Forum menu
Religious purity? What is that all about?Have a look at any service book of the established Church in the UK and you will soon realise that such a concept is not only flawed but alien too.
I expect that EIIR was vexed about Iraq, remember she is the mother/grandmother of serving officers. Her perspective would be particularly appropriate.
Arms trade? I thought you were only thinking of the victims of child abuse? what's the arms trade got to do with it?
Answer the question asked of you? Why d'you find that so hard? Is it the realisation that if you actually have to defend yourself without the use of cut and paste and the thoughts of others that what you think is solid is no more ephemeral than a house of cards? that if you actually have to use reasoned debate to answer the points asked of you that you realise it's all so...imagined?
Or is it that really actually, you don't care a jot about the victims of child abuse? That really it's JHJ vs THEM? In reality Jive; child abuse goes on all the time, by "him at number 6" mostly, the uncle or the brother in law, or the step dad. This, all this succeeds in doing is diverting attention away from that reality.
"'ere look" they say on their sick chat rooms "this berk thinks the queen's involved"
Well done.
I don't think I want to interact with you anymore TBH.
If you can't handle my answers so be it... I'm not here to pander to your beliefs~ there is some very challenging issues which have to be confronted...
I'm not diverting attention away from reality... quite the opposite, I'm exposing realities that are shielded by the same system which aided in the cover up of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan and **** knows how many other vile deviants, who raped, tortured and murdered kids, when it was their duty to protect them.
As it is Her Majesty's Government, you'd imagine that since her family were close to Jimmy Savile, they'd be doing everything in their power to ensure a full and thorough inquiry~ after all, we know Prince Charles letters would expose the extent of his intervention in Government matters; if he's been willing to intervene in the past, surely he'd have ensured Theresa May stops faffing around, yet the best part of 9 months after the inquiry was announced, there has been no real progress and in legal terms, the official secrets act still bars whistleblowers from disclosing evidence to the inquiry.
Well, I'm sure your drivelling on about it on a poky little bike forum* will make all the difference in your noble crusade. I mean, it's obviously the best place to expose the evil lizards.
*No offence, Mark!
Awareness is key to exposure... 3 years ago the majority of us thought Jimmy Savile was a bit of an odd bod who did a lot for charity.
Fresh news relevant to this thread:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32044580 ]MPs 'monitored by Scotland Yard during 1990s'[/url]
"When I was deployed undercover in the Special Demonstration Squad, any MP that I came across, such as on demonstrations, I would report back on them," he said.Mr Francis says that the files not only contained the MPs' publicly stated political views - but also intelligence on what was going on behind the scenes in the party or their group. He says some of the information would have been things said in private by the MP, depending on how close each undercover officer had been able to get.
Mr Francis said that when he first saw the files he understood that each had probably been created before the individual was an MP because of their personal involvement in radical causes or protests.
But he added: "When they became MPs these files carried on. It [was] your duty as an SDS officer to report back any intelligence that you come across.
(Bear in mind Special Branch is the executive arm of MI5, as covered [url= http://nyenquirer.uk/mi5-special-branch-prominent-paedophiles-cover-peter-jaconelli/ ]here[/url])
So if Scotland Yard was acting on the Home Office's orders, who's orders where the Home Office acting on?
Fresh news relevant to this thread:
Not really, no. It does nothing to answer the question of the number of armies that the Queen has.
But, don't let that stop your wibbling.
Oops a daisy...
a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?
You can call me Mr Consistency if you're good
So if Scotland Yard was acting on the Home Office's orders, who's orders where the Home Office acting
I'm sure you are dying to tell us.
Who was it ?
Fresh news relevant to this thread:MPs 'monitored by Scotland Yard during 1990s'
The Metropolitan Police had a unit which monitored leftist activism. Like today's "domestic extremism" units, it appears to have gone rather further in doing that than was constitutionally wise, doubtless under extremely flakey supervision. You can see how it happens though. If Peter Hain is a member of an "subversive" anti-apartheid society, and he then becomes an MP, the sort of suspicious-minded, conservative oaf who becomes the commander of an undercover police unit monitoring political activists thinks "[i]subversive anti-apartheid society has infiltrated parliament! Better keep monitoring this terrifying development[/i]". It happens by itself, without anyone really ordering it, because police forces investigate things, and undercover policemen gather intelligence. And because no-one said "[i]pack that in, you daft buggers, that's unconstitutional[/i]". Because no one knew. Because the police were doing it secretly. It's a perennial problem with the oversight of undercover policing and the intelligence services.
Just to be clear: there is no suggestion there that the Met was acting under orders from MI5. The two organisations are not linked, and your article agrees.
MI5 officers do not have powers of arrest (see [url= https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/faqs-about-mi5/is-mi5-the-secret-police.html ]MI5's FAQs[/url]). so when MI5 needs to have someone arrested, they liaise with Special Branch, who do the arresting. Special Branch is MI5's "executive arm" only in the sense that it "executes" arrests that MI5 does not have the legal authority to make. I assume (dunno) that if MI5 urgently need someone who is on a boat arrested, they call the Coastguard.
You can't say "Special Branch did X. Special branch are controlled by MI5. MI5 are controlled by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is part of Her Majesty's government. Her Majesty is a paedo-lizard. Therefore the paedo-lizards ordered Special Branch to do X". That simply isn't how the relationship between Special Branch and MI5 works (unless everything usually understood to be the case is a lie, as usual).
🙂
I've kind of lost track of the question being asked here or how it's being answered.
It's fair to say though, that there is some shady shit going on here. It's also fair to say that "the establishment", (this losely related group of individuals who hold power) certainly look out for themselves. It's also fair to say that some of them are bad people and some of those people are paedophiles. It's also fair to say that some of these people will have used our intelligence services as tools at their disposal to get what they want and also that it wasn't happening in isolation, people not involved knew and turned a blind eye.
I don't think all the elements are linked any more strongly than the establishment looking out for itself. Having said that, it still ****ing stinks and should be investigated although doubt it ever will be fully.
What's most alarming is the vote on amnesty for helping with enquiries. That is ****ing shocking and everyone just shrugs it off.
(Realise this could go in the other thread)
You can't say "Special Branch did X. Special branch are controlled by MI5. MI5 are controlled by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is part of Her Majesty's government. Her Majesty is a paedo-lizard. Therefore the paedo-lizards ordered Special Branch to do X". That simply isn't how the relationship between Special Branch and MI5 works (unless everything usually understood to be the case is a lie, as usual).
That's a fair point, but you can say: MI5 and Special Branch regularly work together and are under the authority of the Home Office (as are the rest of the police)
From that, it is then reasonable to ask on whose orders such surveillance was being conducted and in whose interests the orders were made.
It's also fair to assume this has been common practice for a long time, giving more credibility for example to the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm ]plot for a coup against Harold Wilson[/url]
If that was indeed the case, it's odd to think that mentor to Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.
Pretty tight knit at the top it would seem
Peter Wright (Spycatcher/MI5) famous quote was along the lines of
"Special Branch, they want to be us and we don't want to be them"
If that was indeed the case, it's odd to think that mentor to Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.
If, indeed. Again, this stuff doesn't half propagate.
There isn't a fat lot of decent evidence that anyone plotted a coup against Wilson (and it [i]certainly[/i] didn't happen).
There isn't a fat lot of evidence that Mountbatten was a paedo-lizard.
But adding together Mountbatten's speculative involvement in a possibly-fictional and definitely non-occurring coup, plus his "alleged" involvement in rampant paedo-lizardry, plus the fact that he knew Savile (who was admittedly a paedo-lizard) certainly puts Mountbatten at the very centre of a tangled and secretive web of darkness. It's simply amazing that the IRA were simply able to blow him up in such a casual fashion.
There isn't a fat lot of decent evidence
There isn't a fat lot of decent [i]accessible[/i] evidence
Bloody Official Secrets Act...
How do you know that the evidence was suppressed by the OSA if you don't know?
Or are you just speculating because, well, I'm not sure why actually. Unless it's a sort of internalised tourette's syndrome or something.
Not just idle conjecture all told
it's odd to think that mentor to Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.
More reasonable deduction...
Deaf, too.
More reasonable deduction...
Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.
So your idea of "reasonable deduction" is to accuse someone, without any actual evidence, of being behind a coup that didn't happen, because he knew Jimmy Savile, and some other things you don't have any actual evidence of.
BUT..... he took his grandson on a boat, so..... ya' know... *nudge nudge.
Confused
Given the all pervading power of the royal family, and their complete control of the police, judicial system and government, as admirably demonstrated by JHJ
How come the Supreme Court have.ruled the black spider letters have to be released?
Confused
Given the all pervading power of the royal family, and their complete control of the police, judicial system and government, as admirably demonstrated by JHJ
How come the Supreme Court have.ruled the black spider letters have to be released?
That's what they want you to think..... Or something.
How do you know that the evidence was suppressed by the OSA if you don't know?
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
any actual evidence of
Is this the bit where you suggest a dictionary as suitable evidence again?
Crazy to think a couple of years ago there was minimal actual evidence of a global surveillance network run by several governments of which the Queen is head of state... even after evidence was presented to the Guardian, Her Majesty's government made them destroy hard drives containing evidence.
But let's not sweat significant details, we should celebrate!!
After all it's a grand day for democracy...
(after a hard fought 10 year tax payer funded battle over multiple elected administrations)
Yippee!!
Let's hope they don't redact the letters too heavily eh
Crazy to think a couple of years ago there was minimal actual evidence of a global surveillance network run by several governments of which the Queen is head of state... even after evidence was presented to the Guardian, Her Majesty's government made them destroy hard drives containing evidence.
So your logic boils down to.
1. Previously we didn't know "a" was true, but now we do know "a" is true.
2. Therefore, [b]anything[/b] we don't know now, must be true. We don't need evidence (see point 1)
Have I summed that up ok ?
Not on your nelly, neally you numpty!!
The plot behind the coup does have reasonable levels of evidence to back it up... the link is already up there, so I won't bother wasting my time attaching it again.
What's more, the fresh admissions that Special Branch were spying on Left Wing MPs give further gravitas to the allegations made regarding Harold Wilson.
After all, throughout that time, there has been only one Monarch~to whom all Police and intelligence Officers pledge allegiance.
Could their logos give us any clues who they work for?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
, the fresh admissions that Special Branch were spying on Left Wing MPs give further gravitas to the allegations made regarding Harold Wilson
What a strange conclusion!
Sitting here with my very thick, very heavy copy of the authorised history of Mi5, published several years ago, it makes no secret whatsoever of the monitoring of MP's, and the circumstances in which it was done, and the checks and balances in place to prevent the abuse of. It also shows that over the years a number of Politicians (of all parties) were proven to be leaking information to foreign governments.
That this was a surprise to anyone is strange, indeed there was a famous court case in the eighties with Harperson and Hewitt (yes, the NCCL people involved in supporting PIE) challenging The home office via the ECHR over their files
[b]authorised[/b] history of Mi5
Hmm...
Authorised by who and on who's behalf?
After all, throughout that time, there has been only one Monarch~to whom all Police and intelligence Officers pledge allegiance.Could their logos give us any clues who they work for?
So after all that, we are back to you claiming that the Queen is in charge of everything ?
You really are a waste of Bandwidth.
So after all that, we are back to ......
😆
You expected to be somewhere else?
Honestly, this all powerful Queen is losing her grip
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/26/prince-charles-loses-10ye_n_6945650.html?1427364034
First tiny Carribean nations start ditching her, now this.....
So after all that, we are back to you claiming that the Queen is in charge of everything ?
With such a polarized perspective, you're a waste of braincell[s]s[/s]
I haven't claimed the Queen is in charge of everything, but it's fairly evident that Special Branch and MI5 spying on MPs has been a procedure in place for a long period of time, spanning several elected governments and continues regardless of which political party is in power.
It's a reasonable assumption that similar activities take place across the many other governments of which the Queen is Head of state, over whose armed forces she has authority.
Honestly, this all powerful Queen is losing her grip
Due in no small part to this thread no doubt...
that's the power of exposure for ya
8)
[img] 
[/img]
that's the power of exposure for ya
In all honesty. If there is an all powerful Queen controlling everything.
You work for her, it's the only reasonable explanation for your discrediting of the theory that she's really in charge.
You really are a waste of Bandwidth
Now I really want a Like button!
I haven't claimed the Queen is in charge of everything, but it's fairly evident that Special Branch and MI5 spying on MPs has been a procedure in place for a long period of time, spanning several elected governments and continues regardless of which political party is in power.It's a reasonable assumption that similar activities take place across the many other governments of which the Queen is Head of state, over whose armed forces she has authority.
So it is "fairly evident" that the Queen is instructing Special Branch and MI5 to spy on MPs then?
All the while making sure that paedophile MPs have easy access to children of course.
Now I really want a Like button!
[b][i]THEY[/i][/b] don't want you to have one.
THEY don't want you to have one
OMG, it just seems so obvious when you put it like that!
OMG, it just seems so obvious when you put it like that!
That's not all. LOOK! JUST LOOK!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Both based on circles. Makes you think, doesn't it?
With such a polarized perspective...
I have a "polarised perspective" ?
Are you saying I have multiple personality disorder and have two differing opinions at the same time ?
Or are you just struggling with your words.
IT'S TOO MUCH! Why can't you just leave me to work it out for myself like the other guy?
That's not all. LOOK! JUST LOOK!
Now that's why I don't trust the CIA !
Just look at the badge, the EAGLE is in charge of everything !!!
It must be, they wouldn't put it on the logo if it wasn't basically in charge would they!!
I like eagles...
Here is an example of a polarized perspective:
[img] 
[/img]
Flipside yo...
[img] 
[/img]
Crazy to think there is a whole planet in between
It's really not crazy at all