Home Forums Chat Forum "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

Viewing 40 posts - 761 through 800 (of 1,032 total)
  • "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"
  • nemesis
    Free Member

    Just saw this

    “Conspiracy theories are
    how idiots get to feel like
    intellectuals” – David Baddiel

    Which made me lol but then I realised that Baddiel is Jewish so is linked to, well, just about everyone so it’s clearly a cynical attempt to discredit jhj and his ilk.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    I miss Skinner and Beddiel, we have to make do with Lineker and Charles now 🙁 Just saying

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    “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 .

    I don’t know about you, but generally when I work with people, we tend to build up a rapport. This often leads to socializing, friendships, mutual favours.

    Of course, the membership of the Privy Council is extensive and Judge Goddard may or may not be acquainted with some of the key players linked to abuse and/or cover up

    “Despite the change to the law, the Privy Council has been involved in the New Zealand judicial system far more recently:”

    I stand by that, taking pedantic issue with the wording doesn’t alter the facts… despite the change in the law, cases which predate the change in the law mean on occasion there is still significant interaction between the Privy Council and New Zealand’s legal system.

    In isolation that may not be sufficient grounds to refute Judge Goddard’s claims of no ties to the establishment, but it certainly raises questions.

    However, when you combine prior contact with the Privy Council with her daughter being the 1st cousin of the Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, her claims of no establishment ties seem quite similar to the same case put by Fiona Woolf:

    That is before you take into account that Judge Goddard did not even apply for the role, but was approached by Ben Emmerson, the counsel to the inquiry, who aside from members of the secretariat seconded from the Home Office (some of whom have worked at the Home Office under Leon Brittan), is one of the few members who has been on the inquiry from the start.

    Who aided Fiona Woolf in the redrafting of letters regarding her relationship to Leon Brittan has still not been disclosed.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Check your browser settings. I think you’ve got yours set to write-only.

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Check your browser settings. I think you’ve got yours set to write-only.

    *applause*

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Check your browser settings. I think you’ve got yours set to write-only.

    I’ve had mine set to “read only” on this thread for a while. It’s like trying to teach a brick to do tricks.

    But that comment deserves a break in the embargo 🙂

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Cheap shots and abuse eh?

    If it wasn’t so late in the week I’d think this was the Monday Club.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Systematic abuse at that. Maybe it’s a conspiracy.

    Ivanova looked really sad, I hope they’re ok.

    grum
    Free Member

    Now we have a moderator cracking gags on the child abuse thread. Awsumz.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Being as you’re so engrossed in Babylon, surprised you find the time to read, let alone comment on something that you have no interest in…

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Grum, feel free to report it. I read it as Cougar making a very valid point.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Speaking of valid points, silly me, on the last page, I forgot all about this:

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

    Probably quite relevant all things considered…

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    So it is claimed a Royal was involved and it was covered up.

    It needs investigating. If true, it is shocking and those involved in all aspects need to be charged and tried.

    But at this stage it is a claim. And needs investigating. Then we can find out if it is true.

    pondo
    Full Member

    jivehoneyjive –
    I don’t know about you, but generally when I work with people, we tend to build up a rapport.

    I’ve gotta say, I know work and personal life are two separate things but that’s not how you come across on here.

    grum
    Free Member

    Speaking of valid points, silly me, on the last page, I forgot all about this:

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

    Probably quite relevant all things considered…

    Haven’t you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff? They’re only interested in telling you you’re wrong, over and over and over and over again.

    But at this stage it is a claim. And needs investigating. Then we can find out if it is true.

    Do you have any confidence that it will be properly investigated?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Seems that way… ah well, there’s nowt so strange as folk.

    Surely pondo knows you should never judge a book by it’s cover:

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Haven’t you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff?

    I’m not interested in wading through hours of YouTube videos and webpages containing unsubstantiated rumours and guesswork. Not in the slightest.

    Can’t speak for anyone else though.

    They’re only interested in telling you you’re wrong, over and over and over and over again.

    If he keeps posting things as fact, without seeming to understand what “evidence” is.

    I’m sure people will keep pointing it out.

    As has been said before, it’s not a lack of interest in the overall subject matter.

    It’s a lack of interest in listening to the ramblings of an “internet detective”

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Cool, so what did you think of the Radio 4 programme?

    pondo
    Full Member

    You don’t meant to say you’ve posted a pearl of evidence amongst all the other unfounded dross?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Is that your idea of building rapport?

    pondo
    Full Member

    I’m not the one who made claims about the importance of building rapport. It’s been instructive to see how effective you are at it with all your long years of professional experience, though.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    grum – Member

    Haven’t you realised yet that no-one here is actually interested in any of this stuff? They’re only interested in telling you you’re wrong, over and over and over and over again.

    While you on the other hand rather than tell JHJ that he’s wrong prefers to take a more subtle approach :

    grum – Member

    You’re not going to persuade JHJ to start thinking rationally, and everyone else knows he’s full of shit.

    I’m sure JHJ prefers to be told that he’s irrational and full of shit than to be accused of being wrong.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Everyone makes mistakes every now and again, but from what I’ve seen, grums a pretty decent guy.

    Not really sure what you’re trying to achieve though ernie?

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Well obviously you are going to think he’s “a pretty decent guy” whilst he’s backing you up.

    I just like to remind grum that while he constantly criticises other people for not agreeing with you he was happy to say that you can’t think rationally and are full of shit when it suited him.

    This isn’t about you JHJ it’s about grum’s self-righteous and apparently rather selective indignation.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    It’s understandable everyone is a bit disturbed at the moment, this is some serious and heavy shit, but at the end of the day, we’re all in the same boat.

    How’s about we stop picking away at each other and work on making sure the matter is adequately pursued…

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    I’m not sure what boat you mean. I’m just pointing out that people are perfectly entitled to dismiss your conspiracy theories if they want to.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    How’s about we stop picking away at each other and work on making sure the matter is adequately pursued…

    As I, and plenty other people, have said before. ..

    Your scattergun approach to making accusations based purely on conjecture, and nothing that can be considered as actual evidence, does nothing to help.

    In fact it does the opposite, as it puts what is actually a serious matter lumped in with all the other conspiracy theories.

    You won’t listen though, so what’s the point.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    If it turned out the Royal family had indeed been complicit in the procurement and trafficking of children from carehomes by the security services, for the purposes of blackmailing politicians, would you accept it?

    How about if a member of the Royal family had been directly involved in the sadistic abuse of children?

    pondo
    Full Member

    I think it would be accepted if there were irrefutable evidence, and the odd incoherent youtube vid and veiled reference doesn’t really cut it for me. We can say “how about…” anything we like, but if it lacks proof, there’s not really much point, kind of like your “I like to build rapport” claims.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    If it turned out the Royal family had indeed been complicit in the procurement and trafficking of children from carehomes by the security services, for the purposes of blackmailing politicians, would you accept it?

    How about if a member of the Royal family had been directly involved in the sadistic abuse of children?

    I’m not even sure what you are asking.

    Would I accept it ?

    If it was proven that it happened, then of course I would accept it. It would be a fact.

    No offence meant, but that’s a **** stupid question.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    More pertinent is will you ever accept that you were wrong.

    Everyone here can be swayed by proof and evidence…ironically everyone but you.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Given the current makeup of the inquiry into child abuse, do you think such matters will be thoroughly investigated?

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Hang on, have you moved on from your first stupid question without explaining why you asked it ?

    grum
    Free Member

    I just like to remind grum that while he constantly criticises other people for not agreeing with you he was happy to say that you can’t think rationally and are full of shit when it suited him.

    This isn’t about you JHJ it’s about grum’s self-righteous and apparently rather selective indignation.

    I think a lot of the stuff that JHJ points is unhelpful because it makes people dismiss it all as conspiracy theory.

    Even though I agree with most of the points that most of you make about how illogical and irrational a lot of it is, it really baffles/infuriates me how you all choose to ignore the fact that within all the conspiracy nonsense there is a lot of fairly pertinent and credible information about serious and horrific crimes.

    I think it’s utterly, utterly pointless to keep on nitpicking at everything he says, and this thread would be a lot more interesting if people just talked about the credible stuff.

    Yes I was rude about JHJ and probably shouldn’t have been – but I left it at that, rather than posting endless tedious and pointless rebuttals of every single conspiracy theory he comes out with.

    Why is everyone so much more interested in picking apart every single thing JHJ says than talking about the actual issue? Seriously?

    I tried a few times but it genuinely seems like no-one here is really interested, yet you all keep coming back again and again to pick apart JHJ’s posts.

    nealglover
    Free Member

    ironically everyone but you.

    Me ?

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Just to ascertain that I’m speaking to people who have adequate understanding of what is being discussed, rather than relying on conjecture and denial, what did you think of the Radio 4 programme?

    nealglover
    Free Member

    it really baffles/infuriates me how you all choose to ignore the fact that within all the conspiracy nonsense there is a lot of fairly pertinent and credible information about serious and horrific crimes.

    Who says anyone ignores it ?

    Maybe we just don’t bleat about it on bike forums.

    For all the good it would do what’s the point ?

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Just thought i’d throw this in to the ring to back up jhj, the royal who was investigated was Prince Philip and he used/owned a black cab to drive around in at the time.

    Not about to say how/why i know of such an accusation but there you go, I have absolutely no doubt that the individual who mentioned it to me is 100% genuine as to their belief……ah what the hell – it was known in certain London criminal underworld organisations.

    There…i have just totally made myself the laughing stock of stw and nothing i ever say again will be taken seriously 😉

    grum
    Free Member

    Who says anyone ignores it ?

    Maybe we just don’t bleat about it on bike forums.

    For all the good it would do what’s the point ?

    What’s the point of any discussion on a bike forum? Why do you keep coming back to this thread?

    nealglover
    Free Member

    Just to ascertain that I’m speaking to people who have adequate understanding of what is being discussed,

    Most of the time, what you discuss is rumour and conjecture.

    As is constantly pointed out to you, and constantly ignored.

    rather than relying on conjecture..

    That’s just beyond my irony limit I’m afraid.

    Not even sure if you are joking or not.

    I’ve not listened to the radio 4 program. (Here comes the claim that I don’t care 🙄 )

Viewing 40 posts - 761 through 800 (of 1,032 total)

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