Viewing 40 posts - 441 through 480 (of 1,032 total)
  • "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"
  • jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    There is also to be an IPCC case looking into repeated shelving of investigations into Labour Peer Greville Janner

    Is it pure coincidence that Keith Vaz has just suggested suspects should remain anonymous until charged?

    Food for thought from previous page in this thread:

    Keith Vaz’s past does call into question his suitability to chair the Home Affairs Select Committee:

    ~He was a solicitor on Richmond council at the time children were being trafficked from Grafton Close care home to Elm Guest House

    ~He was also a solicitor on Islington council at the time children were being trafficked from care homes to various locations, including Jersey and thus Haut de la Garenne, ‘The Jersey House of Horrors’. The scandal hangs over Margaret Hodge to this day

    ~He proposed a new law to protect his friend Greville Janner, who mysteriously came down with dementia just as police started investigating allegations he had abused children in care homes

    ~Of course the fact that he attended a Tamil conference with Jimmy Savile is more than likely coincidental

    but the fact that he shared a close friend with Savile, Stephen Purdew,

    who helped arrange Savile’s funeral is a touch more worrying

    ~Also a bit odd that a police investigation that revealed he’d allegedly received mysterious funds to the tune of £500,000

    Of course, all of this could be nothing, but you’d imagine Keith would take the time to disclose these matters and dispel any concerns especially after the Home Affairs Select Committee accidentally published the details of some of the victims, resulting in death threats

    ninfan
    Free Member

    I don’t think its coincidence he has said that

    It’s a quite clear response to the shocking behaviour by the police and BBC in the Cliff Richard case, which (regardless of anything to do with guest houses) was clearly a fishing expedition of the highest order

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    That’s a meaty can of worms in it’s own right, once again involving Keith Vaz, apparently contradicting his latest statements:

    BBC acted perfectly properly with Police over Cliff Richard says Keith Vaz

    And in defence of Vaz, it does appear to have aided the investigation:

    A historical sex offence inquiry into singer Sir Cliff Richard has “increased significantly in size” and involves “more than one allegation”, police say.

    Though it appears Cliff Richard’s Lawyers weren’t impressed with Vaz

    It seems as usual, there is more to all this than meets the eye, especially given the other points already raised about Vaz, in particular:

    The Home Affairs Select Committee accidentally published the details of some of the victims, resulting in death threats

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Is it pure coincidence that Keith Vaz has just suggested suspects should remain anonymous until charged?

    I don’t click on your seemingly endless multitude of links JHJ, but if they do indeed provide compelling evidence of an extraordinary all-embracing establishment paedophile conspiracy, which according to you is central to the control structures of the political and religious elite and leads directly to the monarch, as you obviously believe they do, then Keith Vaz might as well stop wasting his time and give up, as the whole conspiracy has clearly been blown apart by an never-ending multitude of easy to access internet links.

    Suspects remaining anonymous obviously isn’t going to save this doomed conspiracy.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Wow, I think you might be onto something ernie!!

    More news from today:

    Pope accepts disgraced Cardinal O’Brien’s resignation from public role

    Hmm, where have I heard that name before?

    Jimmy Savile and the Cardinal

    Britain’s most senior Catholic cleric wasn’t he?

    wilburt
    Free Member

    You should click, read and occasionally learn, some are dubious others genuinely interesting.
    I personally don’t think there’s an organised structure but do believe people who seek power over other people are inherently dodgy and even more so once they actually get power.
    Religion, any religion is a perfect example.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    You should click, read and occasionally learn….

    I keep up with current affairs fairly well without any need to click on JHJ’s links.

    I personally don’t think there’s an organised structure….

    Well the claim that there’s an organised structure is pretty central to JHJ’s entire argument. If you’re unconvinced perhaps read more links?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    I keep up with current affairs fairly well without any need to click on JHJ’s links.

    Are you up to date with random pictures of people who once, perfectly reasonably given their positions, might have met? You know, the sort of picture that’s proof of something. Y’know, real PROOF.

    See what I mean?

    A duck. He’s stroking a duck, FFS! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    I’ve already mentioned that allegations state

    I allege this;

    So, my allegation states that you have no penis. Does that make it a fact?

    Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    Ah, what’s the point. You have no interest in hearing any opinion that differs from yours, no interest in learning any facts, no interest in listening to some of the very clever (and, I should add from a very socio-politically balanced background) posters on this thread.

    You’re just trolling. And making yourself look silly. Then again, if you’re happy, that’s great. Keeps you off the streets, I suppose.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    No, your allegation states that Mike Myers won’t be partying on with babes, dude.

    I’ve edited my post so as to give a bit more background.

    Anyhoo, must dash

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    I’ve already mentioned that apparently….

    I’ve already mentioned that apparently you have no penis.

    Does that make it a fact? (Note – This last bit is what is called a “question”. You should try answering one once in a while. )

    mogrim
    Full Member

    Of course, I’ve already mentioned that apparently the Royals were introduced to Savile by Charles’ mentor, Louis Mountbatten in the 1960s…

    You did indeed, you said:

    Lord Mountbatten introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family in the 60s and they were close from that time until his death in 2011.

    Have your internet wanderings led to you any further information about Lord Mountbatten? Like when he died, for example?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Oh, it’s hard fact…

    and as for the Mountbatten link:

    It’s as factual as the majority of information presented by news sources…

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Lord Mountbatten introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family in the 60s and they were close from that time until his death in 2011.

    Have your internet wanderings led to you any further information about Lord Mountbatten? Like when he died, for example?

    Yep, 1979… apparently involving the IRA, there were 2 young boys on the boat with him at the time.

    Kincora has been linked to the intelligence services and the IRA as has Elm Guest House.

    Mountbatten is said to have been involved in the network surrounding Kincora~ certainly possible given his links to the intelligence services.

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Thought you had to dash?

    Of course, you overlook not only the fact that one of those “young boys” was his grandson, but also the identity and relationships of the others on the boat at the time, because they don’t fit your narrative.

    Or, were they all a part of the conspiracy as well?

    Apparently…..said to be…..linked to…..allegedly….

    You see? The problem is the way you latch on to any possibility, ignoring any facts. That way, any element where you and your ilk could well be correct is lost under your insane interwebular noodlings.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Read this again flash:

    Yep, 1979… apparently involving the IRA, there were 2 young boys on the boat with him at the time.

    Kincora has been linked to the intelligence services and the IRA as has Elm Guest House.

    Mountbatten is said to have been involved in the network surrounding Kincora~ certainly possible given his links to the intelligence services.

    I haven’t latched on to anything outlandish: I haven’t made any suggestions about the boys, I just mentioned they were on the boat.

    The rest however is reasonable deduction… you can poo poo it all you like, but time and again I’ve been on the money, from Leon Brittan, to Lambeth, to MI5 involvement in protecting paedophiles…

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Your point was quite obvious.

    there were 2 young boys on the boat with him at the time.

    Why not mention the others if you weren’t insinuating something about the “young boys”? Why mention that they were “young boys” at all? Of course, unless you were implying he was, y’know, one of THEM. But then, he was a lizard, so he must be.

    So, are you going to dash now?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    There were 2 young boys killed on the boat with him…

    take from that what you will.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    There were 2 young boys killed on the boat with him…
    take from that what you will.

    One of them a family member, and the other a member of the boat crew.

    All I can take from the fact that you mentioned it, is that you believe “mud sticks” so you throw it every tiny chance you get.

    And you will grasp at anything that reinforces your ideas.

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    An 83 year old woman died as a result of injuries obtained on the boat with them….

    Take from that what you will.

    Go on. Make your accusation. What have you got to lose.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    What accusation?

    That Mountbatten was involved with the intelligence services and the intelligence services were(are?) involved with the procurement and trafficking of children from care homes to serve the perversions of members of the elite…

    It’s worrying to think that such things have happened, even more so as someone must have devised and authorized such schemes… If Mountbatten was in on it, just how high did it go?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    If Mountbatten was in on it,

    IF? IF?

    But, he had “two young boys” on his boat. So, by your logic, there’s no “if” about it.

    Was he a paedophile? (Note, that’s another question. One to which there are only two possible answers, being “yes” or “no”. So, how about answering it?)

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Maybe…

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Pointless berk.

    Bored of your trolling now. Unlike you, when I say I’ve got to dash, I have.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Was Lord Mountbatten linked to Northern Ireland and the intelligence agencies, Yes or No?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Interesting timing…

    Royal Family member was investigated as part of paedophile ring before cover up

    We’ll have to see how this progresses

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Good find fourbanger… there is a full breakdown of how MPs voted here

    What is especially noteworthy is that the Home Secretary, Theresa May voted against the amendment allowing whistle-blowers to disclose to the child abuse inquiry without fear of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, despite repeatedly saying that she ‘hopes’ whistle-blowers will not be prosecuted.

    Former Childrens Minister Tim Loughton also voted against, possibly in relation to this

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Paedogeddon continues:

    The three new referrals to the IPCC are:

    An allegation that a child abuse investigation in central London gathered evidence against MPs, judges, media entertainers, police, actors, clergy and others. The file was submitted to start proceedings against those identified and, it is alleged, two months later an officer was called in by a senior Met officer and told to drop the case

    Two allegations about police actions during a child abuse investigation in the 1980s. Further details of these have not been given

    The IPCC is also assessing a further six referrals it has received from the Met Police relating to “similar matters”.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Further IPCC investigations are pursuing over 100 allegations against 42 police officers in Rotherham

    What are the Independent Police Complaints Commission doing investigating 42 police officers, I thought this was supposed to be an establishment conspricy ?

    Isn’t the Queen in on it, can’t she stop the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating ? Surely the IPCC take their instructions from the Queen, don’t they swear an oath to her or something ?

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    She is still fuming from her courts agreeing that her sons letters to her government ministers should be published even though her governments top legal person said no after her courts said yes.

    Given she runs it all quite why Charles did not just ask her I dont understand but I assume HRH and JHJ know the answer

    nickc
    Full Member

    Yet again JHJ revealing himself to be more interested in the who the abusers are.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Given the IPCC has minimal powers, it’ll be interesting to see whether the inquiry just refers to their findings, or uses it’s powers to investigate more thoroughly…

    Tricky things these establishment conspiracies, they have so many mechanisms for wriggling, but public scrutiny does a damn fine job of pinning them down.

    If it wasn’t for brave survivors, journalists and investigators, we wouldn’t be any the wiser.

    Still some way to go, but solid progress being made at exposing the true scale of the operation.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    And of course I’m interested in the roles of the abusers, as I’ve stated many times before, when the people who make the legislation and enforce the laws are themselves involved in abuse, the system is seriously flawed.

    It’s only through exposing these links that the problem can the thoroughly rooted out and future abuse prevented.

    Of course, the fact that it also appears to tie into the arms industry and blackmail would potentially suggest that in addition to direct abuse of youngsters, there is also the larger issue of preventing injury, death and suffering as a result of the dark political aims of those controlling such paedophile rings.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Tricky things these establishment conspiracies

    You’re telling me. And bearing in mind that paedophilia is apparently ‘vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite’ I’m assuming that the existing social order is under threat, and we are in fact experiencing what could be the start of a new revolutionary situation, am I correct?

    Will the future be lizard free ?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Do you think children from care homes being used by the intelligence services to blackmail influential figures in politics, the judiciary and the military is an acceptable practice?

    Personally, I find it pretty disgusting~ a system which didn’t rely on these methods would certainly be preferable.

    nickc
    Full Member

    And of course I’m interested in the roles of the abusers, as I’ve stated many times before, when the people who make the legislation and enforce the laws are themselves involved in abuse, the system is seriously flawed.

    logic fail.

    But then you knew that.

    Up the revolution, let us rise up to throw off our lizardy overloads!

    wrecker
    Free Member

    Will the future be lizard free ?

    Peados first!
    Jeez, one thing at a time. So impatient some people.

Viewing 40 posts - 441 through 480 (of 1,032 total)

The topic ‘"1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"’ is closed to new replies.