes and no...

You might have a ring in London who in person have nothing to do with a ring in Amsterdam, who in turn have nothing to do in person with a ring in Portugal but all share a contact in a trafficker/procurer, may share images and videos and are all known to high level intelligence personnel.

Credible and verifiable please

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

So you will believe any accusations made, providing the person shows you a couple of photo id's to prove
who they are ?

Proof of identity of the accuser does make your evidence Credible or Verifiable.

So define credible and verifiable please...

in my understanding, even when a case has got to court, it's rare evidence is absolute

[img] [/img]
So this may be overstating the case a little?

If you drop off the all known to a high level intelligence officer then you get to where most people are in agreement. That there are groups who are separate who cross over via 1 or 2 members. This does not make a global network.

That there are groups who are separate who cross over via 1 or 2 members. This does not make a global network.

That's an argument of definition... if you have the same people procuring and distributing children and the same people observing and manipulating, all in service of the top tiers, that is a global network.

Much as we are interacting now, we could walk past each other in the street, or even meet in person and not know we'd been in contact, but we're in contact through a global network, due to a shared interest in bikes...

Another example: Not everyone who rides a Giant bike knows each other, they may not have even come from the same factory, but they are all under the umbrella of Giant's global distribution network.

A pyramid may not be the best way to illustrate this as it conveys a wholly interlocking rigid structure; think more in terms of a spiders web; there's plenty of gaps and flexibility, but there's still a functioning structure.

I have no doubt both Exaro News and the police will have verified that the victim in question is who he says he is.

So define credible and verifiable please...

Another example: Not everyone who rides a Giant bike knows each other, they may not have even come from the same factory, but they are all under the umbrella of Giant's global distribution network.

What the actual....?

Are Giant part of it now as well?

Further epic waffle. What if someone had bought one second hand, or even stolen one, eh? What a strange way of trying to wriggle out of earlier statements. Strange, and rather poor.

Oh, and Exaro? 😀

I have ID but not everything i say is true you wise, informed and erudite thinker and leader of men

Aw, thanks JY, it's like a 2nd honeymoon; for all our passionate debate, I generally think you're all right really, I can be a knob sometimes, but I'm not a nasty pasty.

Of course it won't just be a matter of ID, there'd be checks as to prior addresses/institutions of both victims and alleged abusers... you can't merely rely on testimony without some depth of research to establish the likely validity.

Further epic waffle. What if someone had bought one second hand, or even stolen one, eh? What a strange way of trying to wriggle out of earlier statements. Strange, and rather poor.

Cool, you're welcome to improve on my analogy... probably not the best, but it's what I came up with at the time and I'm sure most people could grasp what I mean, without being too picky...

Oh, and Exaro?

Yep, the same Exaro who work with MPs and the police and were involved with the campaign that got the CSA inquiry rolling in the 1st place.

You could click the about us tab on the website if you have any concerns on their validity...

You might have a ring in London who in person have nothing to do with a ring in Amsterdam, who in turn have nothing to do in person with a ring in Portugal but all share a contact in a trafficker/procurer, may share images and videos and are all known to high level intelligence personnel.

"Them's the rules. Think you can do it?"

However, just why is it that so many people around the world, victims, careworkers, police, journalists etc etc, all have similar stories to tell?

No, then.