"1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

Viewing 40 posts - 921 through 960 (of 1,032 total)
  • "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"
  • ninfan
    Member

    Might be worth it then… could be an education in just how damaging it can be to look for links that aren’t necessarily there.

    Junkyard
    Member

    some of it is hard to grasp

    I think that is because you are clutching at straws.
    The CIA using mind controlling techniques developed from the Nazis and implicating the Tories… seems plausible to me
    Do they do this in the UK for the Queen or is she still in charge?

    Its the culture of impunity enjoyed by politicians, celebrities and others in power that seems to have been pervasive that is a genuine concern.

    In case you have not noticed the title of this thread refers to the Rotherham child abuse scandal. The sexual abuse on the estimated 1,400 children in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 was predominantly carried out by gangs of British-Pakistani men. These were not politicians, celebrities, or others in power.

    The culture of ignoring or not taking seriously allegations of child sex abuse is not confined to a powerful and wealthy elite, it goes right through the whole of society.

    Relatively powerless people living on council estates have got away with child sexual abuse and operating pedophile rings.

    That after all was the news story which led to this thread being started.

    I think that is because you are clutching at straws.

    Scoff if you like, but until you’ve studied all links supplied in depth, you have no basis for criticism, other than knee jerk reaction…

    a massive conspiracy was uncovered…

    But I thought there weren’t any conspiracies?

    Make your mind up!

    That after all was the news story which led to this thread being started.

    Cool, you might want to read through the thread in it’s entirety…

    So I can see how you derailed it to claim that the Queen heads a pedophile ring ?

    In that case save yourself the drama… derailing it to the Queen’s potential involvement was your doing on the last page, but nice try.

    Have you come up with a satisfactory answer as to who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey yet?

    mefty
    Member

    Puts Heath allegations into context

    Right Wing Paper article

    You have repeatedly claimed that the Queen is involved in this alleged conspiracy, which you say is vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite.

    Obviously you don’t always say it directly and actually spit the words out, because you much prefer innuendos, which is why you often post pictures with no accompanying text.

    The last time you claimed the Queen was involved was just a few hours ago on the previous page to this one. You of course did it indirectly but it’s crystal clear what you meant by this :

    jivehoneyjive – Member

    Who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey?

    Posted 7 hours ago # Report-Post

    The reason why I keep going back to your wild and ridiculous allegation that there is a pedophile ring led by the Queen, which is vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite, is because every time there is an investigation or arrest or successful prosecution, you want to take credit and claim that it backs up your theory. It does no such thing. In fact it does the opposite.

    No one should be surprised that there has been pedophiles among establishment figures, it doesn’t make JHJ claims correct, as some people seem to think.

    Pedophiles, and their past ability to operate with relative impunity, transcends social classes, as the Rotherham abuse scandal proves, there is no reason to expect the wealthy and powerful elite to be pedophile-free.

    So who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey?

    mefty
    Member

    So who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey?

    Ernie Lynch – makes you think

    Another thing to think about… perhaps the guy who wrote the article you linked to doesn’t want to be shown up as a shoddy biographer.

    In addition to being investigated by the Met Police under Operation Midland (Dolphin Square, MPs, Military bases etc), Edward Heath is also being investigated by Jersey Police under Operation Whistle.

    This is thanks to the hard work of many campaigners continuing to apply pressure, some of whom have fighting the cause for decades.

    This image reportedly shows Heath in the company of Colin Wallace, a psychological warfare specialist who is key in exposing the activities at Kincora:

    Kincora was said to be used to film influential people in compromising situations:

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU4wfVI7LNc[/video]

    as described in this link already supplied…

    http://isgp.nl/2009_11_In_brief_beyond_Dutroux_ties_to_US_CIA

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    This image reportedly shows Heath in the company of Colin Wallace, a psychological warfare specialist who is key in exposing the activities at Kincora:

    … and?

    Why do you keep posting stuff like this as though it’s evidence? It just makes you look desperate.

    Famous people meet other famous people all the time. It’s practically a politician’s raison d’etre. Pick any two well-known people at random and somewhere on the Internet there’s probably a photo of them in the same room. It proves precisely nothing, in fact it implies the opposite; that if that’s the best you can do then there probably isn’t much more to the “links” you’re so fond of.

    Is Colin Wallace famous?

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Well, you seem to have heard of him. I’m not much into warfare specialists, myself.

    Perhaps “famous” is the wrong word. You know what I mean though. (And nicely dodged, again.)

    Your edits aside, why are you ‘dodging’ reading the links?

    Scared you might learn something?

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    Your edits aside, why are you avoiding answering direct questions?

    Scared you can’t or that your answers will be shown to be wrong?

    I suggest we post this each time jhj avoids answering a question or posts a random picture instead.

    Funny thing jhj is that I’m sure you’ve got lots of information that could inform, if not actually prove your big exciting conspiracy, but as usual you just lose the audience by posting rubbish all around it.

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    So, to prove me wrong, three questions for you jhj. Designed to allow straight answers. Except if you’re a politian in which case just ignore them and answer whatever made up question you fancy.

    1. Can all of this abuse (the one by famous people, not by the boring people on council estates in Rotherham, etc) that has taken place ONLY be explained by your big exciting conspiracy?

    2. If “NO”, do you accept that famous/powerful people are just as likely to be paedos as the rest of the population?

    3. If “Yes” given their increased ability to make things happen, bribe, etc. do you accept that there could just be several rings of them doing these things and that sometimes those rings overlap?

    I anticipate needing to post my sign but it’d be great if you’d prove me wrong by giving straight answers and them maybe we could have a productive discussion that would help inform those of us who aren’t experts but don’t want to waste our time watching random links that don’t state what is claimed.

    ninfan
    Member

    This image reportedly shows Heath in the company of Colin Wallace, a psychological warfare specialist who is key in exposing the activities at Kincora:

    Eh?

    Does the fact that Wallace was photographed with the PM mean he was part of the conspiracy?

    Seems odd that he should then go and expose it…

    Narrative fail!

    1. Can all of this abuse (the one by famous people, not by the boring people on council estates in Rotherham, etc) that has taken place ONLY be explained by your big exciting conspiracy?

    2. If “NO”, do you accept that famous/powerful people are just as likely to be paedos as the rest of the population?

    3. If “Yes” given their increased ability to make things happen, bribe, etc. do you accept that there could just be several rings of them doing these things and that sometimes those rings overlap?

    Yes and no answers to leading questions isn’t really appropriate to describe what has been occuring…

    Does the fact that Wallace was photographed with the PM mean he was part of the conspiracy?

    Seems odd that he should then go and expose it…

    Thankfully, there are conscientious whistleblowers at various parts of the operation~ as with the many police who are coming forward, testifying to past cover ups from higher up…

    It’s unlikely they were privy to the full scale of the operation, it may be that it’s being pieced together for the 1st time.

    ninfan
    Member

    So Wallace was a whistleblower rather than part of the conspiracy then?

    In that case, what does the photo of him with Heath show us?

    Premier Icon nach
    Subscriber

    jivehoneyjive – Member
    you might want to read through the thread in it’s entirety…

    OR… flay my own scrotum with a hacksaw blade. I think the above might be a winner for most unhinged JHJ quote.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Yes and no answers to leading questions isn’t really appropriate to describe what has been occuring.

    what does the photo of him with Heath show us?

    Do your own research.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Makes you think doesnt it

    No. Not really.

    The lizards in the hollowed out moon though, they’re what REALLY makes me think.

    The lizards in the hollowed out moon though, they’re what REALLY makes me think.

    Well if you ever bump into Buzz Aldrin don’t accuse him of not landing on the Moon.

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k[/video]

    “You’re a coward and a liar and ooofff”

    Absolute classic 🙂

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    Disappointed but not surprised in your response, jhj. I won’t post the sign as JY kindly did it already.

    My point that you avoided is that if you won’t admit that your Big Exciting Conspiracy isn’t the only possible (reasonable if you like) explanation then it’s utterly pointless discussing anything on this subject with you. I think most people accept that as unlikely as it is, the BEC is theoretically possible or at a minimum that there has been conspiracy to hide/bury illegal activity but that’s not the same as being the only reasonable explanation.

    Some of you seem to have confused this with a David Icke thread…

    I’ve already admitted on a number of occasions that there is still some question over the full picture, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there was co-ordinated activity involving the intelligence services and some very high level people, many of whom were associated with Jimmy Savile.

    Colin Wallace, having being a psychological warfare expert, involved in Kincora (which has been linked to several similar venues such as Elm Guest House (as apparently has Edward Heath)) does tend to ring a few alarm bells… especially when the head of MI6 has also been implicated:

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    there is no doubt whatsoever that there was co-ordinated activity involving the intelligence services and some very high level people, many of whom were associated with Jimmy Savile.

    We’ll “no doubt whatsoever” is overstating it (again) but I agree that it seems very likely. That however doesn’t prove anything about the BEC beyond showing that powerful people have influence which I think we all know. It certainly doesn’t provide anything credible about control structures, the Queen or other such wild theories.

    Well if (taxpayer funded) MI5 and MI6 have been using children from care homes to blackmail politicians (including the Prime Minister?) over several democratically elected governments, on whose authority have they been doing it?

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    You repeat that as fact but it’s just your theory. You’ve never provided any proof of that, only that it looks likely that cover ups of dodgy activity happened.

    As I stated above, that powerful people have influence and can arrange a cover up or that others arranged it to avoid national embarrassment is hardly surprising nor proof of your control structures or BEC.

    It’s up to you…

    you can choose to think I’m a fruitloop because it’s easier for you to dismiss that some properly horrific stuff goes on in the world, or you can trust me, as I’ve sacrificed a significant chunk of my life to researching the subject.

    If you trawl through the forum you’ll find that before there was any mainstream news coverage, I mentioned the involvement of:

    Leon Brittan
    Greville Janner
    Lord Mountbatten

    among others.

    I’ve been harping on about Jimmy Savile and Edward Heath on Jersey, as mentioned in this mainstream news report for over a year before the story broke:

    A fifth police force receives allegations against Sir Edward Heath – amid claims the ex-PM took boys from Jersey out on his boat.

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    Yes and I’m pretty sure that most reasonable people haven’t said that you’re wrong that it looks like there may well be cases to answer. What you’ve never come remotely close to showing is that you can link them all into your BEC about control structures, the Queen, etc.

    Just because some of the things you talk about seem likely to be correct (that several famous people were involved in dodgy activity) does nothing to validate your other wilder claims which is where most of us think you’re way off the mark.

    I think you provide loads of excellent insight from your research and then spoil it by coming up with conclusions that don’t bear scrutiny or are so wildly unlikely in comparison to the more likely explanations that you discredit your own work. It’s a real shame you can’t see that.

    It’s a real shame I can’t easily convey the depth of research I’ve done…

    Without getting too complex…

    What you’ve never come remotely close to showing is that you can link them all into your BEC about control structures, the Queen, etc.

    Is answered by:

    Well if (taxpayer funded) MI5 and MI6 have been using children from care homes to blackmail politicians (including the Prime Minister?) over several democratically elected governments, on whose authority have they been doing it?

    and

    who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey?

    It’s a process of deduction…

    Premier Icon nemesis
    Subscriber

    No, you’re reaching your own conclusion and presenting it as fact. If you can’t see that then as I said in the previous page,there really is no point discussing since you’re completely closed minded about it.
    It’s conjecture, nothing more because you have no evidence. Deduction only proves something if there is no other possible explanation.

    Far more likely than your BEC to explain that is that it was done to avoid national embarrassment/out of a misguided sense of loyalty as is often the case with other cover ups or because the people involved had sufficient influence that they could make it happen.

    If I was closed minded, I wouldn’t be discussing it with you…

    or because the people involved had sufficient influence that they could make it happen.

    Who has sufficient influence over a number of different elected governments and across national jurisdictions?

    Who has sufficient influence over a number of different elected governments and across national jurisdictions?

    You tell us. Go on.

Viewing 40 posts - 921 through 960 (of 1,032 total)

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