Cameron says people could start a witch hunt for homosexuals.

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I wonder if it might start a which hunt against conservetives?
...

just sayin.

After the Holly Greig scandal and all...




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
[snip]


I agree. I have two gay friends, and they both know i'm Heterosexual so they don't proposition me, if they did i would smack them so hard even their ancestors would feel it.
edit on 9-11-2012 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The names at this point do not matter. These groups and the networks are what we need to expose.

Like the cells in the French Resistance movement you did not break the underground movement by killing the radio operator. You followed the lines to unearth the network.

savill was known to be a paedo at least by the mid to late 90's. Why was he not pursued then, why wait to act on complaints and accusations until now, well after his death? Oh yeah he can’t talk now can he.

His family took down the headstone almost as the news broke. If my family member was meant to be an angel and after his death I would need to be positive about the truth and their actions indicate this was not news to them

Like a drug pusher on the street corner savill was just the front man and in the end small beer. We need to find who he was supplying and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

You want to see an end to this filth then we need to unearth the web then you will find the spider.

I want to know why

1. The media took so long to take an interest and it still appears they dont want to go past celebs
2. The continued reluctance of the plice to pursue any complaints of this nature
3. Why politicians who were happy to slam the BBC seem reluctant to treat acusations of their group with the same venom
4. Why the emails of all the MP's who passed a bill allowing unfettered access to our emails without permission do not seem to be included.
5. Why do they tell us we must always take seriously what children tell us but they never do.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
The names at this point do not matter. These groups and the networks are what we need to expose.

Like the cells in the French Resistance movement you did not break the underground movement by killing the radio operator. You followed the lines to unearth the network.

savill was known to be a paedo at least by the mid to late 90's. Why was he not pursued then, why wait to act on complaints and accusations until now, well after his death? Oh yeah he can’t talk now can he.

His family took down the headstone almost as the news broke. If my family member was meant to be an angel and after his death I would need to be positive about the truth and their actions indicate this was not news to them

Like a drug pusher on the street corner savill was just the front man and in the end small beer. We need to find who he was supplying and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

You want to see an end to this filth then we need to unearth the web then you will find the spider.

I want to know why

1. The media took so long to take an interest and it still appears they dont want to go past celebs



I'm not sure why some of this persists. The media did take an interest in Savile a long time ago. In 2000, Louis Theroux asked him about paedophilia for his documentary. Savile had been asked before that in other interviews. The Sun even connected him to Jersey children's home scandal in 2008 but Savile took out legal proceedings.


2. The continued reluctance of the plice to pursue any complaints of this nature


The police did question him. It was the CPS that didn't take it further. There's no rhyme or reason as to why the CPS decide some things are worth pursuing and why some aren't. However, it's not on the police's say so. Often the police are stymied by the CPS, even with cases far more mundane than Savile's activities. Savile was a massive public figure, any case the CPS brought against him would have had to have been water tight.


3. Why politicians who were happy to slam the BBC seem reluctant to treat acusations of their group with the same venom


This one's more straight forward: the BBC is a political football and one that many Tories would love to puncture and kick off the pitch completely.


4. Why the emails of all the MP's who passed a bill allowing unfettered access to our emails without permission do not seem to be included.


One law for us and one law for them. With or without paedophilia.


5. Why do they tell us we must always take seriously what children tell us but they never do.


see above.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
www.telegraph.co.uk...

So Cameron thinks a witch hunt could start over the paedos scandal. Really David? Homosexuals are not paedophiles . Its nothing to do with gays unless they are raping children. Hes trying to muddy the waters in my opinion. Protecting his friends in govt who are involved in this scandal. Full marks for Mr Schofield for giving him the list on morning TV.


Homosexuals are not pedos? Tell that to Rome, they employ the largest population of homosexual pedos in the world. So is it just bad luck Rome happens to shell out priests who have a penchant for little boys' bootieholes? Well now having a "celibate man" comes alot easier when you forbid them to marry women they aren't attracted to anyways.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Homosexuals are not pedos?


Some homosexuals are paedophiles but are all homosexuals paedophiles? That's the question here.

A lot of paedophile men molest little girls. Are you going to extend your faulty reasoning and say that all heterosexuals are paedophiles too? I somehow doubt that and predict this is somehow 'different'.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


So every paedophile is a homosexual Catholic priest?

What utter nonsense.

The vast majority of homosexuals are as disgusted with paedophilia as the majority of heterosexuals are.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
there is a thick line...between gay and peado


peace



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferryman
I think David CaMORON is bricking it, and you could tell that by the look on his face during the interview, he went a whiter shade of pale.


I agree, i've watched it closely several times, he was worried, how close to HIM does this get?

By the way, I've often been tempted to spell his name like you have "caMORON" but to be honest, I feel its an insult to the morons.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Questions.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm glad someone in power over there is speaking out about the scandal, even though Cameron could have an ulterior motive .

As for his statement on this being a witch hunt, America could do much much worse if Obama or any other elected official came out and said something like this.

Imagine hearing reports of roving gangs attacking innocent gays and lesbians for being suspected pedophiles/child molesters (like there isn't any now). "But that's America, you'll say," Until it starts happening in your respected countries.

Cameron need's to watch his words carefully, despite trying to cover it up in the video.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
edit on 9-11-2012 by TheToastmanCometh because: double post- wtf lappy stop this



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Interesting blog article



This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s cultural fact. We are playing for big stakes here, and the Establishment knows it. A great many senior public figures could find their career histories dramatically changed….along with their daily place of residence.



hat4uk.wordpress.com...
edit on 9/11/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by Ferryman
I think David CaMORON is bricking it, and you could tell that by the look on his face during the interview, he went a whiter shade of pale.


I agree, i've watched it closely several times, he was worried, how close to HIM does this get?

By the way, I've often been tempted to spell his name like you have "caMORON" but to be honest, I feel its an insult to the morons.


True Voidhawk but what else would you deem him as?. If you called an "Amoeba" that would be an insult to single celled organisms. Or a Cretin that would cast aspersions on Small minded people, or a Mental Dwarf that would be taking the Urine out of Small people. The list goes on, and the list goes on about the dirty perverts in power.
If i had my way i would stand the lot of them against a wall, and shoot them, pure, and simple, they are a waste of skin.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Interesting blog article



This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s cultural fact. We are playing for big stakes here, and the Establishment knows it. A great many senior public figures could find their career histories dramatically changed….along with their daily place of residence.



hat4uk.wordpress.com...
edit on 9/11/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


Did you watch Newsnight, last night. Very weird. They are now to stop ALL Investigations after getting it wrong with the witness and lord McAlpine. Maybe I'm just being paranoid r have spent too much time on here. But this looks like the beginning of the cover up that we discussed yesterday. It's all smoke and mirrors and misdirection. Making witnesses look like liars and frauds. Hence ensuring no more come forward with their story. This whole thing stinks and I just know it is all going to be hushed up, forgotten by Christmas



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 
I find it very hard to believe that a person raped 20 years ago would not have seen at least one photo of his attacker and now changes his mind when he finally gets the public’s attention. Yep I find it very hard to believe.

I don’t find it hard to believe the government wants to gag the BBC and scare off the others. The name was never mentioned. It was all over the internet and so the action against news night looks excessive

The clamour for names will likely let this mob of the hook. The whitewash is going on in very thick layers.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well as long as its not just me who thinks that. It's such a bizarre way this story is playing out. I will give the government and the police the benefit of the doubt to investigate this all properly for the sake of my own sanity.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 



Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 
I find it very hard to believe that a person raped 20 years ago would not have seen at least one photo of his attacker and now changes his mind when he finally gets the public’s attention. Yep I find it very hard to believe.

I don’t find it hard to believe the government wants to gag the BBC and scare off the others. The name was never mentioned. It was all over the internet and so the action against news night looks excessive

The clamour for names will likely let this mob of the hook. The whitewash is going on in very thick layers.




But Steve Messham didn't change his mind and he saw (he said ) maybe 6 dozen photos of the rapes and abuse!



"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine," he said.


www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/09/steve-messham-apologises-lord-mcalpine


So in the original 1990's investigation it was the Police who told Messham his abuser was McAlpine!


These disadvantaged kids in this home would have no idea what people in government looked like, no internet, not likely to read the papers, so easy to manipulate, why would the police do that?
This guy has been the victim of so many dirty tricks (such as trying to prosecute him for fraud when in fact he had compensation money for the abuse he suffered) but people will not read about them, just the main stream media's manipulation of the facts.

Yes the whitewash is in full swing.

IN the original investigation one of the people involved admits evidence was destroyed.



Photographs of men abusing boys in the North Wales paedophile scandal were deliberately destroyed by the authorities, it was revealed today. Sian Griffiths worked for Clwyd Council in the inquiry office on the 1994 Jillings and six years later on the Waterhouse inquiry which looked into the systematic abuse at the children’s homes. She told ITV News that victim Steve Messham’s photos of alleged abuse were ordered to be destroyed.


www.mirror.co.uk...

Ordered to be destroyed by whom?
edit on 10-11-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Just wanted to add this interesting bit of info;

www.mirror.co.uk...



Steven first publicly named his attacker 15 years ago at the 1997 judicial inquiry into the care ­scandal, but the Press was barred from ­reporting his shocking allegation. A second witness is also ­understood to have named the grandee, but has since disappeared. The third confirmed witness has died. But campaigners say more ­victims are expected to come forward.


As far as I know the witness that died burned to death in a suspicious house fire. I think this may deserve it's own thread.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I suspect Messham was set up by the police by their telling him the wrong name for the man he recognized in a photo as having abused him. This way, his testimony could be discredited as unreliable when the error was discovered in subsequent legal proceedings. But of course the police would deny that it was THEY who made the mistake.
This is the only way I can explain the problem raised by his retraction, namely, how the police could have given him the wrong name. It HAD to be deliberate! After all, it was NOT Messham who made the supposed error of identification - it was the police, if you can believe that.


According to the Telegraph, another abuse victim who eventually became a councillor has suggested that Messham confused Lord McAlpine for another man who was a member (now dead) of the McAlpine family because Messham said that the man had several cars, and this member owned one of the largest car collections in the country. This has been accepted by the media uncritically. However, it proves nothing, for Messham's abuser could have driven to the hotel where the abuse took place on different occasions in different cars to reduce the chance of his car being identified if Messham went to the police. Either Messham was given false information deliberately by the police or else he has been threatened to retract his accusations.





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join