Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[Matt]

Streisand effect??? Explain.


Well since you said please I shall explain what I meant by "Look Up the Streisand Effect.."

What you should have done type the words Streisand Effect into your search engine of choice. I use a little toolbar but you can navigate to their webpage if you don't have such a facility.

For this example I'll use google.

Having typed no more than "Streis" Google kindly offers a drop down list of common search phrases beggining with these letters. There right at the top is "Streisand Effect" just a tap on the down arrow and this is selected. Press return and the search is performed (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=streisand+effect).

The very top options is a Wikipedia article on the matter containing this photograph

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Barbrahouse1.jpg

The article also explains that Barbara Streisnad thinks that this photo of her house is an invasion of her privacy and how she went to great legal lengths to have it removed from the Internet. The result of her legal strategy is that the photo is now everywhere and widely known to be of her house rather than sitting anonymously in a gallery documenting coastal erosion. This is to such an extent that as we've just seen, if you start typing her name into a search engine you're two keypresses and a click away from the informaiton she wanted suppressed. The exact opposite of her intent. Since then similar attempts to suppress information, that then backfire have been known as the Streisand Effect

Now I'll assume that this little demonstration was unecessarily condescending and that you didn't need instruction on rudimentary research skills. Instead I guess what you wanted me to do was explain the significance in this context.

How could legal muscle being brought to bear in an attempt to silence such poorly substantiated speculation backfire in any way?

Well think about it for a moment. How do you think that the fringe websites currently carrying this story would react? Is it likely to your mind that at least some of them would re-run the story showing this as new evidence that the eeebil gubbermint was attempting to cover up the cover up? Do you think perhaps that personal legal action being entered into by high profile polititians might garner just a little bit more interest from the mainstream nationals. Isn't it likely that the story which is currently far from the public eye might get much more press? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of the intent behind this action? And here's the important part - even if the litigator had nothing to hide it could and I believe more than likely would backfire spectacularly.

The implied falalcy in your "unless he had somethign to hide" is called affirming the consequent.

If A then B does not mean If B then A

If X has something to hide he would not litigate does not mean that if X doesn't litigate then he has something to hide.

It is clearer to see the flaw in this illogical construction in silly examples such as.
If you are a street sweeper then cardboard is not a nutritious meal.
Clearly this statement is true. Carboard is not a nutritious meal. It's not nutritious if you're a street sweeper; it's not nutritous if you're a rocket scientist. If you're a strain of bacteria then maybe it's a nutritious meal.
However it's not correct to say that if cardboard is not a nutitious meal then you're a street sweeper. There are plenty of other reasons for cardboard not being a nutritious meal, such as being a human in general.

There are many reaosns why a person wouldn't litigate against scurrelous material in an obsure backwater of the internet. The most obvious being that trying to remove salacious gossip from the public domain is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

Now I don't know who is guilty of sex crimes in this matter. Pretty much certainly the poor girl's father and more likely as not others too. The compensation hearing is enough to establish that much. However establishing the identity of the offenders beyond reasonable doubt is simply impossible without corroberating evidence and so subjecting a handicapped girl to cross examination would be a pointless cruelty. A halfway competant prosecutor will easily paint a picture of a victim abuised twice, once by her father and once by evil forces who coached her to point the finger at their polictcal enemies.

There is certainly enough evidence for an investigation to take place. By all accounts such an investigation has occured.

I can choose to trust our institutions of justice and assume that if there were corroberating evidence to be found it would have been acted upon. Alternatively I can choose not to trust these people and assume that if there were corroberating evidence it would be swept under the carpet.

What I can't do (logically speaking) is to choose not to trust the people and the present findings coloured by this a priori assumption as evidence that this choice was correct.

[fotworth]

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.>:-)

Everything is coinsidence Just because Nick Cleggs Great great grandad was a member of the rusian elite, that had the great pyramids cap stone in his back garden. it doesnt mean to say he will form a coalition with labour or the torys and hide any devil worshiping pedo MPs secrets.THE VID IS MISSLEADING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTA-1NIVg_k

[newatheist]

Everything is coinsidence Just because Nick Cleggs Great great grandad was a member of the rusian elite, that had the great pyramids cap stone in his back garden. it doesnt mean to say he will form a coalition with labour or the torys and hide any devil worshiping pedo MPs secrets.THE VID IS MISSLEADING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTA-1NIVg_k
Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU

[Croydon Bob]

Everything is coinsidence Just because Nick Cleggs Great great grandad was a member of the rusian elite, that had the great pyramids cap stone in his back garden. it doesnt mean to say he will form a coalition with labour or the torys and hide any devil worshiping pedo MPs secrets.THE VID IS MISSLEADING

If I didn't know that you're a nutter I'd think you were taking the piss.

Nick Clegg is in on the conspiracy as well? Is there anybody who isn't?

[bryan]

If I didn't know that you're a nutter I'd think you were taking the piss.

Nick Clegg is in on the conspiracy as well? Is there anybody who isn't?

Nick Griffin?

[bindeweede]

Nick Griffin?

Nick Tilsley? Makes as much sense as your stuff.

[Drop Bear]

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.>:-)

Ever heard of the principle of the presumption of innocence?

Using your logic,people who remain silent when questioned by police must have something to hide.:undecided:

I recommend this video: 'Don't speak to the police' (there are a couple more parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Sincere apologies if you were just taking the piss rather than being an ignoramus.>:D.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000

ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE


The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent unless proven guilty – is a legal right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right) that the accused in criminal trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_trial) has in many modern countries. The burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof) is thus on the prosecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution), which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_%28law%29) beyond a reasonable doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt). In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquitted). This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
Contents

[hide (javascript:toggleToc())]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[skbuncks]

Everything is coinsidence Just because Nick Cleggs Great great grandad was a member of the rusian elite, that had the great pyramids cap stone in his back garden. it doesnt mean to say he will form a coalition with labour or the torys and hide any devil worshiping pedo MPs secrets.THE VID IS MISSLEADING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTA-1NIVg_k

I'm related to Edward III so does that make me an evil devil worshipper?
http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread.php/4802-Presidents-related-to-English-Royalty?p=79320&viewfull=1#post79320
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/gen...IIIDescent.php (http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php)

Evidence please the pyramid is the cap stone from one of the great pyramids? On first glance the stones used look to be a completely different size to that used by the Egyptians. Furthermore, even if it was what is its relevance to anything?

skb

[skbuncks]

Ever heard of the principle of the presumption of innocence?

Using your logic,people who remain silent when questioned by police must have something to hide.:undecided:

I recommend this video: 'Don't speak to the police' (there are a couple more parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Sincere apologies if you were just taking the piss rather than being an ignoramus.>:D.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000

ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

I second the youtube link.

skb

[fotworth]

If I didn't know that you're a nutter I'd think you were taking the piss.

Nick Clegg is in on the conspiracy as well? Is there anybody who isn't?

Yes hes in on it he works for the ellite its in his blood.

Landless peasants most unwitingly do the ellites biding,everything being departmentalised
in a pyramid stucture.So they are not in on the conspiracy but they are becoming more aware of it each day.Deek Jackson with 57 votes standing behind Gordon brown and the speach you wont see on the bbc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdqXQgmIvd8&feature=channel 8-)

[Dave68]

It mentions Brown's alleged crime here (http://shaverania.blogspot.com/2010/03/holly-greig.html). That man McAlpine needs to be removed from circulation if any of the stuff that's floating around is true, and I really hope it isn't. Although, during the North Wales care home abuse inquiry at least six people named him, yet, he never got anywhere near being prosecuted.

[casesensitive]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVLl3Y4zXA

[Croydon Bob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVLl3Y4zXA

Interesting that the poster of that video doesn't even know how to spell the word "Paedophile".

Watching it I see people talking. Still no evidence.

Apparently there are lots of allegations going around the World Cup about various managers/players/entire teams being kiddy fidlers. The trouble with all this conspiracy nonsense is that it creates a smoke screen that helps to cover up any actual disgusting activity. Statistically there's bound to be a paedo or two involved in the World Cup, but with everyone being accused who will take accusations against them seriously?

Similarly this crap about all politicians' leaders being in one big paedo conspiracy. It can only helps any politician who might actually be up to something.

[asthmatic camel]

And, of course, it wouldn't be a true conspiracy without the freemasons being involved. In reality, I'm quite sure that the vast majority of freemasons would happily see paedophiles castrated. Or worse...

[panama]

It mentions Brown's alleged crime here (http://shaverania.blogspot.com/2010/03/holly-greig.html). That man McAlpine needs to be removed from circulation if any of the stuff that's floating around is true, and I really hope it isn't. Although, during the North Wales care home abuse inquiry at least six people named him, yet, he never got anywhere near being prosecuted.

You would think someone from the News Of The World would have got at least one of these people...WOW! :shocked:

[Pebble]

You would think someone from the News Of The World would have got at least one of these people...WOW! :shocked:

Unlike completely unsupported internet opinion, even the N.o.W. requires a modicum of evidence before publishing conspiracy nonsense.

[panama]

Unlike completely unsupported internet opinion, even the N.o.W. requires a modicum of evidence before publishing conspiracy nonsense.
My point, exactly. There isn't a sarcasm smilie!

[tiswas]

So the child abuse of a innocent child is something for Skeptics to up sticks with???
That was a disgusting case, and hey it was other people not just Icke who named names. Edge Tv did it as well too so there.

[tolman]

If there was actual evidence, the scandal sheets would be all over it.

The fact that they're not, and it's left to publicity-seeking nutters on the internet to spread gossip for their own ends suggests a great deal.

If you're going to take the simple tack and claim there's a Huge Great Conspiracy, why isn't that conspiracy big or bright enough to avoid leaving witnesses?

Couldn't they just kidnap a few kids and take them to their evil lizard island hideaway to abuse at will, without any chance of them ever telling anyone?

In any case, as pointed out elsewhere, if Icke is to be believed, we're all in The Matrix and nothing is real.
So why doesn't Someone In Charge just erase memories they don't like?
Are the Great Sysadmins in the Moon also terminally stupid?
Is it really the case that a deluded ex-goalkeeper and his care-in-the-community followers are the only smart people in the world?

For £#(&'s sake, why are *all* Great Conspiracies supposed to be run by total drool-soaked retards?
Is it just that conspiracy theorists simply aren't capable of imagining anyone smarter than they are?

[Matt]

So the child abuse of a innocent child is something for Skeptics to up sticks with???
That was a disgusting case, and hey it was other people not just Icke who named names. Edge Tv did it as well too so there.

So it's all-right for Icke to allege criminal behaviour without providing evidence because other people did it too and did it first..

Well that's OK then.

But since we know that that poor girls father was certainly abusing her then why should Icke or anyone else get all wound up about the possibility of other people abusing her too. By the same logic as you displayed above this clearly doesn't matter because her father did it too and did it first..

On the other hand tu quoque might be considered a logical fallacy and your pathetic "David didn't start it" excuse might be a bunch of arse.

[John Revolting]

So the child abuse of a innocent child is something for Skeptics to up sticks with???
That was a disgusting case, and hey it was other people not just Icke who named names. Edge Tv did it as well too so there.

What evidence?!!! There IS NO EVIDENCE!!

This is all in the mind of David Icke. There was no abuse. It's really sad that Icke has to resort to the old 'save our children from evil abusers' card to win support (see also - almost all tabloid newspapers - especially The Daily Mail and The Sun).

So Edge TV ran the story? And your point is?

For the uninitiated, Edge TV used to run desperately amateurish programmes about ridiculous conspiracy theories on a loop for days. I was unlucky enough to tune in on several occasions.

One time they had this bloke describing all the various aliens that live among us. He went into some detail. Although he couldn't produce any photographic evidence, he did have a large selection of hilariously childish pencil drawings.

Other times Edge TV would play back-to-back David Icke lectures all day. Sometimes there were 8 hours of Icke's mind numbing rubbish, so it's hardly surprising they decided to broadcast David's poisonous attack on Gordon Brown.

I should add that I'm no fan of Gordon Brown by any means, but Icke should have been sued for slander. People who go around saying shit like that without evidence are unstable and dangerous.

Edge TV was eventually removed from transmission in the face of massive indifference and pathetic ratings. It seems the general public know horse-shit when they smell it. Charlie Brooker was particularly scathing in his review of the channel.

[tiswas]

I find the post you said absolutely interesting and informative, and btw, you have shot yourself in the foot Mister!
Hey you said you had watched the channel several times and it was a great misfortune to do this:cheesy:, hey why tune into Edge TV several times and it seems that you are a regular viewer and hey I get that channel and I enjoy it immensely.
Gordon Brown, is not going to sue because he is not wanting to open a real can of worms.
There are so many news stories in the know which the press will NEVER release cos it is too dynamite.
As for the drawings of Aliens, be thankful it does not resemble your mother.

[John Revolting]

I find the post you said absolutely interesting and informative, and btw, you have shot yourself in the foot Mister!
Hey you said you had watched the channel several times and it was a great misfortune to do this:cheesy:, hey why tune into Edge TV several times and it seems that you are a regular viewer and hey I get that channel and I enjoy it immensely.
Gordon Brown, is not going to sue because he is not wanting to open a real can of worms.
There are so many news stories in the know which the press will NEVER release cos it is too dynamite.
As for the drawings of Aliens, be thankful it does not resemble your mother.

It didn't resemble much at all. If memory serves, his Reptillian looked a bit like Kurt Russell in Escape From New York, except the legs were wonky.

Yes, I had the misfortune to tune into Edge TV several times (there is no smiley for 'bored shitless'). It was on TV at Christmas at my wife's parents house and someone else had the remote control.

By the way - How are you watching a TV station that was scrapped? Don't tell me they put Edge TV back on again - God save us! (there is no smiley for 'absolute despair').

Come on fella - Edge TV was utter crap. It was so embarrassing that certain conspiracy theorists probably had their buttocks surgically unclenched afterwards.

Gordon Brown hasn't sued because he almost certainly doesn't know of the obscure rantings of Mr David Icke. However, at present Brown has nothing to lose. He's not the prime minister anymore.

So carry on provoking people. If you generate enough publicity, someone is bound to send a memo sooner or later. Then Gordon Brown can fleece Icke for everything he's got and we won't hear a peep out of Icke ever again :cheesy:

[tiswas]

Well sue Icke because I will love to see these Elitetals chicken out at the end.

[Croydon Bob]

Elitetals

Interesting use of a word that is used by the far-right to mean "Jew".

Sometimes you're not just a ridiculous idiot. Sometimes you're an obnoxious ridiculous idiot.