Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[John Revolting]

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

It's not me that would sue him. I'm just an everyday bloke. I couldn't care less about Gordon Brown or David Icke. They both annoy me...

... but listen to what you are saying!

If Gordon Brown is a member of the elite, David Icke is a walking dead man.

If Gordon Brown isn't a member of the child sacrificing elite, he is innocent.

In either scenario, David Icke cannot possibly win a court battle against Gordon Brown.

According to conspiracy theorist logic, the elite control everything. So why would they chicken out when they would win a court battle in a heartbeat?

If I were David Icke I would be a little bit nervous about some of my more slanderous out-pourings.

[Croydon Bob]

If I were David Icke I would be a little bit nervous about some of my more slanderous out-pourings.

But if you were Icke, then you'd know that you were an attention seeking sack of shit out to fleece the dumb, and that there is no Illuminati, ZOG, aliens, etc, out to get you. So you'd be quite secure in making all these silly accusations.

[John Revolting]

But if you were Icke, then you'd know that you were an attention seeking sack of shit out to fleece the dumb, and that there is no Illuminati, ZOG, aliens, etc, out to get you. So you'd be quite secure in making all these silly accusations.

Hmmm....

I'm not quite sure he believes that.

I think he is just about arrogant enough to believe in what he is saying. Of course he's completely and utterly wrong, but I think he is sincere. Which is very sad.

[tiswas]

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/David%20Icke2.jpg

Does he look worried at all? I think not! and I know who you are but nevermind.

[John Revolting]

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/David%20Icke2.jpg

Does he look worried at all? I think not! and I know who you are but nevermind.

No he doesn't look worried.

You know who I am? OK hit me with it. Who am I? I keep forgetting.

Why the hell would you want to know who I am?

Why would anyone want to know who I am? It's not like I'm important.

[tolman]

I think he is just about arrogant enough to believe in what he is saying.
To have actually changed his claims the way he did, he'd to be more than simply arrogant.

He'd also need to be delusional, or just happy to make shit up.

[John Revolting]

To have actually changed his claims the way he did, he'd to be more than simply arrogant.

He'd also need to be delusional, or just happy to make shit up.

Or possibly all three at once.

Garnish with paranoia and bake in the crazy-apeshit oven on gasmark nutcase.

Congratulatons Mr Icke! It's a new book. Now wipe your bottom.

[chaggle]

Garnish with paranoia and bake in the crazy-apeshit oven on gasmark nutcase.


Jolly good!!

Have you visited the poetry thread?

[Matt]

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/william-hague/7976976/William-Hagues-statement-is-bad-PR-says-Max-Clifford.html

Can you see any parallels?

[John Revolting]

Jolly good!!

Have you visited the poetry thread?

No I haven't. To be honest I'm dreadful with poetry or any form of lyrics.

When phrases are constructed to sound serious or meaningful, they are often quoted out of context. How many times have you heard the one about Einstein believing in god, or Yoda saying 'Do - There is no try'. Those two in particular drive me nuts! They rarely apply to the context in which they are used.

I have occasional luck with humour, largely due to where I live. It's a very quiet small place where nothing much ever happens. It's beautiful but uneventful. People keep their feet on the ground and the locals are very unpretentious. When we see something absurd we just point it out.

[Croydon Bob]

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/David%20Icke2.jpg

That's an old photo. I saw him last year (or the year before, I forget) and he was fatter, more lined, thinner hair, with a great hanging beer gut.

[tolman]

It wasn't a beer gut.

Didn't you know that with Shapeshifting Alien Space Lizards, it's the males who get pregnant?

[Croydon Bob]

It wasn't a beer gut.

Didn't you know that with Shapeshifting Alien Space Lizards, it's the males who get pregnant?

He looked more like a toad than a lizard. He claimed that the Queen Mum was a toad, perhaps he would know one as he is one.

[tiswas]

A cheap joke as usual from Croydon Bob, hey that is a lovely photo of Icke and I reckon he was, and still is a handsome man. Your avatar looks like a prostitute customer, and hey Icke 's health is none of your damn business.

[Croydon Bob]

it's the males who get pregnant?

How would they do that? Implant the fertilised egg back into the male? Otherwise the males would be females by definition. I'm pretty sure we, er, I mean, they implant the embryo into human hosts, didn't Icke make some such claim about Princess Di? Or perhaps Icke is a ladyboy toad?

[tiswas]

Sounds to me that you Bob have homosexual desire towards David Icke, if he were pregnant then thank Cthuhlu is ain't yours!

Say all this to Icke's face, if you dare!!!

[dave]

I’ve been following this thread with interest and I must say that it doesn’t portray the Skeptics in a very positive light. Demanding incontrovertible evidence in cases where one of the key characteristics of the allegations would necessitate the greatest secrecy and subterfuge on the part of the alleged perpetrators just seems niave at best and disingenuous at worst.

If the sceptical approach is to question everything that cannot be incontrovertibly proven, that is one thing; but to credulously believe that if there is no 'evidence' there is no cause for concern is not conducive to a robust analysis of the case on the balance of probabilities, as would be the way forward in a court of Law.

Furthermore, to pour scorn on those who put these issues forward for debate, descending to childish ad homs and absurd and vicious accusations of some vicarious sexual prurience at play is utterly shameful, and calls to mind of the tactics of the school-yard bully.

If there is any possible substance to these allegations (and in the case of the alleged Franklin child prostitution ring, there is testimony from many credible witnesses and traumatised victims) you should surely be concerned that a miscarriage of justice is being perpetrated and try to open your minds to this possibility. Instead, one of you blithely dismisses the film which records these testimonies because the quality is poor!

Is this really the best you can do?

[Croydon Bob]

Is this really the best you can do?

Dismiss nonsense? You're haven't made clear what you want from us other than to blindly accept evidence-free ramblings.

The best the conspiracy loonies have managed to come up with is some contradictory fantasy naming some real people, including accusations of "homosexual desire towards David Icke". I don't see why I need to bother to do anything other than pour scorn on this garbage.

[tolman]

In the case where allegations of a very serious nature are involved, they do need some real evidence behind them in order to be worth responsibly reporting.

As for pouring scorn on tiswas, he/she/it/they were generally talking nonsense, whether just deliberately trolling or as a result of some personal issues.
People who don't seem remotely reasonable are the last people who should be going round talking about extremely serious allegations.

To be honest, in my opinion (and probably the opinion of the majority of people) the appearance of a claim on nut-infested conspiracy sites generally makes it less believable than if it hadn't appeared on them.

Trust in someone's judgement and motives can descend to the point where if they said today was Thursday, even if I wasn't previously in any doubt on the matter, their saying it would make me check my watch.
Credibility is something that can take negative values.

If a story has only appeared on conspiracy sites, or is only being pushed by them, I reckon that it's a fairly safe bet to ignore it until someone responsible picks it up.
Even the Daily Mail would be a more reliable news source, and that's not something I say every day.

More specifically regarding tiswas, it's notable that it didn't seem to have any particular response to sensible questions.
As with most actual or pretend conspiracy nuts, claims of Great Conspiracies are made, while simutaneous claims are made which suggest the Great Conspiracy is also stunningly incompetent, meaning I could do a better job myself in my spare time.

Alleged Great Conspiracies always seem to be run by people not obviously any brighter than the people who suggest them.
One could be forgiven for concluding that the conspiracies all in the head of people not actually bright enough to imagine anyone brighter than themselves.

If conspiracies really are run by people as dumb as tiswas's online persona, I'm really not sure why I should be supposed to be frightened by them.

[Pebble]

Demanding incontrovertible evidence

Skeptics demanding evidence! Whatever next? On the other thread you are getting riled because we are apparently not asking for evidence!

By the way, no one here has asked for incontrovertable evidence - we have merely any evidence that could be considered vaguely credible, before making very serious allegations.

[dave]

Okay well quite a response and without replying to everyone individually which would take too long, I will try to paraphrase your points of view, just to see if I am understanding you correctly.

Firstly, I get the impression that some of you feel that the Holly Grieg case, and the concomitant allegations about senior figures in the establishment are utterly without substance, and deserve no attention, despite the fairly sizeable body of circumstantial evidence that has already been put forward in previous posts. For this reason it would be unreasonable to investigate these allegations further, to save the accused any embarrassment.

One of you said “…in the case where allegations of a very serious nature are involved, they do need some real evidence behind them in order to be worth responsibly reporting” another said “to make a big deal out of unsubstantiated allegations that the vast majority of the public were unaware of” would be wrong. Another said “If a story has only appeared on conspiracy sites, or is only being pushed by them, I reckon that it's a fairly safe bet to ignore it until someone responsible picks it up.”

Another has said that “(Skeptics are only looking for) evidence that could be considered vaguely credible”.

Can I just ask, then:

1. What kind of evidence you would consider to be 'vaguely credible'?

2. Could anyone give an example of an item or body of evidence that would be deemed sufficient to make you think that these allegations might be substantive?

3. Given my point that “in cases where one of the key characteristics of the allegations would necessitate the greatest secrecy and subterfuge on the part of the alleged perpetrators” and therefore such evidence that you might require would be extremely hard, if not impossible to come by, would you be prepared to take this fact on board when assessing the quality of such evidence?

[Admin]

I’ve been following this thread with interest and I must say that it doesn’t portray the Skeptics in a very positive light. Demanding incontrovertible evidence in cases where one of the key characteristics of the allegations would necessitate the greatest secrecy and subterfuge on the part of the alleged perpetrators just seems niave at best and disingenuous at worst.

Well, we can form conclusions in two ways:



Based on, and in proportion to the quality of, evidence; or
Based on a lack of, or even despite the, evidence.

Now which approach is likely to lead you to the better conclusion?

NOTE: a conclusion that has no evidence to support it is nothing more than an opinion.


If the sceptical approach is to question everything that cannot be incontrovertibly proven

Skeptics don't deal in absolutes (!)


but to credulously believe that if there is no 'evidence' there is no cause for concern is not conducive to a robust analysis of the case

The point is that you cannot conclude anything based on a lack of evidence (see: the Argument to Ignorance (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php) fallacy)

You cannot analyse 'no evidence' to form a valid conclusion.


on the balance of probabilities, as would be the way forward in a court of Law.

An accusation that has no supporting evidence wouldn't get to court.

[Admin]

3. Given my point that “in cases where one of the key characteristics of the allegations would necessitate the greatest secrecy and subterfuge on the part of the alleged perpetrators” such evidence that you might require would be extremely hard, if not impossible to come by, would you be prepared to take this fact on board when assessing the quality of such evidence?

How do you assess the quality of 'no evidence'?

Would you be happy to convict someone of a crime based on no evidence? Do you think your own personal belief/opinion is enough to form a conclusion on an issue?

That seems to be where your argument leads.

[Croydon Bob]

Firstly, I get the impression that some of you feel that the Holly Grieg case, and the concomitant allegations about senior figures in the establishment are utterly without substance, and deserve no attention, despite the fairly sizeable body of circumstantial evidence that has already been put forward in previous posts. For this reason it would be unreasonable to investigate these allegations further, to save the accused any embarrassment.

You are confusing a number of different things (as conspiracy theorists are want to do).

There's a "real" case, involving actual people and accusations made to the police, claims by those genuinely involved, etc. Trial by internet gossip is not a good way of dealing with it.

Then there are the accusations that a former Prime Minister was involved, David Icke's reptile fantasy, etc. All of which has been mentioned by the believers on this thread. That is the stuff that I dismiss totally.

[tolman]

Firstly, I get the impression that some of you feel that the Holly Grieg case, and the concomitant allegations about senior figures in the establishment are utterly without substance, and deserve no attention.
It's not a case of concluding that allegations are utterly without substance, more that the allegations are of such a nature that some amount of evidence is needed before those allegations should be thrown around in public.

Circumstantial evidence is extraordinarily tricky stuff - as can be seen from all kinds of conspiracies, and the way that different conspiracy believers can claim circumstantial evidence to seemingly support various mutually incompatible theories.

Just because someone has claimed a piece of evidence exists doesn't make that claim necessarily correct, so claims of evidence aren't necessarily enough by themselves to justify making serious alllegations.

The more committed someone is to pushing a particular conclusion, and the happier they are to throw accusations around, the more caution their claims may be viewed with.
That particularly applies to conspiracy-based theories, since the people involved with those seem typically happy to make all manner of allegations against groups of people on the basis of no great evidence - if someone else's standards of evidence are low, their claiming that a lot of good evidence exists in a particular case are likely to be taken with several pinches of salt.

As for the required standard of evidence, having it come from a reliable source is the first hurdle. That means that a claim simply having appeared on a conspiracy site is not enough, and in fact, is frequently barely even enough or not enough to make a claim worth researching elsewhere.


Given my point that “in cases where one of the key characteristics of the allegations would necessitate the greatest secrecy and subterfuge on the part of the alleged perpetrators” such evidence that you might require would be extremely hard, if not impossible to come by, would you be prepared to take this fact on board when assessing the quality of such evidence?

OK.
Say I claim that someone (suitably dead, and suitably unlikely, so let's say Barbara Cartland) was a Satanist who secretly had multiple babies, and then tortured, murdered and ate them, and burned the remains in a bonfire.

Should the 'expected lack of evidence' mean that a fairly low standard of evidence, say a shard of burnt bone claimed to be from her garden, should be sufficient to justify newspapers publishing my serious allegations on the front page?

Ultimately, it's still down to someone to have sufficient evidence to justify making allegations.
If the allegations are ones involving extremely serious criminal behaviour for which little evidence is possible, and for which much less is even allegedly available (and therefore for which a trial even if conducted would end up with a Not Guilty verdict), then ultimately that means that much of the time, the allegations shouldn't be made in public.

The thing about the average conspiracist is that they either seem to actively take pleasure in accusing whole groups of people of complicity in one or other foul act (a bit like religious nuts who salivate or get a while denouncing one or other group in society), or at best they have appallingly low standards of evidence, and don't understand that to reason with cicumstantial evidence, each piece needs to be looked at for reliability, alternative explanations sought with an open mind, and that there's some level of reliability and weight below which the evidence should not merely be treated with caution, but below which it simply shouldn't be used.