Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[fotworth]

Why is the traditional media not picking this story up ?
Either to difend or dismiss it.

http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=12246

http://www.rense.com/general89/brownpd.htm

http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child-abuse-mainmenu-74/30693-scottish-paedophile-ring-exposed

LIve radio feed Holly Greig and the paedophile Masons today 2nd of march at 5pm Greenwich Mean Time
http://www.moneyteachers.org/Radio.htm

[asthmatic camel]

Um, David Icke isn't exactly a trustworthy source...

[fotworth]

Um, David Icke isn't exactly a trustworthy source...

Im sure he isn't .Im a little dissapointed that the BBC have not come to dissmiss allegations that they dropped a Panorama expose covering the aledged police cover up. This would be a real good time for the press to shut Icke up once and for all. 8-)

[Matt]

Im sure he isn't .Im a little dissapointed that the BBC have not come to dissmiss allegations that they dropped a Panorama expose covering the aledged police cover up. This would be a real good time for the press to shut Icke up once and for all. 8-)

Only muppets and racist don't realise he was shut up once and for all a long time ago.

Operation Ore did have some major flaws, pedo's were using cloned credit cards to access child porn. The police were arresting people who'd had their cards cloned. There were also who had visted the sites but not downloaded anything.

We therefore have three possibilities with regard to the existence of a pedo in the cabinet,

The journalist made it up.
The journalist was reporting on a false positive.
There really was a member of the cabinet who is a pedophile.

We have two possibilities with regard ot this gagging order.

Again the journalist may have made it up.
There might really have been a gagging order.

If the latter then the reasons for the gagging order woudl be very different depending upon the reaily of the situaiton.

If it's imply unsubstantiated smear then that alone is a good enough reaosn to shut people up. If a cabinet minister was indeed one of the many inocent people investigated by operation ore then a gagging order serves a purpose in ensuring that we don't get people still tarred by an accusation long after they are ultimately cleared of the crime. This might even have been an applicable reason to silence the press even if there were a genuine pedo in the cabninet. The people issuing the order would simply be applying jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. If however the investagion did find them guilty adn the gagging order was not then lifted, or if the investgation was impeded to allow a pedophile to get away with their crimes that's another matter.

The slim allegations made and echoing about the internet seem to amount to nothign more than inuendo. There is certinaly nothing to establish whether this is a simple fabrication, a false positive or a real cover up.

The final piece of the jigsaw, the insinuation that the "former cabinet minister" is actually our current prime minister (who is has to be noted has never been a former minister) is no less baseless. In fact the earlier description of "former cabinet minister" casts even greater doubt.

As such there really is nothing to address. Really it was as if I had noted that a thorough search of the internet shows no media coverage of the allegation that fotworth is in fact, a spousal abuser. Would it be fair to therefore insinuate that this lack of evidence is because of a cover up or is it in fact what you'd expect from a non story that has only even been mooted in engage int he politics of smear.

ETA

How grateful would you be in such a situation if the BBC took up this unsubstantiated accusation (about which only a handful of people were aware) and then broadcast it to their millions of viewer to tell them there was no evidence for these rumours or of a cover up. After all only as small percentage of those viewers would be contrary enough to reach exactly the opposite conclusion.

[tolman]

I agree with Matt.

There are, unfortunately, many people who have an idea of 'no smoke without fire' and for whom even a clear and solid refutation of allegations for which there is no evidence will still be seen as 'being a bit fishy'.

Even more unfortunately, people like that are allowed to vote at elections, but that's one of the downsides of universal suffrage.

In the interest of balance, I think I should probably mention the fact that [allegedly], David Cameron ******* *** *** ** three underage goats ***** ***** ******* ** two nuns and a plasterer from Chelmsford.

[fotworth]

There is a man on bail with a gaging order.
Untill he faces trail, the alternative news sites are only going to gain momentum.
The shits been thrown so to speak the longer it takes the main news outlets to clarify whats realy going on.The stronger the conspiracy sites will become.
If I was in browns shoes I'd be gratefull if the BBC covered this trial and exposed the conspiracy sites.

I dont want to sound like a ''Muppet'' but I cant figer out how they have put such a complex story together.




http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-secretary-linked-to-lord.html

Holly Greig with her mother Anne – forced to flee to England after abuse. Since the journalist’s arrest by Grampian Police on Friday, reports of Mr Green, and his work investigating the allegations into the Aberdeen based paedophile ring have spread around the internet, along with a sequence of video clips of a talk the journalist gave to audiences on his work and the allegations into the abuse which had taken place in the Aberdeen area, leaving many to question why Scotland’s Crown Office had stamped on any chance of mounting prosecutions against people well known in the area who have been identified by one of the abuse victims, Hollie Greig, who, despite no one being charged after a Police investigation into the abuse claims, received £13,500 compensation (hush money ? – Ed) from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009.

''no one being charged after a Police investigation'' = £13,500 compensation hows that ?

The legal adviser to the family of a disabled woman who claims she was abused by a paedophile ring as a child was arrested yesterday as he made his way to the centre of Aberdeen to hand out leaflets.
Grampian Police later confirmed Mr Green was in custody. A spokesman said: “A 63-year-old man has been charged in connection with a breach of the peace. “As this case is now active, it would be inappropriate to make any other comment.” Police, with the consent of Mr Green, searched his room in King Street and are believed to have left with documents belonging to him.

[Croydon Bob]

I'd be surprised if there's any major politician in the world who hasn't had this odious accusation thrown at them.

A few years ago there was a craze of it amongst football fans claiming that managers of teams that they didn't like were kiddy abusers. What would be the advantage or interest in having every front page stating that "Politician X is not a Paedo" and every back page stating "Manager Y is not a Paedo"?

This is just more pathetic attention seeking by the loony Icke. I'm glad to see it ignored.

And for those of you who have had the misfortune to watch Fox News: What did Glenn Beck do in 1990 and if he's innocent then why hasn't he denied it? I'm not saying he did anything, I'm just asking the question.

[Matt]

If I was in browns shoes I'd be gratefull if the BBC covered this trial and exposed the conspiracy sites.
No you wouldn't. Innocent or guilty you'd go from fringe lunatics questioning the case to a huge nationaly debated question where even in the most respectable and exemplary scenario, the shit storm would be hugely damaging. Just ask the Parents of the South Ronaldsay children.

I think you might have a rather over inflated opinion of where this story is right now. Those sites you're quoting are a joke, only read by a few semi paranoid conspiracy theorists.

If I were the current government that's where I'd want the story to stay.


I dont want to sound like a ''Muppet''

Well you do have a choice.


but I cant figer out how they have put such a complex story together.

You're rather easily impressed aren't you... This innuendo is anything but complex.

[tolman]

In the case of the apparent allegations, even if the allegations really do exist, it's at least *possible* that it was honestly concluded that despite it seeming that something probably happened, there really wasn't a prospect of successful prosecution, whether down to the time passed since the alleged events, methods by which the allegations emerged, or the age and condition of the person involved at the time of the alleged events.

In that case, if there isn't going to be a trial where someone might stand some chance of at least partly clearing their name, it is an extremely dodgy business identifying people who might have been alleged to have done something, with the potential for a whole range of motives for someone trying to make things more public.

Not least among the reasons for caution is that it's possible that some names are only tangentially linked to any allegations made, but without a thorough public airing, people might well treat any named people as being equally suspect.
Also, if allegations are made of historic abuse, apparently starting when someone now 30+ was aged 6, there are serious issues of accuracy of memory to deal with.

[fotworth]

No you wouldn't. innocent or guilty You'd go from fringe lunatics questioning the case to a huge nationaly debated question where even in the most respectable and exemplary scenario, the shit storm would be hugely damaging. Just ask the Parents of the South Ronaldsay children.

Sorry, Yes ''I'' would. No you would not. Speak as you see things not how you would like me to.

I think you might have a rather over inflated opinion of where this story is right now. Those sites you're quoting are a joke, only read by a few semi paranoid conspiracy theorists.


Those sites are a joke,but they are high trafic sites.
Depending on George Greens trail and its out come this story could blow out of contol.

If I were the current government that's where I'd want the story to stay.

Me too, if I had something to hide

[QUOTE]Well you do have a choice.Ill be watching Prisonplanet ,Red ice creations, and David Icke see how they get out of this one.
They aren't shut up,they are puting this out this on the radio



You're rather easily impressed aren't you... This innuendo is anything but complex.If there is sick people in high office and there is people taking them on,Im impressed.
Im very skeptical of our goverment,if someone says theres coruption of course lets see.

[fotworth]

In the case of the apparent allegations, even if the allegations really do exist, it's at least *possible* that it was honestly concluded that despite it seeming that something probably happened, there really wasn't a prospect of successful prosecution, whether down to the time passed since the alleged events, methods by which the allegations emerged, or the age and condition of the person involved at the time of the alleged events.

In that case, if there isn't going to be a trial where someone might stand some chance of at least partly clearing their name, it is an extremely dodgy business identifying people who might have been alleged to have done something, with the potential for a whole range of motives for someone trying to make things more public.


[/QUOTE]that it was honestly concluded[QUOTE]
The person that decides wether or not a prosicution goes forward is one of the acused.
Is he realy going to say he as a case to answer to ?

[tolman]

The person that decides wether or not a prosicution goes forward is one of the acused.
So you claim that some other sites claim.

That does seem a rather unlikely situation in real life, unless the allegations clearly are fantasies.

Even in a world full of Icke-style actual conspiracies, the Illuminati/Lizard People/whatever would presumably still try and get someone with apparently clean hands to dismiss the case.

[Croydon Bob]

Ill be watching Prisonplanet ,Red ice creations, and David Icke see how they get out of this one.
They aren't shut up,they are puting this out this on the radio


David Icke hasn't retracted any of his stupid claims about various famous people being shape-changing human-eating alien reptiloids either. It's still garbage that only loonies believe.

[tolman]

fotworth,
Before this thread goes any further, there are some things I'd probably best mention.

Whatever your perspective is, and whatever your motivations are, do please understand that what people here see in this thread is a new user appearing and being very keen to talk about something which is potentially mudslinging, with allegations various other webistes hint at to some extent or another.

No-one here is really in any kind of position to offer an opinion into the people involved, or the nature or truth of any allegations, even if they thought it was wise to offer such opinions in public.

It's already been pointed out that mud does have a tendency to stick whether or not it is fairly thrown. Given the potential political angle of some of the claimed allegations, there'd clearly be potentially unpleasant motives for people to make stories up or exaggerate or embellish an actual tale.

Also, I presume I don't need to point out that it's not unknown for all kinds of fictitious or wildly inaccurate allegations to result from interviews of young or vulnerable people, unless such interviews are undertaken right from the very start with extraordinary degree of caution.

Finally, making a very general point, it's unfortunately not at all uncommon here for new users to appear fully formed and dive into a particular issue, and such users are often not what they seem or claim to be. Generally, when people aren't what they appear, they're sock puppets trying to support an argument, or people returning after banning, but there are people who appear to try and subtly promote something, or just try and get publicity for a cause without any real interest in the site.

I point that out not to suggest that you're doing any of the above, but just to make you aware that there are likely to be some sort of doubts in many people's minds about what any given new members might be trying to do.
Even in the last few weeks, there have been several cases of fake users coming purely to make trouble, and that's unfortunately part of the background against which many people might be partially judged.
Even if that might be 'unfair', it's really how things are, and not through the fault of people here, but down to the people who do abuse the system.

All I'm trying to say there is that it's not beyond the bounds of possibility for someone who simply wanted to increase the amount of mud thrown to put forward an argument that it's always best to get everything out in the open, even if that would involve allegations of uncertain value being widely aired.
If your opinion really is that it's always better to be fully public about any allegations, then obviously, it's not likely that you could easily differentiate yourself from someone who was taking that position for other motives.
Again, that might be unfair, but it's one of the burdens which has to be shouldered by people who don't yet have a history or reputation here that people can judge them by.

About all I could suggest is looking carefully at what you write before posting, and doing your best to avoid seeming to even indirectly make any accusations yourself, or seeming keen to talk about details rather than extreme generalities.

Ultimately, in dodgy legal areas, people responsible for the site do have to protect themselves, and people making (or attracting) the wrong kinds of comments could end up with the thread disappearing.

[Matt]

OK then fotworth. I guess I'll have to accept that if it were you in their position then you would indeed decide to make a big deal out of unsubstantiated allegations that the vast majority of the public were unaware of. That when I said "no you wouldn't I was making the assumption that you were a reasonable intelligent person. A reasonable intelligent person wouldn't take this course of action whether they were guilty or innocent.

Yet later on when I said "that's where I'd want the story to say" you say "me too if I had something to hide"

You're not very consistent here. Are you suggesting that only somebody who was guilty wouldn't want their guilt to be very publicly denied? That even when it's spelled out for you in words of two syllables or less you can't understand why even an innocent person would still want the matter dealt with privately?

Why then have you focussed your energies on perpetuating this scuttlebut rather than addressing my earlier insinuation that you might be a spousal abuser? Not here mind you but to actually be consistent with your claims then you should make an even wider audience aware of the suggestion before denying it.

Or do you have something to hide?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

All I can say is this is a terribly misguided conspiracy. Linking the alleged Dunblane 'coverup' with such tripe is truly sick. Everyone knows the Dunblane papers have been locked away for such a long time to protect people who were abused by Hamilton, and the fact that some of those involved in the incident may still be around in 100 years time.

And I do know a bit about Dunblane, as I personally know people that lost their children there.

In fact, anyone that knows the stroy of Thomas Hamilton knows he was a serial pest to the police and politicians. Claiming he was part of some sort of elite is a complete joke. I lived within half a mile of him at the time and his reputation in the community was far from being a figure of the establishment. He was a weirdo and a loner.

[fotworth]

David Icke hasn't retracted any of his stupid claims about various famous people being shape-changing human-eating alien reptiloids either. It's still garbage that only loonies believe.

So you dont think there is a Scotich paedophile ring involing any law inforcement officials ?
Inportant point, DO you trust the BBC ?
What conclution did you arrive at with your thread on the scotich police man ?


http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread.php/4172-Satanic-Ritual-Child-Abuse-is-real

Im skeptical but Im going to see how the reports that are covered on sites includig Ickes pan out.
I wouldent want the situation were any scum could say they was inosent and it must be so because the lizzard man was breaking the story. please answer the three questions that are posted above the link as well as thoughts on the statement below it.

[tolman]

I wouldent want the situation were any scum could say they was inosent and it must be so because the lizzard man was breaking the story.
I wouldn't want the situation where people get accused of very serious crimes with limited chance of defending themselves.

Especially when alleged allegations are about historic events, there's little anyone could do but protest innocence, unless allegations were so specific as to dates/times that there was a chance of someone proving an alibi for things that happened 10 or 20 years ago, and even then, some people would still think/say "I bet the allegations are true anyway, just a mix-up about the dates".

It's an indisputible fact that some people can be consciously or unconsciously guided into thinking abuse happened to them years ago even when that's not the case. People have been wrongly convicted or had their children permanently taken away based on such false memories.
That's why however honestly convinced someone may be that abuse happened, or however convincing they may be, allegations should always be handled very carefully.

If it is concluded that there isn't sufficient evidence of what actually happened to bring a case (or even to be confident about what did happen), making allegations public does end up effectively being a form of punishment without trial for people who have a reasonable chance of being innocent.

To do that just because some people *might* sometimes be guilty isn't what many people would call justice.

[Croydon Bob]

Im skeptical

No, you're not. ;D

[BillyGunfish]

Hmm wasn't Holly Grieg's sexual abuse confirmed by medical practitioners?

Weren't BBC journalists stopped from researching the subject.

Aren't all the legal players in this scandal members of the speculative society. The same scottish lawyers involved with Dunblane and Lockerbie.

The BBC connection mirrors the World in action documentary on the franklin paedophile cover up in the states where the program was pulled at the last minute and all copies ordered to be destroyed. Fortunately one copy survived and can be seen in its entirety on the internet.

What about Marc Detroux and the Beligian establishment. Similar scandals exposed but naturally never prosecuted in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Mexico.

You skeptics crack me up. You live in a bubble and refuse to see the wood for the trees. Black is white. Corruption happens by happenstance. The Bildeburgers are a boy scouts group, chemotherapy is a wonderfully succesful treatment for cancer and our civil liberties are not being curtailed.

Deep down you do realise how limp you all are?

[Admin]

Hmm wasn't Holly Grieg's sexual abuse confirmed by medical practitioners?

Weren't BBC journalists stopped from researching the subject.

Aren't all the legal players in this scandal members of the speculative society. The same scottish lawyers involved with Dunblane and Lockerbie.

Do you have answers to these questions? If so, let's see them. O0


The BBC connection mirrors the World in action documentary on the franklin paedophile cover up in the states where the program was pulled at the last minute and all copies ordered to be destroyed. Fortunately one copy survived and can be seen in its entirety on the internet.
Link to it?


What about Marc Detroux and the Beligian establishment. Similar scandals exposed but naturally never prosecuted in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Mexico.
Another question - how about the answer?


You skeptics crack me up. You live in a bubble and refuse to see the wood for the trees.
Then enlighten us!

And don't use the standard conspiracy theorist's reply of "find out for yourself". ;)

If you have the answers (and by your tone it seems that you think you do) then provide them - with evidence.

[BillyGunfish]

Do you have answers to these questions? If so, let's see them. O0


Link to it?


Another question - how about the answer?


Then enlighten us!

And don't use the standard conspiracy theorist's reply of "find out for yourself". ;)

If you have the answers (and by your tone it seems that you think you do) then provide them - with evidence.


Certainly the Franklin paedophile cover up documentary detailing the US establishment abuse of children can be found here on youtube ;-)

Presumebly if that copy hadn't been saved when all the others were ordered to be destroyed, you would have claimed it was all someones elaborate fantasy. Isn't it great that it survived and paedophile apologists can't claim otherwise. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi7uCghLg1Q

Regarding the evidence that Holly Grieg was abused well back in 1990 a Dr.Paul Carter who was connected to the Children Hospital in Aberdeen and Hollie's school had reported to her GP and Headmaster that Hollie had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. A nine year old who had contracted a venereal disease. Presumebly even in the warped brain of a uk sceptic that is proof she was sexually abused. Two years later in 1992 her teacher reported to Dr. Carter that Hollie was showing signs of sexual abuse because she was pelvically thrusting.

Her Mother in adition had to pay a doctor to examine her because the filth wouldn't investigate. Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity.

Hollie also received compensation. Why give compensation for a crime that apparently hasn't been committed. I don't know perhaps you can explain that one.

For the Dutroux links to 'elite' paedophile rings the panorama documentary detailing exactly that can also be found on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xer8_a7-UiU

The procurator fiscal in charge of deciding whether a prosecution should go ahead in the Holly Grieg case was Elish Angiolini who has previous of course in delaying child abuse claims and also has considerable links with one of the 'alleged abusers Sheriff Buchanan. This is the same woman who has since been promoted to Lord Advocate; the highest law officer in the land

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1331711/Procurator-apologises-to-girl-10-in-sex-case.html

The lawyer representing Angiolini who claims she has been harassed over this case is Peter Watson the head of litigation at Levy and Macrae. Watson was a key lawyer in the Dunblane case as well as Piper Alpha and also Lockerbie. Watson played a key role in the tribunal of inquiry under similarly speculative society member Lord Cullen who was exposed by Lord Burton as being part of a cover up over Dunblane. Current Scottish justice secretary is Kenny MacAskill who is also speculative society and former partner of Watson at you guessed it Levy and Macrae. MacAskill is currently putting through legislation that will gag anyone making allegations that the police and the legal establishment refuses to take on and prosecute.

Lovely friends you have here.

Nothing to see of course. I know a skeptic can't put two and two together so this may be hard for you. I apologise but still kindly respond to each of these points. Look at each of the videos and kindly respond to them too.

Hope you find all this useful ;-)

[Admin]

Lovely friends you have here.

What do you mean by that? :confused:


I know a skeptic can't put two and two together so this may be hard for you.

I've never come across this conspiracy theory before so I'm inviting you to present a well-reasoned and well-evidenced case.

At least I now have an idea of your sources but I can't see anything other than a speculative argument based on very little.

You're making statements like, "Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity." - is there any actual evidence of this?

You see, blindly accepting things that you want to believe is not "putting two and two together" - it's simply being extremely credulous. A true inquirer would be just as sceptical of their own sources as well as those they disagree with.

Now, I don't want to shock and amaze you, but websites such as David Icke's, Jeff Rense's, educateyourself.org, and such like are actually not a reliable source of well-researched and evidence-based information.

[BillyGunfish]

What do you mean by that? :confused:



I've never come across this conspiracy theory before so I'm inviting you to present a well-reasoned and well-evidenced case.

At least I now have an idea of your sources but I can't see anything other than a speculative argument based on very little.

You're making statements like, "Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity." - is there any actual evidence of this?

You see, blindly accepting things that you want to believe is not "putting two and two together" - it's simply being extremely credulous. A true inquirer would be just as sceptical of their own sources as well as those they disagree with.

Now, I don't want to shock and amaze you, but websites such as David Icke's, Jeff Rense's, educateyourself.org, and such like are actually not a reliable source of well-researched and evidence-based information.

Just as I thought you haven't looked at the films. Yorkshire television and Panorama aren't david icke or rense as far as I'm aware. Classic skeptic response ie nonsensical.


The doctor's reports are according to the Mother. I have heard nothing to refute her claims. Doctor's reports are as you are well aware confidential and don't usually have their own urls. For you to actually desire one just reveals your motives as disingenuous.

You failed to respond to any of my points despite my request and despite me taking the time to respond to yours.

I find that unforgivable. Are you the top dog on this site? Really?

P.S Classify a conspiracy theory. All I see here is a massive miscarriage of justice where one of the most vulnerable members of our society has been the subject of a degree of abuse most members of society would find deeply abhorent.

[Admin]

Just as I thought you haven't looked at the films. Yorkshire television and Panorama aren't david icke or rense as far as I'm aware. Classic skeptic response ie nonsensical.
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.


The doctor's reports are according to the Mother. I have heard nothing to refute her claims.

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.


I find that unforgivable. Are you the top dog on this site? Really?

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.


P.S Classify a conspiracy theory.

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


All I see here is a massive miscarriage of justice where one of the most vulnerable members of our society has been the subject of a degree of abuse most members of society would find deeply abhorent.

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.