Um, David Icke isn't exactly a trustworthy source...
Why is the traditional media not picking this story up ?
Either to difend or dismiss it.
LIve radio feed Holly Greig and the paedophile Masons today 2nd of march at 5pm Greenwich Mean Time
Um, David Icke isn't exactly a trustworthy source...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
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.
Last edited by Matt; 2nd March 2010 at 05:34 PM.
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.
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.[QUOTE]
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.
Me too, if I had something to hide
Ill be watching Prisonplanet ,Red ice creations, and David Icke see how they get out of this one.Well you do have a choice.
They aren't shut up,they are puting this out this on the radio
If there is sick people in high office and there is people taking them on,Im impressed.You're rather easily impressed aren't you... This innuendo is anything but complex.
Im very skeptical of our goverment,if someone says theres coruption of course lets see.
Last edited by fotworth; 2nd March 2010 at 06:09 PM.
So you claim that some other sites claim.The person that decides wether or not a prosicution goes forward is one of the acused.
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 Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
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.
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?