Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[BillyGunfish]

I looked at the first one - it's not a professional looking production. I suspect the rest of them are similar.

I will admit that after debating conspiracy theorists in the past that I have little desire to bother again. I know the MO - you'll offer nothing but Arguments to Ignorance based upon personal incredulity and convince yourself that you're correct unless others can disprove what you believe - which is not easy as you'll never provide any tangible evidence.



That's a classic error of reasoning (the Argument to Ignorance fallacy (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php)). You're believing something without evidence as it's what you want to believe. The correct method (i.e. skepticism (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php);)) would be to doubt the claim (suspend judgement) until or unless it's substantiated by evidence.



Stupid personal comments are also a feature of dealing with conspiracy theorists. Try making coherent, evidence-based arguments. You don't prove anything by insulting others; all you achieve is to make yourself look infantile.



There's an interesting piece here: Conspiracies (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_are_conspiracy_theories.php)



You see the "massive miscarriage of justice" because you accept the conclusion without adequate evidence. Guilty until proven innocent (!) Or, guilty no matter what the evidence says.

What I see is a lot of pretty unsavoury claims and allegations and there's nothing to substantiate them.

You state the first film is 'not a professional looking production.'

Conspiracy of silence was produced by Yorkshire television documentary team in 1994. They were one of the top factual filmmakers in the country with a fine reputation for the thoroughness of their research. I told you before the film was ordered destroyed. This copy is of poor visual quality due to that fact. Your response is of course to any impartial reader facile and ludicrous. The fact you refuse to view either that or the panorama expose of elite paedophile rings simply exposes you as a charlatan. Poor you.

You then claim the Mother's evidence is worthless due to lack of evidence. This is not a court of law. I cannot provide evidence of a confidential medical examination and as I stated before you are disingenuous for asking for one. The law will not pursue the case because a sheriff of law is himself one of the accused.

Note you refuse to respond to the point the young girl has received compensation for a crime the authorities claim has never happened.

I made a personal comment about you because I find you utterly derisory. That alone demands it.

Do you find it odd how a Lord Advocate has the final decision over whether to procure a prosecution where one of the alleged accused is a sherrif in your own jurisdiction, indeed someone who she worked with closely and do you think this deserves an investigation in itself.

Do you also believe a journalist working freelance at the behest of the Mother of the victim should be charged with breaching the peace simply for calling for an investigation into why a prosecution was not sought.

Don't you feel just a little bit soiled.

P.S The uncle of Holly Grieg and brother of the father and co accused was found beaten to death in a burnt out car. Coincidence...coincidence.

[Admin]

I told you before the film was ordered destroyed.

But, of course, never offered any evidence.

Do you think I'm going to take a conspiracy theorist at their word? ;D


I cannot provide evidence of a confidential medical examination

Then why are you referring to it as if it supports your claim?


and as I stated before you are disingenuous for asking for one.

Rubbish. The point is valid and pertinent. You're taking something as being true without evidence. That's an indication of thinking going wrong.


The law will not pursue the case because a sheriff of law is himself one of the accused.

Can you back that statement up - erm... with evidence?

Only it looks to me like another claim that you accept as true yet I can't see how you can know this.


Note you refuse to respond to the point the young girl has received compensation for a crime the authorities claim has never happened.

Has she? Did she a) receive compensation; and b) if so, was it for "a crime the authorities claim has never happened"?

Again, you're stating this but I'm not going to take your word for it.


I made a personal comment about you because I find you utterly derisory. That alone demands it.

You were insulting in your first post - before anyone had responded to you.

Now you're a bloody conspiracy theorist FFS! Do you think for one second that I take people like you seriously? You're a bunch of idiots - a prime exemplar of how thinking and reasoning can go wrong. It's thinking like yours that is used to help teach others proper critical thinking skills by utilising all of the errors and logical fallacies you make in your pathetic arguments.

You're just lucky that I am so polite and reasonable that I don't insult you because if it. ;) O0


Do you find it odd how a Lord Advocate has the final decision over whether to procure a prosecution where one of the alleged accused is a sherrif in your own jurisdiction, indeed someone who she worked with closely and do you think this deserves an investigation in itself.

Who else should have the final decision other than the person employed to do the job? Are the Lord Advocate's decisions transparent?


Do you also believe a journalist working freelance at the behest of the Mother of the victim should be charged with breaching the peace simply for calling for an investigation into why a prosecution was not sought.

Yes, if the journalist breached the peace then I have no problem with him/her being charged.


Don't you feel just a little bit soiled.

No. I'm used to people like you.


P.S The uncle of Holly Grieg and brother of the father and co accused was found beaten to death in a burnt out car. Coincidence?

So what does that prove?

Perhaps he was a drug dealer who got his comeuppance - perhaps "they" did it to silence him. How can we know without evidence?

[BillyGunfish]

But, of course, never offered any evidence.

Do you think I'm going to take a conspiracy theorist at their word? ;D



Then why are you referring to it as if it supports your claim?



Rubbish. The point is valid and pertinent. You're taking something as being true without evidence. That's an indication of thinking going wrong.



Can you back that statement up - erm... with evidence?

Only it looks to me like another claim that you accept as true yet I can't see how you can know this.



Has she? Did she a) receive compensation; and b) if so, was it for "a crime the authorities claim has never happened"?

Again, you're stating this but I'm not going to take your word for it.



You were insulting in your first post - before anyone had responded to you.

Now you're a bloody conspiracy theorist FFS! Do you think for one second that I take people like you seriously? You're a bunch of idiots - a prime exemplar of how thinking and reasoning can go wrong. It's thinking like yours that is used to help teach others proper critical thinking skills by utilising all of the errors and logical fallacies you make in your pathetic arguments.

You're just lucky that I am so polite and reasonable that I don't insult you because if it. ;) O0



Who else should have the final decision other than the person employed to do the job? Are the Lord Advocate's decisions transparent?



Yes, if the journalist breached the peace then I have no problem with him/her being charged.



No. I'm used to people like you.



So what does that prove?

Perhaps he was a drug dealer who got his comeuppance - perhaps "they" did it to silence him. How can we know without evidence?

Okay I've heard enough. You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists. If it was up to you this would lie dormant and undiscovered and would never see the light of day.

Fortunately there are still some courageous people left in this country who have backbones and are willing to expose these nefarious individuals. Anyone with any cognitive skills can see there is something very rotten in the state of denmark but not you hey.

Just because the authorities refuse to pursue a conviction doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Why do you think down syndrome children are often at the front line of abuse. It's because they are deemed unreliable witnesses and that is precisely what you are doing.

Just to make that clear. She has named these individuals; among them a sheriff of law, a school head, a top police officer and social worker amongst others.

But she has downs syndrome doesn't she. She's been abused by the darkest wretches of society; the very people there to protect her.

Just imagine if this sort of event was allowed to be exposed. Governments have fallen for less. The whole system would collapse like a pack of cards and that's precisely why the Lord Advocate of Scotland has refused to pursue this case and has detailed her lawyers Levy and Macrae (the leading scottish cover up merchants) to ban anyone from revealing exactly what is alleged to have gone on.

Isn't it great how so many people are now familiar with this case. It's gone absolutely viral and those perpetrators must be very fearful someone someday isn't going to come up behind them and....Pop. Game over. Real justice.

[Croydon Bob]

You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists.

You are clearly a sick fantasist. Do you have nothing better to do than post fiction about serious issues like the abuse of a child?

If you actually cared you would do something in the real world about real abuse, not post your disgusting nonsense here. You are vile sick scum.

[BillyGunfish]

You are clearly a sick fantasist. Do you have nothing better to do than post fiction about serious issues like the abuse of a child?

If you actually cared you would do something in the real world about real abuse, not post your disgusting nonsense here. You are vile sick scum.

You're lovely aren't you.

Hollie Grieg. Nah nothing to see there. She lied.

Mark Dutroux. Nah he wasn't procurring children for the Belgian elite. Complete fantasy.

Frankin. Nah they weren't picking up kids and sending them off to party with Bush and the rest of the paedophile republican party in the eighties.

I don't care if the two top British documentary film making producers allege it. You try getting one of these kids on the stand and I'll get my dirty stinking lawyer to rip them to shreds because that's the justice system. We abuse the most vulnerable children in society precisely because their voice will never be heard.

Aint that right Bobby Boy.

You're also an apologist for pederasts the world over.

Congratulations.

[Croydon Bob]

You're lovely aren't you.

Congratulations.

;D Lies from a sicko who fantasises about child abuse? I'm proud to be the subject of your pervert scorn.

[BillyGunfish]

;D Lies from a sicko who fantasises about child abuse? I'm proud to be the subject of your pervert scorn.

Lol you two should get a room. Great partnership. You know deep down in the deep recesses of those dormant organs formerly known as brains there's this little worm trying to wake you up.

Quiet now!.......Can you hear it. I know it's a long long way down there.

Rest assured it is there for even the most degenerate of souls has some redeeming truth remaining.

Maybe just maybe it can be reanimated, resurrected who knows maybe even reborn. A skeptic healed. Imagine it.

Now last word don't forget all those faceless victims of those elite paedophile rings. I hope they haunt you to the grave.

Chin chin. ;-)

[Croydon Bob]

Now last word don't forget all those faceless victims of those elite paedophile rings. I hope they haunt you to the grave.

The victims that you've never done anything to help? But that you love to write and think about? Creep.

[Admin]

You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists.

I'm sure this conclusion is true in your certain, yet evidence-free, world. O0

Out of interest (as no one can really take you seriously), do you ever stop and consider what impact false accusations might have on the lives of people who are genuinely innocent of accusations but who are pursued by crackpots who make claims of certainty without a shred of tangible evidence?

How would you feel if you were publicly 'named and shamed' as a paedophile yet your accusers had no evidence whatsoever to back it up (i.e. you're innocent)?

As an accuser of others, without any good evidence, you really ought to consider that question (!)

Imagine if you were on the receiving end of your own mode of (irrational) thinking! ;)

It might just open your eyes a little.

[BillyGunfish]

Lol you two should get a room. Great partnership. You know deep down in the deep recesses of those dormant organs formerly known as brains there's this little worm trying to wake you up.

Quiet now!.......Can you hear it. I know it's a long long way down there.

Rest assured it is there for even the most degenerate of souls has some redeeming truth remaining.

Maybe just maybe it can be reanimated, resurrected who knows maybe even reborn. A skeptic healed. Imagine it.

Now last word don't forget all those faceless victims of those elite paedophile rings. I hope they haunt you to the grave.

Chin chin. ;-)


I'm sure this conclusion is true in your certain, yet evidence-free, world. O0

Out of interest (as no one can really take you seriously), do you ever stop and consider what impact false accusations might have on the lives of people who are genuinely innocent of accusations but who are pursued by crackpots who make claims of certainty without a shred of tangible evidence?

How would you feel if you were publicly 'named and shamed' as a paedophile yet your accusers had no evidence whatsoever to back it up (i.e. you're innocent)?

As an accuser of others, without any good evidence, you really ought to consider that question (!)

Imagine if you were on the receiving end of your own mode of (irrational) thinking! ;)

It might just open your eyes a little.

It must be a curious feeling to dismiss the testimony of the innocent child in favour of the denials of the black hearted guilty. Please enlighten me. What does it feel like?

[Matt]

Billy,

Are you Robert Green?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Okay I've heard enough. You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists. If it was up to you this would lie dormant and undiscovered and would never see the light of day.


Mr angry, go pick on the pope. At least there is some direct evidence linking him to covering up child abuse.

[Croydon Bob]

Mr angry, go pick on the pope. At least there is some direct evidence linking him to covering up child abuse.

Ah, but that involves facts and reality. BillyBob would rather make up his own fantasies and whine at totally innocent complete strangers than consider evidence. Besides, the Pope is a Catholic, most of the sites that mention the alleged Greig scandal blame the Jews, so our sick pervert troll is probably also a racist.

[BillyGunfish]

Ah, but that involves facts and reality. BillyBob would rather make up his own fantasies and whine at totally innocent complete strangers than consider evidence. Besides, the Pope is a Catholic, most of the sites that mention the alleged Greig scandal blame the Jews, so our sick pervert troll is probably also a racist.

Ahh so it's now considered a thought crime to support the campaign by the Mother of a downs syndrome systematically abused by pin stripe paedophiles.

Surely there's only so much brown nosing one person can give towards a sick kiddie fiddling establishment. Don't you feel even a little bit dirty?

Love the anti semite jibe. That one don't work with me. You are aware anyway that the palestinians are semites so by definition the state of Israel is anti semitic.

Beside the point though aint it.

You're a true unreconstructed fascist aren't you Bobby boy.

[Pebble]

Ahh so it's now considered a thought crime to support the campaign by the Mother of a downs syndrome systematically abused by pin stripe paedophiles.
.

At the risk of giving more oxygen to this story.

You have asserted that Ms grieg had a sexually transmitted disease at the age of 9 and that she received compensation. You should be in a position to provide evidence on both of these, since the court papers would link these two. The claim in respect of the compensation is relatively non controversial, there is or there is not evidence of this. In respect of the STD, the problem arises that if a doctor made this diagnosis, it makes little sense for the doctor to wait two years till he is informed that she is exhibiting signs of sexual knowledge before acting. This raises the question of what the 'STD' if any might have been. Perhaps a cold sore?

The Scottish authorities investigated as they should, but did not find enough evidence to prosecute. That is normal. If you claim that they have evidence but buried it, or that they did not investigate properly, then the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence of this, not simly that you don't like their conclusions.

Panorama walked away from this case having investigated it. Just because expectations of campaigners are raised by a journalist is not evidence. Clearly, if there is no body of evidence that is worth presenting in court it would be completely unacceptable to publish allegations, however intensely they are believed in by some. The British press is not noted for being shrinking violets, so if Panorma had a real case, this would have been aired - if you claim otherwise, then you need to present clear evidence on this - not just your belief.

To date what I see, is a distressed child who on the balance of probability was sexually abused, but who knows by whom. I see evidence of at least two strands of investigation that led no where useful. There after I see an industry of misery, that has decided that this is a cause celebre, who believe without evidence, and who are trying to stir up as much innuendo as possible because they are certain of the guilt of given people and of the corrupt nature of the system. Anyone who questions their position supports child abuse.

Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you considered that innocent people may be damaged by your crusade? Have you considered the damage that your campaign may continue to inflict on Holly Grieg and her family?

[BillyGunfish]

At the risk of giving more oxygen to this story.

You have asserted that Ms grieg had a sexually transmitted disease at the age of 9 and that she received compensation. You should be in a position to provide evidence on both of these, since the court papers would link these two. The claim in respect of the compensation is relatively non controversial, there is or there is not evidence of this. In respect of the STD, the problem arises that if a doctor made this diagnosis, it makes little sense for the doctor to wait two years till he is informed that she is exhibiting signs of sexual knowledge before acting. This raises the question of what the 'STD' if any might have been. Perhaps a cold sore?

The Scottish authorities investigated as they should, but did not find enough evidence to prosecute. That is normal. If you claim that they have evidence but buried it, or that they did not investigate properly, then the onus is on you to provide compelling evidence of this, not simly that you don't like their conclusions.

Panorama walked away from this case having investigated it. Just because expectations of campaigners are raised by a journalist is not evidence. Clearly, if there is no body of evidence that is worth presenting in court it would be completely unacceptable to publish allegations, however intensely they are believed in by some. The British press is not noted for being shrinking violets, so if Panorma had a real case, this would have been aired - if you claim otherwise, then you need to present clear evidence on this - not just your belief.

To date what I see, is a distressed child who on the balance of probability was sexually abused, but who knows by whom. I see evidence of at least two strands of investigation that led no where useful. There after I see an industry of misery, that has decided that this is a cause celebre, who believe without evidence, and who are trying to stir up as much innuendo as possible because they are certain of the guilt of given people and of the corrupt nature of the system. Anyone who questions their position supports child abuse.

Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you considered that innocent people may be damaged by your crusade? Have you considered the damage that your campaign may continue to inflict on Holly Grieg and her family?

Oh I should be in 'a position to provide' details should I. No I am simply a concerned citizen. I do not have access to coroners reports. Who does but the coroner. Your argument is nonsensical as you are well aware.

Your assertion the BBC would have investigated if there was a just cause is a fallacy. As I pointed out the Yorkshire television documentary expose of republican party kiddie fiddling in the eighties and nineties was pulled at the very last minute. I provided a copy of the said production. Therefore there is a history of production companies being leant on in cases like these.

I am not conducting a campaign. I am simply raking the michael out of skeptics and apologists for pin stripe kiddie fiddling which you quite clearly qualify as.

The scottish authorities did not investigate. Of course not one of the chief suspects is a copper. None of the alleged conspiractors apart from the Father were ever interviewed. One of the alleged perpetrators of course is the sherrif of the region and partner of the now Lord Advocate of Scotland who has through public expense launched a campaign of abuse and threats against the lead investigator and no I am not he.

It is very easy to sit in your ivory towers citing lack of evidence but when the authorities refuse to pursue an investigation, when there has been an effective D notice placed on the case in the media and when the chief suspect is such a high profile player in the Grampian legal establishment then it is beholden upon concerned citizens to publicise a case whatever the repurcussions. This case should be passed onto an independent investigative unit.

Naturally my placing the story within this domain is largely because of your deeply arrogant and ridiculously craven and brown nosing view of the establishment.

Oh and yes you are effectively demonised by association. For the media to not pursue the story I can almost understand because they would be out of a job. For some decrepit ingrates on a skeptics website to not think this smells deeply fishy is unforgivable but then that's the cesspool you swin in isn't it chump?

The story of course is a worldwide phenomenon. I am not conducting a campaign. As far as I am aware Holly Grieg's Mother wants justice for her child. It appears you do not. Think about that for a minute.

[Pebble]

Oh I should be in 'a position to provide' details should I. No I am simply a concerned citizen. I do not have access to coroners reports. Who does but the coroner. Your argument is nonsensical as you are well aware.


This shows that you are simply giving off steam with no understanding of the process. The coroner is involved in deaths, not sexual abuse. The fact that compensation was paid proves that there has been some sort of investigation, the Grieg's lawyers have access to this information.

The rest of your rant further underscores why you will fail. You show an inability to argue rationally or engage with serious questions.

[skbuncks]

BillyGunfish does realise that the CICA simply awards compensation to the innocent victims of crime? It matters not whether the perpetrator is ever brought to justice (see here (http://www.cica.gov.uk/Can-I-apply/Am-I-eligible/)).
The question of whether Holly was abused does not appear to be really in doubt. Who carried out the abuse and the lack of evidence to gain a prosecution is what is in question.

So BGF it boils down presenting some evidence for your allegations or STFU.

skb

[BillyGunfish]

BillyGunfish does realise that the CICA simply awards compensation to the innocent victims of crime? It matters not whether the perpetrator is ever brought to justice (see here (http://www.cica.gov.uk/Can-I-apply/Am-I-eligible/)).
The question of whether Holly was abused does not appear to be really in doubt. Who carried out the abuse and the lack of evidence to gain a prosecution is what is in question.

So BGF it boils down presenting some evidence for your allegations or STFU.

skb

Provide me with evidence of an investigation.

Also why did the Mother and child feel the need to leave Scotland. They did try to get her committed didn't they. Is that normal procedure when dealing with the Mother of an abused child?

P.S I know none of you care or will listen to it but for the record here is a link to the interview of the Mother and the investigator.

http://thcforum.ning.com/forum/topics/two-recent-interviews-1-with

Listen to her interview and come back to me. She sounds a very lucid and intelligent lady. The interviewer is an idiot but she comes out of it very well.

The revelation about the Mother's brother's death is a classic case. He witnesses the abuse and threatens the Father. Six weeks later he's dead. The police claim he died of smoke inhalation in a burning car. Suicide. How does anyone commit suicide sitting in a burning car? The autopsy when they got hold of it reveals a broken sternum and fractured skull. The police refused to investigate it. Comment.

[Croydon Bob]

You're a true unreconstructed fascist aren't you Bobby boy.

As accurate as anything else you've said!

(actually Jewish and a socialist, but for a lying pervert like you, close enough)

[tiswas]

What baffles me in this nasty case, is why does not Gordon Brown sue for criminal libel. He needs to do this right away ...........................................but is he hiding something.>:-)

[Croydon Bob]

What baffles me in this nasty case, is why does not Gordon Brown sue for criminal libel. He needs to do this right away ...........................................but is he hiding something.>:-)

Thousands of prominent people have been the subject of similar allegations on the internet. As far as I know none of them have ever sued for libel.

What would he gain by highlighting a false accusation made by obvious loonies like Icke? How many people are going to vote differently in the election because some nutter has been raving on a website that nobody sane looks at? How many might think twice if Brown made them aware of the allegations by taking legal action?

I'm sure Gordon Brown is hiding lots of things but these sorts of accusations say far more about the pathetic scum that make them than the people who are accused.

[Matt]

What baffles me in this nasty case, is why does not Gordon Brown sue for criminal libel. He needs to do this right away ...........................................but is he hiding something.>:-)

Why would someone with something to hide act in any way different to an innocent person? Neither want to be viewed by the public at large as aiding and abetting child molestation. Actually taking these unsubstantiated allegations seriously is a great way of advertising them. Look up the Streisand effect.

[tiswas]

Streisand effect??? Explain.
Anyway I have noticed that peodophilia is something discussed openly, too openly in fact and what I will state is that this crime which is repugnant is deal with in many a different way.
A allegation of being called a child molester is worthy of lawyers being involved but I do not think that anyone takes this serious anymore. If I were a man and somebody stated I did this I would sue, but Icke I reckon is genuine in his support for child victims. I sense this really OK.

[Croydon Bob]

Streisand effect??? Explain.

Are you incapable of looking up anything for yourself?


Anyway I have noticed that peodophilia is something discussed openly, too openly in fact and what I will state is that this crime which is repugnant is deal with in many a different way.
A allegation of being called a child molester is worthy of lawyers being involved but I do not think that anyone takes this serious anymore. If I were a man and somebody stated I did this I would sue,

You're the person who resurrected this thread and made the false accusation. You think you should be sued? I'm sure our webmaster could pass your IP details to the authorities if that is what you think.