If there was the “transparency” that jhj is calling for, like if there was a website with all the answers in easy-to-understand video form, we’d then be into “you can’t believe that, because the voiceover is done by the lizards“.

Which is basically where we’re at with all official, legal and academic accounts of how the British constitution, government, civil service and reptilian pedophile rings operate at present.

He’s got a point about the Official Secrets Act though. I reckon there should be a referendum on which of the many secret facts are kept secret.

🙂

Like many on this thread BigDummy, you profess to have a handle on matters~ any chance you could answer this:

no one has come up with satisfactory answers as to in whose interests the intelligence services work~ as an example, lets look into the case of MI5 involvement in procuring children from care homes to be raped by MPs… on whose behalf was this done?

Failing that, perhaps you could explain why MI5 have covered up abuse by politicians over several terms of government, with different elected administrations…

I do not follow these things as closely as you do.

If indeed members of MI5 procured children from care homes to be raped by MPs, I am very sceptical that this was a part of their day job. I would not expect to find something in the MI5 manual that said “if an MP says “I’d like kilogram of fresh ham please”, that means he wants to rape a kid, go and kidnap one from an orphanage”. It was not part of their official mission, as an organisation. So I assume the answer would be roughly as follows:

MI5 did not, as an organisation, kidnap children from care homes so that they could be raped by MPs. However, some MI5 officers were pedophiles or were jolly chummy with the famous pedophiles of the time, and of all the pedophiles and their chums, it was the MI5 people who were best placed to do such kidnapping as was necessary.

I entirely admit that it would shake my world-view to its foundations if someone actually demonstrated with something other than a shit YouTube video and some self-refencing blogs that the Queen had personally ordered MI5 to kidnap kids for her and her chums to rape, but presumably that won’t come out in any enquiry ever, because the conspiracy just goes too deeply into the heart of the British establishment.

HTH 😉

Out of vague interest, because I’m struggling here. The nearest I can come to the allegation that MI5 procured boys for the Elm Guest House is that Anthony Blunt raped them, which isn’t quite the same thing.

The commentators in the non-fact-checked sector whose accounts I’ve skimmed so far say the actual procuring was done by The Jews.

Anyway, I’m sure you’ve all got it covered.

I appreciate it is very hard to comprehend~to be fair, when I 1st started researching all this a couple of years ago, I was skeptical, but at the same time, there were so many instances of similar allegations, it was hard to completely dismiss.

The way the information is provided in the news, in dribs and drabs, there seems to be several separate instances of similar abuse, however, once you look a little deeper, many are linked

Elm Guest House is but one piece of a far far wider network, albeit the one the establishment most wants to obscure, no doubt due to:

And of course the fact that the Queens head of Royal Protection, Commander Michael Trestrail was among those at the Guest House: whether that links to allegations of a member of the Royal Family (not Prince Andrew) being involved in the paedophile ring is at this stage debatable

If you want more of an insight, this video (and attached transcript) has an interview with one of the social workers involved in the case

These documents are typed copies of handwritten ones collected by police as evidence in January 2013 they were posted online by Mary Moss who feared yet another cover up

It has been linked to Kincora in Northern Ireland (many abusers at Elm Guest House were linked to Northern Irish politics) and children were trafficked between the venues

There is also reference to Kincora in these videos interviewing high profile government and intelligence figures of the era

Elm Guest House is also linked to abuse at Dolphin Square, The Carlton Club, Coronation Buildings, Military Bases and internationally to Amsterdam among others…

The extensive supply network from care homes was(is?)a nationwide affair:

Though not every part of that statement can be verified, there is undoubtedly significant truth in it~ we are of course all well aware of the extensive access Jimmy Savile had to not only institutions across the country, but also his remarkable access to Government and Royalty, on top of that John Allen who ran several care homes in North Wales and across the UK, was supplying children to VIPs in Dolphin Square

Furthermore, John Allen and Michael Carroll, who ran care homes in Lambeth, were linked:

Two notorious paedophiles were at the centre of a nationwide network of abusers which allegedly included both Labour and Tory politicians, a Mirror investigation has found.

Detectives suspected 16 years ago that the children’s home abuse ring spanned the country and involved hundreds of victims.

Official documents show paedophiles John Allen, 73, and Michael John Carroll, 66, were friends when they were abusing youngsters North Wales and London respectively in the 1980s.

Their links can be revealed on the day Allen was jailed for life for sexually abusing 19 children he was paid to look after.

Margaret Thatcher’s former aide Sir Peter Morrison is suspected of abusing boys in Allen’s care in Wales while a former minister in Tony Blair’s government is currently being probed over his alleged visits to Carroll’s Angell Road children’s home in Lambeth, south London.

Both men were protected by the authorities who ignored Allen’s victims for years and allowed Carroll to remain in charge of the home despite knowing he was a convicted paedophile.

There are further links from Lambeth to Islington, then on to Jersey…

That’s enough to be getting on with for now

Like a few, I suspect I to find the ‘slightly bored/irritated school teacher’ tone of your constant questioning of others point of view more than a little dull. Would it be possible for you to succinctly lay out your theory of what all this “evidence” actually means? In your own words? Your own thoughts of what this means? Rather than say; a copied and pasted bit of someone else’s website?

I’d like to know your world view in short, at the moment you seem to have questions, but seem unsatified by the answers that you seem already to know a version of what those answer need to be ( if you see what I mean) your stance has no logic behind it? ( without trying to be prejorative, apologies)

Or, to misquote the medical student adage “if you hear hooves, think horses, not 4 eyed psychic alien lizard men employed by the secret police and involved in a worldwide conspiracy”

What do I think?

I think:

a) it’s disgusting that these things have been allowed to happen

b) Why have they been allowed to happen?

c) Why all the lost files in the Home Office?

d) Why the constant fluff ups as regards the government inquiry into abuse? (it’s been called independent, but the whole time, the Home Secretary has been calling the shots~ i.e. the person in charge of the departments that will have to be investigated)

e) Why did MPs recently vote against an amendment to the Serious Crimes Bill which was specifically with regard to allowing disclosure under the Official Secrets Act to the child abuse inquiry?

So yep, I’ve come up with more questions again… not my intention, but these are the questions we should all be asking Her Majesty’s Government, unless of course you’re comfortable with their record of care thus far…

a) yes it is
b) because peophiles exist, and they are devious and manliputive, often hiding in plain sight, and seeking out roles and careers that put them in positions of trust around vunerable children
c) people lose things all the time and the home office is no different
d) a mix of cover up by peophiles in places where they can influence it, and people not doing their jobs properly
e) I don’t know, perhaps they didn’t pay attention to what they were voting about?

Question for you: are any of those answers unreasonable? ( not true or false, just reasonable or not)

In all fairness, your answers are reasonable, though d) would suggest you believe there is currently paedophiles in power influencing the government’s ‘independent’ inquiry.

Hmm, ‘the government’s independent inquiry’ we’re verging on paradox territory again

If there are paedophiles influencing the inquiry, how high in the hierarchy do they go?

For example, who has the authority to redraft letters between the head of the inquiry and the Home Secretary? and why hasn’t Theresa May called this into question since it’s been revealed police investigations into Leon Brittan were shut down

To avoid ending on another question, I’ve give a short summary of my view:

There’s some well dodgy shit going on, not just historically, but here and now

And, thankfully, you’re here to make sure it gets the publicity it needs by waffling on about it on a poky little bike forum.

Yep, I’ve got it covered 😉

Skids n wheelies all the way!!

There’s some well dodgy shit going on, not just historically, but here and now

Quite possibly, it could be a massive organised directed conspiracy to procure children to satisfy the repacious needs of a secretive elite, or it could through a series of human failings, manipulations, incompetences and just plain old looking the over way” that just appears to look like a organised conspiracy.

The first critical question of any debate is not necessarily whether one of those options is true or false, but whether they are at least reasonable answers to the question. If one decides they are indeed reasonable then to get at the truth you need to be open to suggestions and answers from both viewpoints, no?

Fair comment, which of those options would this suggest (nabbed from wwaswas’s post on the Rotherham thread):

IPCC to investigate allegations of historic corruption relating to child sexual abuse in the Metropolitan Police

1) Allegation of a potential cover up around failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offences in South London and further information about criminal allegations against a politician being dropped.

2) Allegation that an investigation involving a proactive operation targeting young men in Dolphin Square, was stopped because officers were too near prominent people.

3) Allegation that a document was found at an address of a paedophile that originated from the Houses of Parliament listing a number of highly prominent individuals (MPs and senior police officers) as being involved in a paedophile ring and no further action was taken.

4) Allegation that an account provided by an abuse victim had been altered to omit the name of a senior politician.

5) Allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring, in which a number of people were convicted, did not take action in relation to other more prominent individuals

6) Allegations that a politician had spoken with a senior MPS officer and demanded no action was taken regarding a paedophile ring and boys being procured and supplied to prominent persons in Westminster in the 1970s.

7) Allegation that in the late 1970s a surveillance operation that gathered intelligence on a politician being involved in paedophile activities was closed down by a senior MPS officer.

8 ) Allegation that a dossier of allegations against senior figures and politicians involved in child abuse were taken by Special Branch officers.

9) Allegations that a surveillance operation of a child abuse ring was subsequently shut down due to high profile people being involved.

10) Allegations of child sex abuse against a senior politician and a subsequent cover-up of his crimes.

11) Allegations that during a sexual abuse investigation a senior officer instructed the investigation be halted and that that order had come from ‘up high’ in the MPS.

12) Allegation of a conspiracy within the MPS to prevent the prosecution of a politician suspected of offences.

13) Allegations against a former senior MPS officer regarding child sex abuse and that further members of the establishment including judges were involved. It is claimed that no further action was taken.

14) Allegation that police officers sexually abused a boy and carried out surveillance on him. Further allegations of financial corruption in a London borough police force.

A further two referrals of a similar nature have been received from the MPS and are currently being assessed.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-investigate-allegations-historic-corruption-relating-child-sexual-abuse-metropolitan

I allege that it suggests that there are a lot of allegations.

Fair comment, which of those options would this suggest

You missed my point. On this thread we (the people debating) cannot know “the truth” because 1. there has been no investigation of these allegations so people taking this at face value cannot argue the point and 2. That investigation probably won’t satisfy you because the same people running the inquiry also ran the paedophile ring.

So.

The ONLY resolution is one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable to imply that there could only have been organised directed ring of paedophiles gathering vulnerable children for members of the Royal family and others within a secretive Elite. OR it could also be reasonable to argue that paedophiles act like this anyway (manipulative, misdirection, influential of subordinates and so on) because that’s how criminals act anyway (because they know their actions are illegal and do their damnest to cover it up)

If either argument is reasonable, then we have a debate, if you decide that either one of those possibilities isn’t reasonable, you can’t.

See?

BTW, you failed this test already 😆

Your own thoughts of what this means? Rather than say; a copied and pasted bit of someone else’s website?

Stop copying and pasting. Have you no arguments that will stand up without the words of others?

BTW the last point is important. You think these C&Ps that you throw around liberally like confetti support your case. But in reality they undermine it at every turn, because it’s not your thoughts, it’s just some-one’s fluff. You’re just regurgitating the thoughts of others, like an empty vessel clanging. Nodding along, like the toy dog on the back shelf of a car.

Thoughts, arguments, theories…no more circular questioning Please?

Take your cherished theories and expose them to the noon day sun, Analyse them critically, do they stand up? Is your theory the ONLY answer?

I agree with you to some extent nick, when we polarize issues too much, we miss out on the broader picture~both your example arguments are reasonable and both could fit in to the same outcome.

That appears to be where much of the misunderstanding throughout this thread has come from~ I haven’t said the Queen is the sole authority, but at the same time, she does evidently have a degree of authority. The extent of that authority is debatable, because despite constitutional law, there is some areas which are veiled in secrecy.

Beyond that, there is also the fact that there has evidently been several transgressions of laws by high officials and potentially even members of the Royal Family.

From another angle, when you look at the Global surveillance network and the 5 Eyes Alliance, it’s reasonable to look into common factors which align the various governments involved. The simple fact remains that 4 of the 5 governments have the Queen as their head of state. The influence her role plays is debatable, but given development of the network has spanned several changes of elected government, whilst all the while the Queen has continued to reign, it’s not unreasonable to question her authority and involvement in such matters.

In much the same way it’s entirely reasonable to question the extent of her knowledge of high level paedophile rings, given her regular meetings with Prime Ministers throughout the period abuse has occurred and been covered up. That alone is cause for concern, but the close relationship between her family (especially Prince Charles, the future king) and Jimmy Savile gives yet more reason to examine what we’re being told to this day.

I had a comment lined up, went get another quote to add to it, but the page refreshed when I came back.
To be honest, I think this just about sums up the prevailing feelings of the majority on here:

OK, to take but one bit of that, The secret meeting between the Queen and the PM…It could be secret because they are discussing the cover up and manipulation of abuse of children, OR it could be that the thoughts and opinion of two people having a private meeting are none of your damned business anyway, and that if the meeting weren’t secret they would be able to say what they wanted.

FWIW, I think you place too much emphasis and influence at the queens feet. I tend towards the thought that she’s a highly paid, motivated waving machine…

But if the Queen and Prime Minister were, as is quite possible, debating the merits of giving a knighthood to members they knew were implicated in abuse, on a system funded by the public, it would seem a bit churlish to suggest it’s none of our damned business…

Taking it further, say for example the Queen debated with the Prime Minister the best angle to take in the wake of the Jimmy Savile Scandal, getting safe hands recruited on the abuse inquiry, or even potentially discussing with the Prime Minister what measures could be taken within the media to quell suspicion~ after all, the Queen appoints members of the BBC Trust and David Cameron is well connected in media circles.

That may or may not be the case, but it’s not entirely unreasonable~ after all, though some sources have reported on allegations that a member of the Royal Family was involved in the paedophile ring, there has been no reports on the matter by the BBC, or in any media owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Again, they might have discussed it. They probably didn’t (again, it’s one of those “truths” that on this thread we can never get to the heart of. People make mistakes, they don’t know everything, they sometimes (shock horror) “look the other way”

Thing is, we have, for better or worse an “Establishment” A group of largely unconnected but interdependent people. And for better or worse no written constitution, sometimes that helps, sometimes it doesn’t. At least it keeps Big Dummy’s mates in gainful employment trying to interpret what it all means (to the relief of us all, no doubt) I think the truth will “mostly” out. That’s what tends to happen. If the govt. of the day does something heinous, then eventually a largely unapologetic judiciary that’s as independent as it needs to be (given the constraints of the establishment) will do something about it.

Do innocents get hurt along the way? Yes they do, all the time, ask the families of the 96…But mostly justice is served. It’s not perfect, and it never will be, but mostly it gets there in the end*

*Unless the **** croaks first. The ****.

Are my thoughts on this.

oh, another one

If we’re to take the queen at face value (as you do) Then square this particular circle for me. She is, by all accounts, a deeply religious person, devout and a true believer in the sacrament.

Would it not present something of an internal conflict then, that she might have to do something about, if she knew (for instance) that there was a high level illegal paedophile ring in existence?

Let’s take a look at the claims she’s a deeply religious person~that being the case, why is her government (and family) so deeply involved in the arms trade?

Furthermore, as has already been covered in this thread, she retained authority over the right to invade Iraq~it would be very naive to think she didn’t discuss the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with Tony Blair in detail beforehand…

Perhaps ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is excused by proxy?

Of course, religion itself doesn’t escape such scrutiny, as an example the Vatican has military orders, such as the Knights of Malta… Tony Blair, George Bush (Jr+Snr), Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rupert Murdoch and Jimmy Savile are among notable members.

The fact that the Pope has just accepted the resignation of the UKs highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal o’Brien due to sexual misconduct is also worthy of note:

Furthermore, the colonial basis of the wealth of both the Monarchy and the Vatican also calls into question just how pristine their religious purity is.

Religious purity? What is that all about?Have a look at any service book of the established Church in the UK and you will soon realise that such a concept is not only flawed but alien too.

I expect that EIIR was vexed about Iraq, remember she is the mother/grandmother of serving officers. Her perspective would be particularly appropriate.

Arms trade? I thought you were only thinking of the victims of child abuse? what’s the arms trade got to do with it?

Answer the question asked of you? Why d’you find that so hard? Is it the realisation that if you actually have to defend yourself without the use of cut and paste and the thoughts of others that what you think is solid is no more ephemeral than a house of cards? that if you actually have to use reasoned debate to answer the points asked of you that you realise it’s all so…imagined?

Or is it that really actually, you don’t care a jot about the victims of child abuse? That really it’s JHJ vs THEM? In reality Jive; child abuse goes on all the time, by “him at number 6” mostly, the uncle or the brother in law, or the step dad. This, all this succeeds in doing is diverting attention away from that reality.

“‘ere look” they say on their sick chat rooms “this berk thinks the queen’s involved”

Well done.

I don’t think I want to interact with you anymore TBH.

If you can’t handle my answers so be it… I’m not here to pander to your beliefs~ there is some very challenging issues which have to be confronted…

I’m not diverting attention away from reality… quite the opposite, I’m exposing realities that are shielded by the same system which aided in the cover up of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan and **** knows how many other vile deviants, who raped, tortured and murdered kids, when it was their duty to protect them.

As it is Her Majesty’s Government, you’d imagine that since her family were close to Jimmy Savile, they’d be doing everything in their power to ensure a full and thorough inquiry~ after all, we know Prince Charles letters would expose the extent of his intervention in Government matters; if he’s been willing to intervene in the past, surely he’d have ensured Theresa May stops faffing around, yet the best part of 9 months after the inquiry was announced, there has been no real progress and in legal terms, the official secrets act still bars whistleblowers from disclosing evidence to the inquiry.

Well, I’m sure your drivelling on about it on a poky little bike forum* will make all the difference in your noble crusade. I mean, it’s obviously the best place to expose the evil lizards.

*No offence, Mark!

Awareness is key to exposure… 3 years ago the majority of us thought Jimmy Savile was a bit of an odd bod who did a lot for charity.

Fresh news relevant to this thread:

MPs ‘monitored by Scotland Yard during 1990s’

“When I was deployed undercover in the Special Demonstration Squad, any MP that I came across, such as on demonstrations, I would report back on them,” he said.

Mr Francis says that the files not only contained the MPs’ publicly stated political views – but also intelligence on what was going on behind the scenes in the party or their group. He says some of the information would have been things said in private by the MP, depending on how close each undercover officer had been able to get.

Mr Francis said that when he first saw the files he understood that each had probably been created before the individual was an MP because of their personal involvement in radical causes or protests.

But he added: “When they became MPs these files carried on. It [was] your duty as an SDS officer to report back any intelligence that you come across.

(Bear in mind Special Branch is the executive arm of MI5, as covered here)

So if Scotland Yard was acting on the Home Office’s orders, who’s orders where the Home Office acting on?

Fresh news relevant to this thread:

Not really, no. It does nothing to answer the question of the number of armies that the Queen has.

But, don’t let that stop your wibbling.

Oops a daisy…

a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?

You can call me Mr Consistency if you’re good

So if Scotland Yard was acting on the Home Office’s orders, who’s orders where the Home Office acting

I’m sure you are dying to tell us.

Who was it ?

Fresh news relevant to this thread:

MPs ‘monitored by Scotland Yard during 1990s’

The Metropolitan Police had a unit which monitored leftist activism. Like today’s “domestic extremism” units, it appears to have gone rather further in doing that than was constitutionally wise, doubtless under extremely flakey supervision. You can see how it happens though. If Peter Hain is a member of an “subversive” anti-apartheid society, and he then becomes an MP, the sort of suspicious-minded, conservative oaf who becomes the commander of an undercover police unit monitoring political activists thinks “subversive anti-apartheid society has infiltrated parliament! Better keep monitoring this terrifying development“. It happens by itself, without anyone really ordering it, because police forces investigate things, and undercover policemen gather intelligence. And because no-one said “pack that in, you daft buggers, that’s unconstitutional“. Because no one knew. Because the police were doing it secretly. It’s a perennial problem with the oversight of undercover policing and the intelligence services.

Just to be clear: there is no suggestion there that the Met was acting under orders from MI5. The two organisations are not linked, and your article agrees.

MI5 officers do not have powers of arrest (see MI5’s FAQs). so when MI5 needs to have someone arrested, they liaise with Special Branch, who do the arresting. Special Branch is MI5’s “executive arm” only in the sense that it “executes” arrests that MI5 does not have the legal authority to make. I assume (dunno) that if MI5 urgently need someone who is on a boat arrested, they call the Coastguard.

You can’t say “Special Branch did X. Special branch are controlled by MI5. MI5 are controlled by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is part of Her Majesty’s government. Her Majesty is a paedo-lizard. Therefore the paedo-lizards ordered Special Branch to do X”. That simply isn’t how the relationship between Special Branch and MI5 works (unless everything usually understood to be the case is a lie, as usual).

🙂

I’ve kind of lost track of the question being asked here or how it’s being answered.
It’s fair to say though, that there is some shady shit going on here. It’s also fair to say that “the establishment”, (this losely related group of individuals who hold power) certainly look out for themselves. It’s also fair to say that some of them are bad people and some of those people are paedophiles. It’s also fair to say that some of these people will have used our intelligence services as tools at their disposal to get what they want and also that it wasn’t happening in isolation, people not involved knew and turned a blind eye.
I don’t think all the elements are linked any more strongly than the establishment looking out for itself. Having said that, it still **** stinks and should be investigated although doubt it ever will be fully.
What’s most alarming is the vote on amnesty for helping with enquiries. That is **** shocking and everyone just shrugs it off.
(Realise this could go in the other thread)

You can’t say “Special Branch did X. Special branch are controlled by MI5. MI5 are controlled by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is part of Her Majesty’s government. Her Majesty is a paedo-lizard. Therefore the paedo-lizards ordered Special Branch to do X”. That simply isn’t how the relationship between Special Branch and MI5 works (unless everything usually understood to be the case is a lie, as usual).

That’s a fair point, but you can say: MI5 and Special Branch regularly work together and are under the authority of the Home Office (as are the rest of the police)

From that, it is then reasonable to ask on whose orders such surveillance was being conducted and in whose interests the orders were made.

It’s also fair to assume this has been common practice for a long time, giving more credibility for example to the plot for a coup against Harold Wilson

If that was indeed the case, it’s odd to think that mentor to Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.

Pretty tight knit at the top it would seem

Peter Wright (Spycatcher/MI5) famous quote was along the lines of

“Special Branch, they want to be us and we don’t want to be them”

If that was indeed the case, it’s odd to think that mentor to Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten, who introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family and has been linked to paedophile spy rings operating from Kincora and nationwide, would also be involved in a plot to overthrow the Prime Minister.

If, indeed. Again, this stuff doesn’t half propagate.

There isn’t a fat lot of decent evidence that anyone plotted a coup against Wilson (and it certainly didn’t happen).

There isn’t a fat lot of evidence that Mountbatten was a paedo-lizard.

But adding together Mountbatten’s speculative involvement in a possibly-fictional and definitely non-occurring coup, plus his “alleged” involvement in rampant paedo-lizardry, plus the fact that he knew Savile (who was admittedly a paedo-lizard) certainly puts Mountbatten at the very centre of a tangled and secretive web of darkness. It’s simply amazing that the IRA were simply able to blow him up in such a casual fashion.

There isn’t a fat lot of decent evidence

There isn’t a fat lot of decent accessible evidence

Bloody Official Secrets Act…