David Icke at Wembley last Saturday

I’m not the one posing pointless whataboutery questions.

My take on it? I don’t know why he may or may not have spent NYE there. I would imagine that as he was, at that time at least, a popular and well respected figure, it would have seemed a perfectly normal thing to do.

So, what’s your take on it?

Tell you what, to allay your fears of sexism, perhaps I’ll use items of flora instead, my tulip.

I didn’t ask what you were going to do in the future.

I asked why you used being female as an insult (up to the point someone pulled you up for it)

Obviously you will deflect rather than just answering the question.

We have all realised you aren’t capable of answering questions

(Not with actual answers anyway)

Listen Missus, I don’t know what you’re on about; flowers can be pretty, as can baby otters. Sugar, lollipops and the smell of freshly cut grass are all sweet and not a lady in sight, shapely or otherwise.

So in summary, I was merely being affectionate, don’t worry, I won’t go so far as to offer you a hug, but let us all reflect on the wonders of summer and all the glorious things this world has to offer.

Dolphins are good too.

I wonder if they square dance?

I was merely being affectionate*

You were clearly condescending the shit out of him.
One of the least believable things you have posted on this thread and that is saying something.

Whoa there Junky, don’t get jealous, there’s love enough for us all!!

Though the rubber glover has a certain brusque charm, I’m not sure his genes are up to my requirements.

You’re welcome to each other though, don’t let me cramp your style.

Nighty poos, you sparkly souled imps, may we dance the merry fandango once more in the near future.

Well, after all that bullshit and question evasion, one can only assume it’s another reincarnation of RudeFred.

and in new worrying developments

My take is what does that have to do with the Home Office losing files which relate to an alleged high level paedophile ring within parliament and the surrounding offices which are the heart of the countries government?

Actually, about as much as all the other spurious bullshit you post up.

You all seem quite pleased with yourselves about being cleverer and better at arguing than the nutty conspiracy theorist – you seem a lot less interested in whether any of the stuff he’s saying might have an element of truth to it. Not everything that loons say is necessarily bullshit.

Eg this

And just why was it that Jimmy Savile regularly spent New Years Eve with Maggie Thatcher?

Is true is it not? And may well form part of the explanation of why he got away with what he did for so long – because he was so firmly entrenched in the establishment.

Its clear that being seen as influential, well connected and powerful protected him and he therefore cultivated relationships with the rich and powerful. These included the Royals, the Police and the PM.
Much as I hate Thatcher , and I dont like the Royals [ as an institution] it is some leap to say she knew about what he did and covered for him.

Eg this

And just why was it that Jimmy Savile regularly spent New Years Eve with Maggie Thatcher?
Is true is it not? [/quote]
Except again it’s just another question, did he, what is regularly, who else was there, was it a big bash with loads of celebrities. Hang on I forgot I should google it and find out.
Perhaps she just liked it when Jim Fixed it for her nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

I won’t post the video again but there is an interview where a former Tory chief whip admits that they used to get MPs to do what they wanted in return for covering up incidents involving ‘young boys’ etc. Given that level of cynicism/corruption has been admitted who knows what’s not been admitted to. I doubt Thatcher/Prince Charles knew exactly what he was up to but they probably heard dodgy rumours. They seem to have been fairly widespread.

I just think a lot of you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But in this case grum the bath water is getting on for the size of the Atlantic. If you make enough claims statistically in the end you will get some right.

For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, ‘I’m in a jam, can you help?’.

‘It might be debt, it might be… a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which… a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did.

‘And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.’
No one would deny that some MPs some members of the church , some schools and various other institutions were poor at protecting children and covered things up to protect their public image. In some cases some truly terrible , inexplicable and indefensible decisions were made that led to abuse continuing.

However Jive claim is

child abuse is central to the control structures of the political and religious elite.*

He has pyramid and everything to prove this.

For sure things need to be found out and their should be a broad reaching inquiry that leaves no stone unturned. I doubt it will prove Icke or Jive correct and that will “prove” the conspiracy.
* the full quote FWIW though jive hads led a merry dance about whether he meant i , said it , agreed etc for 20 pages

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is central to the control structures of the political and religious elite.

Its clear that being seen as influential, well connected and powerful protected him and he therefore cultivated relationships with the rich and powerful. These included the Royals, the Police and the PM.
Much as I hate Thatcher , and I dont like the Royals [ as an institution] it is some leap to say she knew about what he did and covered for him.

I don’t think it is that clear. I think that the truth is even worse than that: that there was so little attention paid to child abuse that most victims didn’t complain and those that did were brushed off. with one exception late in his life, when a low level cop intercepted an internal police query, there were no occasions on which influential people intervened to protect Savile – for the simple fact that Savile didn’t need protecting. No one was doing anything about him – and no-one did anything about most abusers who weren’t famous either.

remember that Savile barely his his abuse: he would show up the night before personal appearances (opening small town halls and fun runs) and openly tell organizing committees that he wanted an “honour guard” of young girls to sleep in a tent outside his caravan.

this is where the conspiracy theory comes into play: the question is “how can someone have been allowed to abuse children in the most awful ways and not be punished?”. conspiracy theories provide an answer that we can live with l: “because there was a global network to protect him and the Queen and Thatcher told the cops not to arrest him”. the awful truth is “mostly because no-one gave a shit or empowered the kids”.

if you ask people in child protection what was unusual about Saviles offending, it’s not the character of what he did it that he was not convicted, it’s that the offender was famous. look at the “Muslim rape gang” – those dickheads got away with it for years in the present day, and they were not rich, powerful or famous.

Whoa there Junky, don’t get jealous, there’s love enough for us all!!
You’re welcome to each other though, don’t let me cramp your style.

So first you attempted to belittle me by talking to me as if I were female.

And when you were pulled up for that, and someone else agreed, now you try and belittle us both by suggesting we are gay.

So that’s being female and being gay that you see as suitable insults for people.

Nice

Any other personal prejudices you want to let us know about ?

Any other personal prejudices you want to let us know about ?

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating…

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-edinburgh-defence

No one was doing anything about him – and no-one did anything about most abusers who weren’t famous either.

True and there is nothing to disagree with in that insightful post.

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating…

Th eonly joke here is that you expect people to believe it is a joke.
Its not even banter its pathetic school level insults base don being “gay or a girl”….on so many levels tragic.
You are a lying.

Blah blah, righteous indignation

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating…

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-edinburgh-defence

Used to be joint toughest Rickshaw rider in Edinburgh.

Wrestled 3 men at once and won.

That’s my Edinburgh Defence.

What about the Kinsey research projects – funded by the Rockefeller institute..? You can’t get much darker than Kinsey and you can’t get more elite than Rockefeller… Just saying …

noltae – Member
Just saying

Urgh

Sometimes people lacking a sense of humour can be irritating.

IME it is at its worst when they think they are funny and keeping telling their hilarious “jokes”

If this is the punchline:

As per last time I am not prepared to engage given your , clearly, fragile personal state.
I shall leave and leave you to insult others.

What’s the joke?

boring

You’re right, all this bickering is achieving nothing and is a foolish distraction from some genuine and important issues.

So, to reduce incredulity, let’s make a simple change to this phrase:

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is central to a part of the control structures of the political and religious elite.

Perhaps now we can have a sensible conversation once more, without such intensive vitriol.

MY lord do I have to explain again? Ok once more – is that the fourth time or the third time?
That only applies if you are Kaease
The mods, you and ernie say you are not.
So its fine to “chat” with you.

Is there a number of times I have to say this for you to get it?
PFtt you and evidence you dont even flirt with each other do you?

PFtt you and evidence you dont even flirt with each other do you?

I’m balls deep in evidence and prepared to share my hareem

by contrast,

you seem to be under the thumb of denial.

Post some links, show some evidence, your conjecture alone is insufficient.

Becoming more convinced that it’s another Fred ID. And about as funny.

Well, it’s a start, at least you’re forming ‘conspiracy theories’…

Please let me in your clique, I want the chance to be nasty and judgmental without actually inputting anything worthwhile to the thread

That said, be nice if we could all just get along:

all this bickering is achieving nothing and is a foolish distraction from some genuine and important issues.

So, to reduce incredulity, let’s make a simple change to this phrase:

To be fair to David Icke, since the 90s he has been saying child abuse is central to a part of the control structures of the political and religious elite.

Perhaps now we can have a sensible conversation once more, without such intensive vitriol.

thank god you are not delivering any

intensive vitriol.

Flash I know you did not like him but he would have been both funny and wise [ and caught by now] rather than just irritating

EDIT: And he has edited again 🙄

Yes lets discuss something else completely different without you admitting an error Oh can we please…its been ages since we did that

Anyone have any thoughts on why the Wanless report was only released by the Home Office yesterday after being published on 15th October?

Good question. Given government red tape and bureaucracy, I’m amazed it came out so quickly. CONSPIRACY!

“I want the chance to be nasty and judgmental without actually inputting anything worthwhile to the thread” you have had it and taken it .
Have you any way of explaining why Wanless is linked to mysterious deaths? I wont bother repeating any of the other unanswered questions.

report released after publication standard practice to allow concerned parties to whom it is circulated prior to release to comment and ask for clarification corrections. happens all the time with written judgements in court.

boring

This is part of the basis of the claims made in the article:

however, I’ve spoken to separate sources who also claim the same story is well known within Westminster and media circles.

Regardless of any of that, given the allegations surrounding Westminster, would it not be wiser to look further afield for someone to head up a charity such as the NSPCC?

Equally for sufficient independence and objectivity, perhaps someone further removed from the circles which may be placed in the spotlight would be a better choice to investigate the conduct of the Home Office?

You only have to have a quick look at his career path to see that he is deeply ingrained in the same establishment which needs thorough investigation:

1986 Enters the civil service as fast streamer, working in HM Treasury and Cabinet Office
1992 Appointed principal private secretary to the chief secretary to the Treasury
1994 Becomes the principal private secretary to the secretary of state for employment, and later the department’s head of information
1995 Moves to the Treasury as the head of its Private Finance Unit
1998 Appointed director of strategy and communications at the Department for Education and Skills
2003 Promoted to director of secondary education; later becomes director of school performance and reform

If the government wants to ensure full public confidence in independent reviews of their past conduct, they have a long way to go.

Right. I’ve dipped in an out of this, and don’t have it in me to read it all.
Is it all just innuendo, whispers, and potential gossip, or has JiveHoneyJive made any direct accusations yet? i.e. a particular politician is a paedo?
JHJ – if there are members of the establishment that are wrong ‘uns, then I’d love to have their heads in a basket. But if you can’t articulate any proof then at p22 we don’t seem to be any further forward!!
Do I need to keep reading the thread?

You only have to have a quick look at his career path to see that he is deeply ingrained in the same establishment which needs thorough investigation had a career in the Civil Service:

Your point?