'Number 10 link to paedophile ring'

Hi all, good blog from Jersey's Voice for Children. voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk... I'm yet to watch the interview, I will when I get chance. Peace out and out the perverts.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


Marc Bridger the man charged with aprils murder was a royal protection officer,he would have met the royals and theres a good chance he would have met sir jimmy savile.april jones killers link to the royals

reply to post by rolfharriss


If our leaders are being blackmailed and controlled, we have treason and our country may have been hijacked.

How can we trust an independent investigation? They are always establishment figures who carry them out so is it down to the public to demand an election and ban all current M.P's from the process. We select new candidates to represent us who are not part of the ruling elite.

Only 7% of the population goes to private school, so only 7% should represent us in government. The whole system is corrupt!

Originally posted by thebabyseagull
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

Marc Bridger the man charged with aprils murder was a royal protection officer,he would have met the royals and theres a good chance he would have met sir jimmy savile.april jones killers link to the royals

No it was his father, not Mark Bridger.

Originally posted by thebabyseagull
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

Marc Bridger the man charged with aprils murder was a royal protection officer,he would have met the royals and theres a good chance he would have met sir jimmy savile.april jones killers link to the royals

From your own link, it states that Mark Bridger's dad was a Royal Protection Officer, not Mark Bridger.

Beat me to it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I have been trying to follow this thread. This week has been rough, as I have been working crazy 18 hour days. So, can someone help a brother out?

I understand that there is a 1992 case that someone was convicted in. And evidence from that case points to the headline story here. Not being a Brit and exposed to Brit news, I am wholly unfamiliar with the rest.

Is there a brief synopsis that might help me understand what is going on here a little better? On the surface is looks like in 92 they let known sex crimes continue for political expediency. I am very interested in this, as there have been whispered rumors for years that there is a pedo ring at the top of both UK and US government.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


A bit difficult at this stage to give you any actual facts, tbh (despite what some may claim). Very basically, a former aide to Downing Street has been accused of being involved (or, more accurately, having links) with a high level paedophile gang. Aside from this, very little actual detail is known at this stage.

We also know that David Icke accused Ted Heath years ago of being a paedo - no evidence though. And it is David Icke, so it could be true or it could be some of his confessed mumbo jumbo!

For some reason though, the fact that a former aide is involved has led it become "No. 10 link to paedophile ring". As i said in a different thread, if someone at my place of work is found to be a paedophile, that doesn't mean we would be a company of paedophiles - it would mean we had a sick f***** working for us.

It is a bit like this Jimmy Saville raid at his property in the Highlands. That is being circulated in some circles as evidence of Royal involvement, because Prince Charles once visited him there!

Honestly, the way some of this is being accelerated is simply frightening. Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if we return to the 90's and have vigilante attacks by thick t**** on Paediatricians.

Originally posted by Flavian


For some reason though, the fact that a former aide is involved has led it become "No. 10 link to paedophile ring". As i said in a different thread, if someone at my place of work is found to be a paedophile, that doesn't mean we would be a company of paedophiles - it would mean we had a sick f***** working for us.

You're missing out a very important aspect of this story; the suggestion that a former LIVING Prime Minister was also implicated in the ring.

This is not just about the Downing St aide, there were reportedly accusations made against a former Prime Minister of this country. I believe that was also linked through the aide and through the evidence gathered after the arrest of a member of parliament.

Association does not automatically mean guilt. But the accusations are there based on a source who claims that there was evidence that a Prime Minister was involved. If that evidence exists (and personally I don't believe it will ever see the light of day even if it does exist) then association to Saville or the aide is irrelevant.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Edward Heath, outed years ago by David Icke. As i said though, the problem we have with David Icke is that he himself confesses to making stuff up (as well as being proven correct in other things). This means it could be correct, it may not be.

It definitely needs investigating, but, again, even if he is found guilty it doesn't link Downing Street to paedophilia. It would mean instead that one of our former PM's is a sick person.

My problem with these stories at the moment is that only the barest facts are coming out (rightly, as they are being investigated) and yet conclusions are being reached on these barest of facts.

In any other walk of life, us ATS'ers (in particular) would be saying "what are all the facts?". Probably because this is such an emotive issue, this entirely sensible and logical approach seems to have gone out of the window.

Again haven't had chance to watch the video but part 3 of this makes some big claims against Prince Philip in particular. www.theworldoftruth.net... I'm not claiming it's true but I am not easily shocked any more. Thought it could be relevant to this growing scandal.

Child actor Ben Fellows just said former Justice Minister Ken Clarke touched him up and the incident was filmed secretly on the Cook Report, for which he was hired as an undercover investigator. This film was never shown but still exists. Live explosive interview here:
www.ukcolumn.org...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



I would guess that. the accusations might well include Lord Mcalpine and Tony Derek Laud. Investigative journalists have claimed that foreign dignitaries and diplomats were filmed abusing kids at a North Wales children's home and then blackmailed. Between 1991 and 1993, North Wales Police mounted a huge retrospective investigation and subsequently referred some 800 allegations to the Crown Prosecutions Service. Fewer than 3% of these referrals proceeded to trial, much to the dismay and mystification of many of the alleged victims and of the adults who knew the extent and nature of the alleged abuse.

Edward Heath, outed years ago by David Icke. As i said though, the problem we have with David Icke is that he himself confesses to making stuff up (as well as being proven correct in other things). This means it could be correct, it may not be.

I'm not aware that David Icke has ever confessed to making stuff up. Can you provide some evidence of this?

Latest results are that there is over 300 victims of svile. 300 victims over a period of 40-50yrs and no one knew about all this? A single child complaining about svile, could be written off but 300?
The police must have known about svile. There can be no other conclusion. So why was he not arrested? He was protected and thats what we should be focusing on. Who covered up for him.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Latest results are that there is over 300 victims of svile. 300 victims over a period of 40-50yrs and no one knew about all this? A single child complaining about svile, could be written off but 300?
The police must have known about svile. There can be no other conclusion. So why was he not arrested? He was protected and thats what we should be focusing on. Who covered up for him.

The BBC for one, Savile was their pot of gold, with him they could do no wrong because of his Charity and TV work.

There was no way they would let him be taken down unless he himself outed himself.

I'm pretty sure the Hospitals in some instances had knowledge of his activities.

I think it goes without saying that friends DID know as well as people higher up, who knows, he might have been supplying links to the children to others in high places.

Disgusting goings on, never liked the man, met him when teaching and called him something rather rude because of his attitude, he just looked back and smiled.

reply to post by detachedindividual

I fear we may never find the truth,as it appears the people involved are "investigating" themselves.

A list of 104 paedophile councillors, or uk party affiliated members:

chris-ukorg.org...

You can place a safe bet that if paedophilia is rife in the lower levels of gov ...there will be an equivilent or greater number at the top - protected by each other. imo.
Im gobsmacked .. is this who`s running our country????

Above link does not contain heresay or name unconvicted offenders.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

The ramifications of this story get wider and wider. A famous case, that of Haut la Garenne in Jersey, Channel Islands, is being quoted a lot because Jimmy Savile used to go there - but, it is claimed, children from the school were loaned out to visiting yachtsmen who took them out on their boats for a 'day out' and assaulted them when they were out of sight. I am reminded that Prime Minister Edward Heath was a yachtsman and unmarried. A police investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of children at Haut la Garenne fizzled out but subsequently a number of the staff there have been successfully prosecuted for abuse of children.
The case of Hollie Greig illustrates how abusers can avoid retribution.
The problem lies in the fact that abusers cover for and protect each other. It is claimed that very powerful people, in the police, the judiciary, and even minor royalty, are involved. When people speculate about how investigations are dropped for 'lack of evidence' it's worth while considering that the interests of the abused pale into insignificance when compared to the damage that would be caused to, for example, the monarchy, or other institutions of the state.
At the moment UK police are investigating 400 leads from 300 complainants - this is the biggest child abuse investigation ever to have been carried out in the UK. Let's see where it goes.

From 2010 in Portugal, same thing. Politicians and TV celebrity paedophiles abusing children in care home's. www.independent.co.uk...

This is global.

Article by Robert Green in prison for defending Hollie Greig. holliedemandsjustice.org...

reply to post by something wicked

If I stated that you had abused me, wouldn't you want some evidence to prove that before the vitriol is poured?

It isn't always possible, and usually the opposite, to prove something with actual evidence-yrs after the fact. Especially when/if the victim was a child at the time of the crime, a child who would be thinking of only their survival and not collecting evidence.

I don't know if it is true or not - you believe them because you want to, evidence or facts would be nice though wouldn't it?

Evidence would be nice yes. Do you disbelieve based on facts?

Sometimes all we have is one persons word against anothers and that can make things difficult, but not impossible.