Anyone remember 'The White March' ?
In 1996 over a quarter of a million Belgians took the streets of Brussels in protest of the Dutroux paedophile scandal .. It would be pretty hard to argue that the state wasn't complicit in some sort of cover up .. Folk can engage in back and forth mudslinging all day but that won't make the elephant in the room disappear ..
Bang on Noltae... The Dutroux affair is very intriguing, with several claims of links to prominent politicians and Belgian and Dutch Royalty.
You know, the one that you brought up, where it was found to be a massive hoax and the claimant got found guilty of perjury.
2 sides to every story though isn't there; funny how one of the victims got $1,000,000 in compensation if it was a hoax...
Next you'll be telling me that MK-ULTRA is a hoax
Wow,
I never knew Princess Diana was a nonce! But there she is, in the same room as Jimmy Savile, so it must be true.
several claims of links
See Cougar's post above. Pretty much anyone can claim anything. Doesn't make it true.
[quote=Cougar ]Wow,
I never knew Princess Diana was a nonce! But there she is, in the same room as Jimmy Savile, so it must be true.
and the Queen Mum, God bless her. Nonce.
I never knew Princess Diana was a nonce! But there she is, in the same room as Jimmy Savile, so it must be true.
For what it's worth, I cast no judgement on Diana, but it is a bit weird that Jimmy Savile acted as an intermediary between both Charles and Diana and Andrew and Fergie, don't you think?
There's no doubt he was a close confidant of the Palace.
Ah the old [i]"they met once so they [b]must[/b] be part of a shadowy conspiracy"[/i] photo. Always a good one:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Anyone remember 'The White March' ?
In 1996 over a quarter of a million Belgians took the streets of Brussels in protest of the Dutroux paedophile scandal .. It would be pretty hard to argue that the state wasn't complicit in some sort of cover up ..
Never heard of it, so I looked it up.
At first, the anger amongst the Belgian people was directed mainly at Dutroux himself, but it quickly targeted the police, the justice department and the politicians as well. Many Belgians [b]denounced the police and government for botching the investigation[/b] into the earlier kidnappings and failing to arrest Dutroux earlier, allowing him to kill off the first four victims.
(emphasis mine)
There's a world of difference between "botching the investigation" and a state-sanctioned cover-up campaign. Not that I'm saying there wasn't, I've no idea, but rather than being "pretty hard to argue" it'd appear that it's actually quite easy.
The White March and subsequent activist groups, as far as I can gather, were pushing for Parliamentary reform rather than on a nonce-hunt.
There's no doubt he was a close confidant of the Palace.
Are you saying Neil Warnock is involved somehow?
Try again Graham:
For what it's worth, I cast no judgement on Diana, but it is a bit weird that Jimmy Savile acted as an intermediary between both Charles and Diana and Andrew and Fergie, don't you think?There's no doubt he was a close confidant of the Palace.
Apparently he was 1st introduced to the Royals in the 60s by Lord Mountbatten, who it seems was involved in the Kincora Scandal
it is a bit weird that Jimmy Savile acted as an intermediary between both Charles and Diana and Andrew and Fergie, don't you think?
I don't know; did he?
There's no doubt he was a close confidant of the Palace.
And? He didn't have his [s]Jim'll Fix It[/s] I'm a Dirty Great Big Nonce badge on so it's entirely possible, likely even, that like the rest of the country they thought he was a nice old man who was good with children.
Put it this way. Say you find out one day that someone you knew, who is now deceased, was involved in some form of criminal activity. Does that automatically make you complicit?
There is a huge difference between "people knew each other" and "they were all in it together." Don't you see that? It might be the case that they were all in it together, but that's a tremendous leap of logic.
Apparently...seems....
Can't you see it yet?
I don't need to try again - you're still at it, casting vague [i]"it is a bit weird don't you think"[/i] accusations with no actual evidence.
Is it weird that royals met a prominent celebrity who (at the time) was known for popular family entertainment and raising money for charity?
No.
Is it weird that some people in positions of power, like Saville, have abused that power?
No.
Does that mean there is a secret global nonce conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people, including the Illuminati, the Vatican, the British Royal family, satanist paedos, the CIA, the police, the courts, child protection, psychiatrists, religious leaders, the media, the lizard people and Dan Brown?
Erm... no.
.
(and it is a bit weird that "psychiatrists" are named as part of the conspiracy, don't you think? 😉 )
There is a huge difference between "people knew each other" and "they were all in it together." Don't you see that? It might be the case that they were all in it together, but that's a tremendous leap of logic.
That's a very fair point. However when you find how close he was to the Royals (having had a mysterious falling out with Prince Philip, but remaining close to Charles) and how many other abusers are in the close circles of the Royals, things become clearer.
On that note, just why are our noble Monarchy so coy?
Is it weird that royals met a prominent celebrity who (at the time) was known for popular family entertainment and raising money for charity?
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
The evidence he was close and central was he fell out with one of them.
Please say that was satire.
The evidence he was close and central was he fell out with one of them.
Please say that was satire.
Poor interpretation there, keep reading:
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
There is a huge difference between "people knew each other" and "they were all in it together."
If we consider the "six points of seperation" idea too, we are all involved. 😮
having had a mysterious falling out with Prince Philip, but remaining close to Charles
Ooh, I wonder what that was about. It must be relevant to something.
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
I'm not sure. Is it?
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
I don't think it is weird no.
If you think it is, then please explain why ?
And also what it has to do with global peadophile conspiracy theories.
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
I'm sure you have some compelling evidence of this (?) but no, I don't think it is particularly weird that people trusted him.
Not sure a lifelong bachelor would have been my first choice of marriage counsellor, but it takes all sorts.
[img] _0426_-_Papa_Madre_Teresa.jpg)
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I'm not saying anything in case the lizards get me but isn't it obvious?
Bloody hell. I just realised that I have a friend who met the pope. I think there may be a pic on fb of it. She's part of it!!!!! 😯
And further, I've realised that her mum knew Posh Spice (before she was famous) who is clearly part of a global conspiracy to keep women insecure and feeling fat and therefore subservient!!!!
ZOMG!!!!!!
I need to go dark!
nemesis,
pah, I was on Crackerjack, where they told me that I would lose the final game as they did boy-girl rotations and it was a girl due to win, so she got board games and easy questions and I got blown up beach balls and harder questions. It was quite literally a conspiracy... duh duh duuuuuuuhhh.
and next door they were filming Jim'll fix it.
ZOMG i'm part of the control sctucture 😯
Poor interpretation there
yes it was and finally we agree.
I hope the irony of me selectively quoting and cheery picking my evidence does not go unnoticed and of course WOOSH to the first point and I suspect this one hence i made it explicit.
I hope the irony of me selectively quoting and cheery picking my evidence does not go unnoticed
Oh, you're one of [i]them[/i] 😉
Oh god!
[img] 
[/img]
...and it gets worse
[img] 
[/img]
But that means ALL cyclists are part of the global conspiracy!!!!!
The Daily Mail was right all along!
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
He clearly wasn't very good at it, though.
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/62676-planet-x-bid-and-win-four-jimmy-saville-bikes-auction ]OH NOES! Brant is (or at least was!) a lizard overlord![/url]
I've worked it out. Since we've established that all cyclists are part of the conspiracy, Jivehoney is actually a plant, peddling the truth in a deliberately flaky way to hide the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH NOES! Brant is (or at least was!) a lizard overlord!
.. and he is obviously close to STW's ruling class, and by extension the MODS. Cougar, named after an animal, just like lizards are animals 😯
Pff, as if I'd be involved in any kind of conspiracy, you people are so suspicious
If only somewhere was holding an inquiry into this sort of stuff somewhere in the world.
[url= http://royalcommission.com.au/?gclid=COrq-sjQ3sECFQcRjgod2jIAAA ]oh look they are[/url]
Of course the establishment probably only sanctioned it after getting all their people out and doing mind control on the rest. Really surprised this didn't make it onto jh's reading list.
Meanwhile, in the UK:
So far the home office has selected 2 chairs to head the inquiry who have had to step down, due to links to people involved in abuse/coverup...
Not to mention collusion with the home office to try and limit public exposure of said links.
This picture includes the latest Fiona Woolf, who stood down on Friday and was taken the morning of the day that she went before the Home Affairs Select Committee and said she wasn't part of the establishment:
[img] 
[/img]
Nothing to hide there then.
Strange that the terms of reference avoided Kincora and Jersey amongst other things.
We'll see what happens in a little while once Theresa May has had another go at preventing complete implosion of the home office.
So you didn't bother to read any of the Australian stuff despite it being exactly what you seem interested in. Perhaps it doesn't agree with you.
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Pff, as if I'd be involved in any kind of conspiracy, you people are so suspicious
Mandy Rice-Davies applies
Strewth mate, calm down ya flaming galah!!
I'm aware of several cases down in Australia, but there is so much to compile from all over the world that I haven't had time to do great deal of research down under yet.
Used to have a flat mate who was brought up in care near Melbourne and he'd tell me stories of horrific abuse, but at the time, I didn't really believe him.
After all, they are 'care' homes right, set up to look after the vulnerable, not abuse and traffic them.
So I do understand it's hard to conceive and I've been wrong about it in my time, but we can't keep pretending it doesn't occur.
Like I said, it's an international thing and it's far from pretty.
Thanks for the link.
I'm not really sure what that photo above proves?? 😕
But I completely agree that the selection process has been a farce.
Out of interest though, who (or how) would you select to chair that investigation?
Seems to me it is pretty difficult to find someone who would be qualified to chair a Royal Commission, but has no ties to "the establishment".
Especially as your MACPC diagram clearly rules out anyone from justice, child protection, family courts, police or politics.
Lottery/Tombola - we all get a number even loons and establishment types and trust it to chance 😉
One of those it is hard to get balance in that they need to be knowledgeable and informed and yet somehow be at a distance
Some "maverick" Human right lawyers have been suggested- Mike Mansfield for example- by victims groups.
I like the soothing musak of Tubular Bells as much as the next man, but I can't see how it would help here.
Im saving this thread to read before I go to bed tonight..will i be disappointed?
Only if you're a lizard.
It's really hard to get a non establishment type is they get their photo taken with some establishment types.
The reason for the link to the Australian royal commission is that despite every thing that has gone on which is hideous there seems to be the lack of an overarching control and coordination. Probably why it was so bad as when someone was discovered the network didn't reach back to the powers on high or widely across the community. It stayed within the organisation. As sinister as some of it was it didn't seem to go beyond their own perversions either.
Is it weird that he was a regular visitor and close enough to act as a counsellor at rough patches in the marriages of Charles and Di and Andrew and Fergie?
of course it's weird that Savile had a relationship of sorts with Charles and Diana (less so with the other two). but we're talking about people who think that their grandmother was chosen by God to rule over 55 million people.
For all our squabbling, that is a very fair point (and it made me giggle)
Good work that man!!
To all the self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy what motivates you ? What are you getting out of attempting to discredit the growing body of evidence that there is a correlation between institutional child abuse and elements of the hierarchical elite? - Considering the heartbreaking nature of the phenomenon proof would vindicate no one .. It's pitifully candid that too many people on here have no alternative but to turn the other cheek - I guess it's all your minerals can accommodate..
Oh God. Another one.
The people here are discrediting bad research is all.
whatcha got?
What motivates? common sense a respect for logic , an unwillingness to label or condemn without evidence.
It's pitifully candid that too many people on here have no alternative but to turn the other cheek - I guess it's all your minerals can accommodate..
no one is turning a blind eye they are saying your evidence for the overarching conspiracy is not compelling. The fact you cannot tell the difference tells us all we need to know about the way you lot handle and assimilate facts and data ...poorly, very poorly
Everyone agrees sex crimes are bad and offenders should be caught
I could give you a fairly long list of.people you've heard of who don't agree with that at all, JY
Considering the heartbreaking nature of the phenomenon proof would vindicate no one ..
Which is exactly why we should ensure we have proper evidence, rather than banding about speculation and bizarre theories that only serve to belittle and undermine the genuine cases.
Which is exactly why we should ensure we have proper evidence, rather than banding about speculation and bizarre theories that only serve to belittle and undermine the genuine cases.
I can totally understand where you're coming from with that, however 'proper' evidence is:
a) A lot more sensitive, with victims anonymity necessary for their dignity.
b) Far more intensive and time consuming to study in all its detail
c) Not suitable for sharing in the public domain whilst ongoing investigations are underway.
What I have tried to do is compile sufficient evidence of cases already completed and publicized so as to give you an insight into the bigger picture.
I appreciate the level of skepticism displayed, but stand by my claims.
JHJ: I undestand the need to be secretive regarding ongoing investigations.
But please understand that when you start posting things like that Illuminati/satanist pyramid diagram and linking your allegations to David Icke and his lizard people then the majority of people who perhaps don't share your particular world view will regard it as bizarre conspiracy fantasy - which in turn taints any real concrete allegations that you or others might make.
Fair point; perhaps not the best thread to expand on matters, but the opportunity arose, so I took it.
Not to worry, you can count on my slipping it into more credible threads every now and again to keep everyone on their toes.
Do you ever have a day off.
well then keep your beak buttoned,c) Not suitable for sharing in the public domain whilst ongoing investigations are underway.
What I have tried to do is compile sufficient evidence of cases already completed and publicized so as to give you an insight into the bigger picture.
Well that's a complete waste of time.
You have previously linked prince Phillip to child abuse and cliff Richard. Are they cases already completed.
People do terrible things to other people sometimes children. There are proper authorities to deal such things and I am sure they don't go about it by spreading malicious rumours on the net. Although i would not put it past South Yorkshire police.
Do you really believe you are helping anyone with your posts.
You need to fix up. And leave this to the professionals.
jivehoneyjive - Member
Pff, as if I'd be involved in any kind of conspiracy, you people are so suspicious
You're not familiar with the well established principle, first put forward, IIRC, in Sherlock Holmes stories, called 'hiding in plain sight' then?
And you seem to forget that the sort of journalism, plus wider access to media in general, that is now exposing such links, wasn't available even thirty years ago, although there have always been rumours about such stuff. There's nothing new here; when I was a kid, (and I'm 60 now) jokes about priests and choirboys were common-place, plus there was abuse of women in workhouses by the Catholic Church, (see the Magdalene Laundries), and ask any adult who was taught by the Christian Brothers.
I really don't know why you keep sticking up that bloody pyramid; I read the Illuminati books back in 1975, around the same time I read Lord of the Rings.
I found both just as fantastical, because I found both under the same heading on the book-shelves; Science Fiction & Fantasy.
Said this earlier today:
We'll see what happens in a little while once Theresa May has had another go at preventing complete implosion of the home office.
Lo and behold, breaking news:
Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP acting as the minister with the cross-governmental lead on child sexual exploitation within the Home Office has resigned, apparently saying working with Home Secretary Theresa May like "walking through mud".
Or the other version, election coming time to distance from that lot and make it look like everything was their fault up we tried really hard.
Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP acting as the minister with the cross-governmental lead on child sexual exploitation within the Home Office has resigned, apparently saying working with Home Secretary Theresa May like "walking through mud".
Coalition party member in making the other party look bad shocker. I wouldn't trust any of Cleggy's crowd to run a piss-up in a brewery.
David Icke is hands down the greatest human being alive.
Watch how these presenters have to try and gang up. And note how they don't stop to ask him about ritual abuse.
You have to wonder why the people he names in his books don't try to sue him.
You have to wonder why the people he names in his books don't try to sue him.
Well, you don't have to wonder. I never have that's for sure.
Mainly because I'm not stupid enough to buy one of his books
But seeing as you brought it up, why don't they sue him ?
You have to wonder why the people he names in his books don't try to sue him.
never wrestle with a pig. you both end up covered in shit and the pig enjoys it.
that is to say - suing Icke would be an expensive, embarrassing and pointless exercise that would simply promote Icke. by the way, the answer would be the same regardless of whether the people Icke names were guilty or innocent of whatever it is he says they did.
You have to wonder why the people he names in his books don't try to sue him.
The because the courts and the whole legal process is stacked in David Icke's favour, it's all part of the great conspiracy.
Or have I got that wrong ?
Pedophiles in Power - Geneva Business Insider:
You're not familiar with the well established principle, first put forward, IIRC, in Sherlock Holmes stories, called 'hiding in plain sight' then?
Think it was Father Brown, [url= http://books.eserver.org/fiction/innocence/brokensword.html ]The Sign of the Broken Sword[/url].
you can count on my slipping it into more credible threads every now and again to keep everyone on their toes.
I refer you to your recent warning.
We've no issues with threads like this one discussing your hoary ideas, but derailing other threads and disrupting ongoing conversations isn't on.
In all fairness cougar, I don't recall a recent warning:
would you care to clarify?
EDIT: It seems pretty clear
Discus your conspiracy theories on conspiracy threads and leave them out of other thread as you de rail them
I could give you a fairly long list of.people you've heard of who don't agree with that at all, JY
I suspect you mean out there rather than on STW
No one would disagree numerous organisations , the church for example, have tried to cover up allegations and historical allegations. However the claim we [ STW]are denying the claims on here for the reasons stated remains false.
It's pitifully candid that too many people on here have no alternative but to turn the other cheek - I guess it's all your minerals can accommodate..
This is BS
PS wow well done Jive you predicted that May would have issues after the second person had to stand dawn- such foresighthampered only by your failure to predict that the coalition member would leave and that the stated reason unrelated to the abuse.
Still you claim that AMMMMMMMAAAAZZZZIIIIINNNNNGGGGG insight as success.
If it helps I am going ot sya a politiican will be involved ina scandal and need to resign....shh you hear dit here first
as for suing Icke - why bother only loons believe or read his guff and by suing you would just let the claim be read by a wider audience. the fact he lost would just bee seen as the "system" closing down his truth etc
Its pointless
stated reason
Are you familiar with the PR game Junky?
Apparently Max Clifford was quite big in the field:
Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP acting as the minister with the cross-governmental lead on child sexual exploitation within the Home Office
If you're having a romantic meal in a restaurant and need a poo, do you say you need a poo?
Of course now I see the proof is that he did not mention it and mentioned other things...it makes so much sense when you explain it like that ..FACEPALM
Really can you you not see what you are doing here
He mentions it you are correct
He does not mention - you are correct
This is how you treat facts and evidence - they go through your "reality filter" and exit proving your pre held views irrespective of what they actually mean
I find conspiracy theorists quite intriguing.
http://conspiracypsychology.com/
Conspiracy theories allow people to address feelings of powerlessness and lack of control, avoid feelings of uncertainty and allow people to make sense of events.
Basically they like to feel that they have a grasp of the unknowns and also that they are a step above the rest of the population - it's an odd sort superiority complex (born of actually feeling powerless) where their concerns 'for the children' (in this instance) just hide a desire to seem better than others and more in control. Actually the fate of the children or whoever is of little interest (or let's say secondary to be charitable).
It's essentially slacktivism taken a step further.
you are correct
Thanks
Actually the fate of the children or whoever is of little interest
Aye, it's all me, me, me.
Check out my Ferrari, swimming pool and jewelry, I'm well self centred.
Haterz gonna hate
You don't have to lust after material objects to be self-centred.
So, prove me wrong. What have you actually done to help the children? Claiming to spread the information doesn't count - that's just doing what I stated in my post above.
Oh really, do tell me more, I'm really looking forward to your opinion 😆
What have you actually done to help the children? Claiming to spread the information doesn't count
Well, aside from months of unpaid research and correspondence with victims, careworkers, journalists and MPs, along with campaigning and regular donations to charity, I can't think of a whole lot right now... you?
Well in that case, I'll give you kudos for actually doing something which certainly isn't the usual situation for conspiracists but if I was uncharitable I could ask what you've actually achieved to help the children - spending time on conspiracy theories isn't helping per se and it could be argued is just persuing your own interest in this like a hobby.
Also, given all the time and effort you seem to be putting in, I'd have expected you to be able to provide much more credible evidence to back up what you're claiming which you clearly haven't.
Perhaps you should read the thread in it's entirety, or even just the last page :wink::
I can totally understand where you're coming from with that, however 'proper' evidence is:a) A lot more sensitive, with victims anonymity necessary for their dignity.
b) Far more intensive and time consuming to study in all its detail
c) Not suitable for sharing in the public domain whilst ongoing investigations are underway.
What I have tried to do is compile sufficient evidence of cases already completed and publicized so as to give you an insight into the bigger picture.
I appreciate the level of skepticism displayed, but stand by my claims.
Yeah but that's pretty much standard defence. Given what you're claiming if you can't come up with anything credible that you can actually share in any form then it comes back to the 'I know more than you do' situation that is the norm for conspiracists
That then isn't helped by previous claims which are basically X spoke to Y or was photographed with Z and therefore there's a huge conspiracy rather than just the more likely situation that people with power, money and or fame tend to know eachother.
Look trust him he has the proof he just cannot show you it right now.
I know he would be fine it he lizard illuminati gave this as an explanation
None so blind as those who cannot see
If we were playing Conspiracy Theory Bullshit Bingo, everyone on this thread would have a full house by now.
Look trust him he has the proof he just cannot show you it right now.
The Fermat Defence?