'Number 10 link to paedophile ring'

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


When I read 'Paedo Ring' ... I immediately think of little girls under the age of 10 but actually these stories involve girls from 13 upwards!!

I'm not saying its right because it is still underage but maybe some of these girls were actually putting themselves forward for sex.... think about it, there are young teens wanting to get to know famous people, their eyes all starry-eyed and such.... and also there are many who start out having sex at a young age! Also many look older than their age so at 13 she may look 16 or may even say she is 16!

Maybe I jumped the gun with this thread as I thought we were dealing with those under 10!!

The age of consent is in the UK is 16.
ALL of these girls & boys (as far as we know) were under age.
People over the age of consent have a duty and responsibility to not encourage or take advantage of under age children.... yes, they are children and all people involved in the sexual abuse, molestation and sexual activity with these children are paedophiles.

There is no excuse...

Also these were famous people and the people running our country.

Also Jimmy Savile "allegedly" abused children who were sick, ill and dying in hospital.


Your comments and attitude are exactly the reason things like this go unchallenged and people walk back out of rooms as Jimmy Savile fondles a 13 year old girl...

"Oh well, maybe she wanted to... she was 13"


Seriously?

#ing Ridiculous.

We do know of Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville and Jonathan King who were paedophiles and prosecuted for this.
We also have Bill Wyman taking Mandy Smith to France when she was 13.

What is so wrong about the JS case is that he deliberately targeted vulnerable girls - those from broken homes, knowing that they would never be believed. The fact that they are 12 or 13 doesn't make it right.

I have read the articles on the internet - it is Operation Ore that Tony Blair stopped that has me most intrigued. Clearly there is someone in the cabinet at that time who was on that list - and would have brought the (labour) government down - would he have kept quiet if it was just a Tory?

reply to post by blupblup


I did say 'it doesnt make it right'

You must have seen young girls who act and look a lot older??

I have.... many get into clubs these days!

Anyway, this is about a ring where young boys and girls get abused not about young girls who go out to clubs!!

Get back to the topic.... its not right to abuse those who have no say or are underage!!

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Lot's of them got into Savile's clubs too.

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
reply to post by blupblup

 

I did say 'it doesnt make it right'

You also said you may have jumped the gun and that abusing 13 year olds isn't as bad as those under 10.
Maybe it isn't... who knows, but your attitude is just crap.

You must have seen young girls who act and look a lot older??

I have.... many get into clubs these days!

And... WTF has that got to do with anything?

Jimmy Savile and others preyed on young children from broken homes and shipped them in from care homes to systematically abuse them....

And abused kids in hospitals.

# knows what this other Paedo ring did.... politicians...

:shk:

Anyway, whatever,..

reply to post by something wicked


I didnt say anything about you speaking english. It was your understanding of what is written and I dont mean syntax errors. I was referring to the convenient ignoring of words which set context like "more" etc. I intimated that there maybe be some involvement on JM's part and at the very least in the 90's cover up. Just because I said he gave me the creeps doesnt mean I was suggesting he was a P, but there are always possibilities. And I have thrown no libellous anything. I have mentioned no one by their name! And not brave but more careful than yourself!!

Your response and previous responses reflect your niave and argumentative mindset. They also reflect a clear ouch!!

Watch the news and how the JS story develops....

D.p Sh.t!!!

Originally posted by magoo22
reply to post by Guyfriday

 

No I don't think 'they' will start a war to cover this up, I never said that. I think 'they' have already pushed us into war constantly since ages gone, we still are in Afghanistan etc, look at the world mate it's all war!

Oh ok, I see what your saying. Makes sense too. Just like how a Prince gets deployed when they need to cover up bad behavour in the UK, or how a kid would get kidnapped in the US when the last President had something that they wanted covered up.

I thought you were implying that they would push an "all out war" to cover this up, and not use the current situation. Sorry I misunderstood.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Guyfriday
This could explain why those dead girls were found on the Queens property over the last few years. (I'm not saying she had anything to do with it, but those stories did go away fast)

Also this shouldn't surprise anyone. "Skull and Bones" has a ritual where members stand before each other (nakied) and confess their sexual misdeeds. From my understanding this is done once a year to re-establish bonds between members (regardless if they're still at Yale, or not). What a great way of controlling others in power. Allow them to sexually act with no regards to morals, then use that information to control them. Classic "S&B".

First of all, the royals are not involved in the MP's office, they're mostly ceremonial at this point.

So it's doubtful that a friend of an MP's aide would also have ties to the royal family.

Secondly, the skull and bones rumor about the sexual confessions has never been confirmed. And there have been many leaks from former bonesmen, but none of them say this happens.

And these leaks have been many, you can find lists of bonesmen all over the net.

When you consider they have been co-ed since 1992, I seriously doubt this goes on.

If the royals only hold a ceremonial interest then please explain who letters to numerous government departments would be restricted?

Freedom of information request into his letters have been denied and if the intererest are only ceremonial then where is the justification

Prince of Wales letters: letters 'a threat' to Charles as King

Originally posted by something wicked
Hmmm, ok, The murders on royal estate were followed up, I watched on the BBC website out of interest, but as they were not actually related to the Royal family (i.e. there was no evidence to link them) they were treated as local news. Sad maybe, but people are murdered every day, again sadly, so not all make national news throughout the lifecycle to arrest and sentencing.

Could I get a link to this. It seems that I missed something, and if I did I would like to know what it was.

With the skull and bones thing, interesting, but is that for another topic.

I was just pointing out that this style of behavour isn't anything new (I could also have used the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought that was to extreme of an example)

With your last point about swinging type groups, we may all hold an opinion, but if there is no crime committed, not sure what the issue is? I may agree with it, I may not - you may also hold either opinion, but if it is between consenting adults, then there is no crime (there may be a divorce as a result, but that is a different matter).

I was only pointing out that many groups are simular to this type of activity, but we only hear about the ones that get caught doing something illegel. Thats all.

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
reply to post by something wicked

 

I didnt say anything about you speaking english. It was your understanding of what is written and I dont mean syntax errors. I was referring to the convenient ignoring of words which set context like "more" etc. I intimated that there maybe be some involvement on JM's part and at the very least in the 90's cover up. Just because I said he gave me the creeps doesnt mean I was suggesting he was a P, but there are always possibilities. And I have thrown no libellous anything. I have mentioned no one by their name! And not brave but more careful than yourself!!

Your response and previous responses reflect your niave and argumentative mindset. They also reflect a clear ouch!!

Watch the news and how the JS story develops....

D.p Sh.t!!!

Do you mind not saying things like D.p Sh.t!!! as though it vindicates what you say? I'm struggling with how you are retracting all of what you originally said. You mentioned an individuals name and then put a question mark against it with absolutley no evidence to suggest there was a reason to do so apart from your opinion that he 'gave you the creeps'. Your opinions (and the level of changing the subject) is giving me the creeps, what opinion should I form about you? See how easy it is to do this?

You said "Dont you read english well!" Reading and speaking and spelling are kind of connected, don't you think? A syntax error is not about being able to spell a word correctly, not sure why you would use that as an excuse for you saying I cannot understand English when you can't spell in it.

Anyway, you said you were off, your responsible carer must be waiting to put you to bed.

Credit to Magoo22 for posting these other areas to investigate


"Some related stuff to Google.

Jersey care home scandal.
Operation Ore (Major paedo sting) cover up, D notice by Tony Blair stopped any reporting on the investigation.
Canadian genocide linked to Catholic Church and Royal Family.
Dunblane cover up. Listen to Sandra Uttley's Dunblane Uncovered on youtube.
Ken Clarke MP outed as a paedophile by Ben Fellows former child actor.
Islington care home scandal and Harriet Harman MP's role in it.
The Hollie Greig case in Scotland.


Just a few of many saddening incidents."

There was an interesting episode of the Keiser Report last month where they interviewed a woman exposing a huge cover up on the island of Jersey. She claims that the cover up goes all the way to the top and if it was to get out it would bring down the british government.
Check it out:

www.youtube.com...

skip to 12.40

reply to post by blupblup


I got mixed up with some article someone posted which had a story of Saville and some underage girl in a hotel!

I got confused for a while but am now back to abuse to young boys and girls!!

There is a difference between Abuse and Underage Sex (meaning those who willingly did it knowing they were underage)

I hope you get my point.

This will be related to Masonic clubs, politicians, celebrities and possibly even royalty.

I kind of predicted this would happen a week or so ago. I said Jimmy Savile was only the tip of the iceberg and then mentioned two incidents in the 70's were a politician was busted by a police raid at a grooming party and another politician was reported to have visited the Jersey kids home several times....

On another note - Police are considering re-opening the Jersey case.

reply to post by rolfharriss


Has anyone noticed if you talk about a UK conspiracy you don't come across professional debunkers, but if you discuss any US ones like 9/11 et al you get a swarm of organised opposition ! Must be UK budget cuts

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist



Yeah man...

No worries

Originally posted by Guyfriday

Originally posted by something wicked
Hmmm, ok, The murders on royal estate were followed up, I watched on the BBC website out of interest, but as they were not actually related to the Royal family (i.e. there was no evidence to link them) they were treated as local news. Sad maybe, but people are murdered every day, again sadly, so not all make national news throughout the lifecycle to arrest and sentencing.

Could I get a link to this. It seems that I missed something, and if I did I would like to know what it was.

With the skull and bones thing, interesting, but is that for another topic.

I was just pointing out that this style of behavour isn't anything new (I could also have used the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought that was to extreme of an example)

With your last point about swinging type groups, we may all hold an opinion, but if there is no crime committed, not sure what the issue is? I may agree with it, I may not - you may also hold either opinion, but if it is between consenting adults, then there is no crime (there may be a divorce as a result, but that is a different matter).

I was only pointing out that many groups are simular to this type of activity, but we only hear about the ones that get caught doing something illegel. Thats all.

Hi, with the Royal estate one, hard to say. You know how much ground is covered by Royal estate? Do you have a particular case I could give a link to?

With the skull and bones thing, why purposefully mention the catholic church? I'm sure groups saying they are part of any faith or none faith based communities could be involved, or not be involved in such things. Forgive my ignorance but I did not know that the catholic church was directly involved in that college - is it?

For the swinging groups question - then how do you know the majority are illegal? If they aren't, so what, if they are, that's a different matter.

reply to post by something wicked
Bankroller of conservative party lord Mc Alpine,highest judges in the land,royals,top police officers,MP's and entertainers,infact so many in key power roles that the "establishment" may never be trusted again

reply to post by rolfharriss


This might be what you mean?

www.dunblaneexposed.info...

or

stolenkids-dunblane.blogspot.co.uk...

reply to post by magoo22


Hey, I know as much as you know, but I do know that just because it's on the net doesn't mean it's true unless it can be proven, that's all. I also know that the press will jump to sensationalistic headlines to sell papers, it doesn't mean it's the truth unless there is proof.