There’s nothing to suggest it’s confined to any specific religion or race, but there is often a common theme of involvement by the intelligence services.

We should bear in mind the multiple strands of investigation linking organized abuse to not only politics, but also the military.

Furthermore, in cases such as Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and Greville Janner, there has of course been repeated interference into investigation.

The same holds true with Rotherham, where not only have files gone missing, but the Home Office (which runs the intelligence services) was informed in 2003

It seems hard to conceive the intelligence services hold so much sway over so many aspects of the justice system, unless aided by other factors such as Freemasonry.

Right.

We all know now what Savile was. But this gives no credence to other conspiracy theories; saying “well, I was right about Savile” (assuming you were) doesn’t prop you up as a master investigative reporter with l33t skillz that we wouldn’t understand, rather it’s playing the law of averages. If you accuse a hundred people and one turns out to be guilty, you can’t stand there proclaiming a massive success, that’s just cherry-picking and conveniently ignoring the 99 you got wrong.

All this “associated with” and “friends of” is just special pleading, it’s utterly meaningless. I was stood in a field the other day, it doesn’t make me a ****ing tractor. Here’s a FACT for you: celebrities know other celebrities, politicians know other politicians, people in higher echelons of society (or indeed, any subset of society) meet each other occasionally. Take the Queen as an example; it’s practically her job to meet people. I’d hazard if you picked any two famous people at random and hit google you could find them shaking hands with the Queen. MY GOD THEY’RE ALL CONNECTED!!

You’re not good at research, despite your claims. You are dreadful at research. You regurgitate hoary conspiracy theories from dubious sources and then when challenged on it you say “do your own research” (because you’ve not actually done any yourself) or “it’s too complicated to explain” (because you can’t explain to an audience not filled with cotton-headed idiots) or rapidly change the subject. On this very page, after being challenged repeatedly to provide something to substantiate your claims about Mountbatten beyond “he was on a boat once”, once you realised you had absolutely nothing beyond conjecture you ignored the question and started talking about whistleblowers and Tom Watson.

Put up or shut up.

C
O
N
J
E
C
T
U
R
E

Does it make it any clearer spelling it out differently?

You may have missed this post Cougar:

here is the 1st part:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qmvpm

Like Jimmy Savile and Peter Ball, Charles Hornby was a friend of Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten is also alleged to have been involved:

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-playland-cover-up/

Or perhaps you’ve listened to the whole program?

Did you read this book too?

So nemesis, have you read any of the links, watched any of the Channel 4 footage or listened to any of the Radio 4 programme, or are you relying on conjecture based on denial?

And? So what?

I have read various links, probably none of the recent ones for reasons I explained above. The point is you still clearly have no proof or evidence or you’d be making it very clear instead of insinuation, ‘linking’ and avoiding the question. Once you provide some proof or hard facts, I’ll read further. I expect it’s going to be a long time coming.

Yet again, to state my position it’s clear there’s dodgy things been happening. What isn’t clear despite you claiming otherwise is that they’re all part of your one exciting global conspiracy that would prove how clever and insightful you are.

No, you provide the facts and then we’ll look into it. If you can’t provide a summary of facts, I think we’re all fairly sure that there aren’t any that actually back up your story.

No, information that you post that when people have read up on it don’t PROVE what you claim or are just conjecture.

Tell us what the link PROVES then. If it really proves something that will immeasurably improve your credibility.

Tell us what the link PROVES then. If it really proves something that will immeasurably improve your credibility.

This.

Because experience would suggest that if we did read all this stuff, it’d say something completely different from what you’re alluding to, at which point you’ll start talking about alien lizards or something and we’ll have lost an hour of our lives.

I’ll do you a deal, one time only offer. You tell us what you believe the link proves, and then I’ll go and read / watch it to see if I agree. If the best you can do is “links” and “associations” and “was on a boat once” then I’ll spend my lunch watching Babylon 5 instead. I’m up to season 4 now, Sheridan’s just visited Z’ha’dum.

There’s a well known blogger out there documenting the whole Dolphin Square thing and they keep adding details such as “Margaret Hodge (nee Oppenheimer, Jewish)”, or “Tony Blair (well known zionist)…” etc and it really irks me. It’s as if they are insinuating a Jewish conspiracy.

Kind of destroys any credibility really.

So in summary of your waffle, jhj, people high up in society/politics are “linked”, may have met each other or may have worked together. Shock!

Can you tell me what you think it PROVES? Are you suggesting that because Goddard doesn’t consider herself part of the establishment (which is a pretty vague term in itself – a bit like some people consider themselves working class despite clearly not being so to most other people) that this somehow PROVES there’s a conspiracy? I honestly hope not.

she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years:

She was a high Court Judge in NZ, the Privy Council were; up until recently the last port of call for appeals in NZ courts, it’s not really a conspiracy to suggest that the Deputy solicitor General might have “worked closely” with them.

If that makes her “establishment” then that description would cover most people involved in criminal law in a good percentage of courts around the globe…

That link you provided about Derek Laud doesn’t mention him at all.

Top drawer research

my bad

How was Babylon 5, Cougar?

I read this thread from time to time and am becoming increasingly concerned that I may be implicated. You see about 15 years ago, I was dealing with Sade’s (the 1990’s pop singer) house (it had subsidence and I was investigating the cause). Well, she had a song called “your love is king”. Jonathan King was convicted for child sex offences, and his surname is obviously linked to the Royal Family – Prince Charles – who will one day be king. Have we got to the bottom of how many Armies the Queen has yet? My guess is five. Or six. Not quite sure.

Grum you are gith it’s a diversion but just to be clear many countries have been formed and boundaries shaped as a result of conflict, Israel is no different in that regard. Also no doubt some bad or extreme things have been done by Israelis/Jews. Would I go as far as to call it “state sponsored terrorism”, no I don’t think I would.

@PJM do you have a link to the blogger, coleman experience?

Ah, Irony.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go and find out where Garibaldi’s got to.

“In 1992, she was appointed Deputy Solicitor-General for New Zealand and in that role supervised the prosecution of indictable crime and criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal and Privy Council.” does not equal “she worked closely with the Privy Council for several years” in fact quite the opposite as she was involved in presenting cases to be decided by them .
Do you not read your own links JHJ “Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:”
Judgment was delivered on 3 March 2015 in the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.Relates to :-
Privy Council Appeal, Pora (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (New Zealand), judgment [2015] UKPC 9
” Susan Burdett was raped and murdered in her home in March 1992. In May 1994 the appellant was convicted of both crimes (and of aggravated burglary of Ms Burdett’s home) following a jury trial. In 1999 the New Zealand Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a re-trial. On his re-trial before Williams J and a jury in March 2000 he was again found guilty. The appellant again appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court dismissed the conviction appeal in October 2000. This appeal lies from that decision.”
So a case that pre dates the change in the law not despite the change in the law.