How Thatcher’s Government Covered Up a VIP Pedophile Ring

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
I dont know about thinking evil of every one. How ever when it comes to abusing children then a line is drawn IMO. Maggy knew about it with out a doubt, so in my mind she is just as guilty. For allowing it to happen to the children involved who`s lives were destroyed by these vile creatures. Not only Maggy knew but also others within our govt. These people who are there to serve us, allowed evil creatures to abuse us and our children. IMO they should all be arrested and given long prison terms. Children taken from care homes to be abused by politicians? Then filmed by m eye 5 so that they can be black mailed into doing what ever. Evil is not the word for these creatures and those who allowed it to happen. Be it the police or security servises or others within our govt. Cover up after cover up is all we are getting.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that people who commit crimes against children and those who protect them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that doesn't mean that everyone who met that man knew he was a pedophile or in any way protected him. Your icon shows him with Prince Charles and Prince Charles laughing. Is it your implication that Prince Charles is culpable in some way? If it is, you should prove it. Suggesting that someone is a pedophile or is colluding with or protecting a pedophile when they aren't should also be a criminal offense.

I don't know how complicit the royals are if at all but the level of vetting that goes on by the security services to hang out with them in a social capacity makes it pretty much impossible for those agencies to miss.

I had a girlfriend who started as a runner at the bbc nearly 15 years ago, within a month of starting she'd told me about the rumours which I didn't really believe at the time. They included the necrophillia, the hospitals and also a story about an underage girl who hung herself in Saville's house that was covered up which I have no doubt will eventually come out as well as other prominent celebrities at bbc who had been arrested quietly that I won't name here but I have since reported. It wasn't just an open secret it was openly discussed even amongst the new staff.

I'm judged by the company I keep and limit my social circle accordingly, I don't see why the royals who are afforded an even greater ability to scrutinise theirs should be held to a different standard.

The security services protect the royals against physical harm. They don't give them social advice. The royals meet thousands of people every year. Prince Charles attends an average of something like four events a day. It's an absolute fantasy to believe that background checks are done on every person the royals meet. It doesn't happen. If it did, there would be no reason for security to be present at all times.

I'm willing to bet that you and I have met people and spent time with people who, unbeknownst to us, have committed crimes. The difference is that we aren't under scrutiny every waking moment and haven't been photographed with every person we've chatted with for 15 seconds at a social gathering. Nor are those occasions when we've spent time at the homes of people during social gatherings recorded for public consumption and scrutiny after it turns out that some of them weren't very nice people. Then, too, some people have a perverse need to make up horrible lies about people and spread rumors about them: life destroying rumors. The royals and other famous people are routinely subject to vile rumors about themselves being spread so it's no wonder that, even if they were aware of rumors about people who are, how shall I put this?, below their station in life, they would pay them no mind.

That card was on the net Tangerine until it was scrubbed. I had a copy of a picture not the actual card. 15 minutes? he spent a lot more time than 15 minutes with savil, he even used him as a marriage guidance councillor when him and Diana were splitting up. No wonder he ended up marrying that horses head he`s with now. Any way they are not the true royals of this country, the real king lived on a farm in Australia. So at the end of the day he`s just a jumped up kraut who is pretending to be english royalty. Squatting in our palace. We the people own it and just about every else those vile in bred w*ankers have. The govt is hard on people on benifits. There is a whole family squatting in buck house, who havent done a days graft in their lives. They even have some guy to wipe their asses. Proberly one of the gay servants that Diana was on about that she caught charlie boy giving him a good buggering. No wonder she wanted out of there. Getting back to the thread its about time we had access to all these files that are locked for 100 years. Then we would know the truth of maggie and her gang of paedos who are in our govt. Controlled by the whips and their black books. No doubt that was why m eye 5 were in Elm Tree guest house filming them so that once in power they could tell them what to do.

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
That card was on the net Tangerine until it was scrubbed. I had a copy of a picture not the actual card. 15 minutes? he spent a lot more time than 15 minutes with savil, he even used him as a marriage guidance councillor when him and Diana were splitting up. No wonder he ended up marrying that horses head he`s with now. Any way they are not the true royals of this country, the real king lived on a farm in Australia. So at the end of the day he`s just a jumped up kraut who is pretending to be english royalty. Squatting in our palace. We the people own it and just about every else those vile in bred w*ankers have. The govt is hard on people on benifits. There is a whole family squatting in buck house, who havent done a days graft in their lives. They even have some guy to wipe their asses. Proberly one of the gay servants that Diana was on about that she caught charlie boy giving him a good buggering. No wonder she wanted out of there. Getting back to the thread its about time we had access to all these files that are locked for 100 years. Then we would know the truth of maggie and her gang of paedos who are in our govt. Controlled by the whips and their black books. No doubt that was why m eye 5 were in Elm Tree guest house filming them so that once in power they could tell them what to do.

Oh, so the card was something you found on the internet. LMAO. And you know he used Savile as a marriage counselor how? Let me guess: you read it on the internet. And the real British monarch lives on a farm in Austria. How do you know that? Let me guess: you read it on the internet. Sorry, but your credibility has bottomed-out. Your sexual fantasies about the royals are intriguing, but not for the reason you think. Has it ever occurred to you that your posts say far more about you than about your targets?

Evidence: you know, the stuff that actually stands up in court. Names, dates, your eye-witness testimony or other proof.

Lol, as far as i remember there were names, dates and eye witness testimony. As for going into it here, it would be disrespectfull to the OP as it would start to derail this important thread, but i suspect you already know that!

Just make a post on the original thread (ive been waiting for you for about a month) and i will happily address

Oh, so the card was something you found on the internet. LMAO. And you know he used Savile as a marriage counselor how? Let me guess: you read it on the internet.

Here is a good article Tangerine:

goo.gl/Ddw8uR

(sorry for the short link, the long one would not work.. it only links to the Telegraphs website)

Fresh evidence of the extent to which the Prince of Wales relied on Jimmy Savile as a confidant and adviser is revealed for the first time in a controversial royal biography published later this week. The Prince asked Savile to read over his speeches and to provide his thoughts on how they might be improved, as well as asking his advice on matters to do with health policy.

You didnt research it in any way did you tangerine? You just made an assumption that the poster was incorrect. Facts, and research works both ways you know.

So, the poster was right and your assumptions were wrong, sorry bud

You know, its hard to accept, but sometimes, the things you read on the internet turn out to be true, how about that eh? Magic

originally posted by: HumanPLC

Evidence: you know, the stuff that actually stands up in court. Names, dates, your eye-witness testimony or other proof.

Lol, as far as i remember there were names, dates and eye witness testimony. As for going into it here, it would be disrespectfull to the OP as it would start to derail this important thread, but i suspect you already know that!

Just make a post on the original thread (ive been waiting for you for about a month) and i will happily address

No. Fact is the purview of science and is based on testable evidence as examined via the scientific method.

Courts are based on the rules of law not science.

Proof is a mathematical concept.

Accusing someone of committing a crime isn't convicting them of a crime in a court of law or do you prefer that we skip that step and go directly to lynching? Perhaps you'd like to specify the specific person being accused and exactly that about which they're being accused. The OP is about the Thatcher government covering up a VIP pedophile ring.

The OP is about the Thatcher government covering up a VIP pedophile ring.

So, can we now agree that you were wrong and that Jimmy Saville was closley linked to Charlie! Based on a biography written about him, thats gotta be strong enough evidence, even for you, lol.

Lets get back to that then shall we

originally posted by: HumanPLC

The OP is about the Thatcher government covering up a VIP pedophile ring.

So, can we now agree that you were wrong and that Jimmy Saville was closley linked to Charlie! Based on a biography written about him, thats gotta be strong enough evidence, even for you, lol.

Lets get back to that then shall we

Evidence of what? What does that prove that is significant? Prince Charles meets and spends time with thousands of people every year. What is your specific point?

Here is a picture of savile and maggie. As this is about her covering up for paedos, then its relevant for this thread and yes Tangerine I found it on the net. Oh look there is tony bliar in the frame or should I call him miranda bliar as he was known at school when he used to dress up as a girl.

a reply to: Tangerine


My specific point? It was your point as far as i am aware however i will come back to that in a second.. What happened is that you attempted to ridicule the poster by stating the following:

Oh, so the card was something you found on the internet. LMAO.

he used Savile as a marriage counsellor how?

Sorry, but your credibility has bottomed-out.

With regards to what he said about Jimmy Saville being closely linked to Charlie and the royals; however as it transpired, you were wrong! Thats cool, everyone is wrong now and again. But, more importantly, what it has shown is that you didn't take any time to look into it or research anything, you just stated he was wrong without even taking the time to check your facts... That my friend is disinformation, and you do it a lot! Especially on threads that could be perceived as anti establishment / royal.

Prince Charles meets and spends time with thousands of people every year.

Here you go again, moving the goal posts oh so very subtly. Of course he meets thousands, its his job but they are all vetted. But that's irrelevant, the context of this was, as mentioned by the poster with regards to Saville having access to Buckingham palace and being close to the royal, that's what you challenged, so yes, of course Charlie meets thousands but not all of them are given access to the palace, like Saville was.

I will be clear, I believe your purpose here is to cause argument and therefore muddy the water (the thread) and i would urge anyone to look at your posting history as you have a history of calling people out and then ignoring them or moving the goalposts when they supply the evidence you always ask for.

Do me one favour! As you like to call people out and ask for evidence, how about you back up your own claims first. And i would urge everyone to look at this.

In a previous post on this thread you state:

Prince Charles attends an average of something like four events a day. It's an absolute fantasy to believe that background checks are done on every person the royals meet.

Now, i say you are flat out wrong as i know for a fact that everyone is vetted. So, in light of that, can you supply the evidence that you rely on to make that statement.

Dont muddy the waters, just supply the evidence that forms the basis of your claim.

Prove you are not just saying things for the sake of it because to do so is against ats terms and conditions.

Evidence please

a reply to: illuminnaughty

God there is nothing more ignorant and racist than people saying he's German!!!!! if you Xenophobia wants to break out why not call him Greek, at least that's a closer relation then his great grandfather.

a reply to: wasaka

Amazing how this only emerges when TPTB want it to emerge.

a reply to: HumanPLC


Since when has ATS been a 'Gossip Column'

I clicked on your link which states it is an unauthorised biography the
author, Catherine Mayer did not have exclusive access to Charles,
(probably the same access as Saville had - and then grossly exaggerated and
expanded upon for publicity in the same manner as Saville?)

Nothing that she has written cannot be gleaned from general press releases
already out there in the media. The following phrases litter her claims and
are exempt of FACTS.>>>>

# He is often described as

# He takes an active interest in issues challenging to the UK

# The Queen fears? ...LOL! (She has never spoken to the Queen)

# Finding ways to employ young people, who are unemployed (Princes trust)

# Multiple conversations with insiders = (personal opinions not fact)
lead me to the understanding

# Over the past 40yrs he has visited countless places and met numerous
people LOL!...(that would include Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, and iffy MP's)

# She *claims* that she was given *remarkable access* and achieved
*exclusive interviews* with his *inner circle.* (When in FACT officially
she was afforded a rare interview where she was given a tour of his estate by
Charles.

Clarence House has stressed the biography was not an official one
and that Catherine Mayer had NO *exclusive access.* She had in fact
a brief interview for a Times Magazine interview over a year ago. She
attended events as part of the press rota like any other member of the media

Some very iffy gossip not much FACT in there

Wilson the family name had to be changed to Windsor. That one who abdicated said that german was the spoken language of his family. The greek? Wasnt his sister was married to an SS officer? While we are at it there is the case of Harry and the nazi uniform. That is like spitting on every British soldier`s grave who fought for this country against those evil nazi germans.

a reply to: illuminnaughty

Yes they changed their name during the War, so show they considered themselves British, the one who abdicated might well have spoken German, how dare these pesky statespeople speak more than the english language how very unbritish to be more than monolingual.
There were huge amounts of the british populance that supported the Nazi, doesnt make them german,
Amd dressing up as a nazi, lots and lots of people do this at fancy dress parties all over the country, bad taste for a prince but again hartdly makes him German.
It's just pure xenophobia to call british citizens German because you dont like them.

Since when has ATS been a 'Gossip Column'

Its a conspiracy website, lol

I clicked on your link which states it is an unauthorised biography

Oh, okay, it was unauthorised... Does that mean its not true? Was it blocked by the royals?

Nothing that she has written cannot be gleaned from general press releases
already out there in the media.

Ohh multiple sources then!!!

Let me ask you a question, as it seems that you have just looked at that article and basically tried to discredit it in any way you can. Have you even looked for other sources? you know, like the multiple press releases (as you put it) out there in the media beacuse its not just that article is it, lets be honest!

Mate. People knew about Jimmy Saville, to think that people in showbiz circles knew of his alleged activities, but the royals with all their security, vetting, etc didn't is preposterous!

I know a lot of people find it hard to accept but on the basis of recent facts that have come to light it seems that paedophelia/paedophiles may be present in our royal family and most certainly our establshment, etc. No amount of arguments are going to disprove this! So what i would say is come back when you have a proper argument to refute this and we will talk some facts

a reply to: HumanPLC


Unauthorised meaning....

No more private information than is already out there in the public arena.
Something cobbled together from reams of articles supposition and hearsay.
Nothing of a personal nature which is after all what a biography is about.
She only ever had a brief interview with him for Times Magazine ... Yet she
is privy to his private thoughts and personnel life ... LOL!

Conveniently you left out that she made comments supposedly coming from
the Queen when it has been officially stated that she has never
even met the Queen?

The "author" claims personal conversations with "insiders" with no names and
NO FACTS to back them up.
She claims she was given *remarkable access* and *exclusive interviews*
when in fact she only had the one brief interview for the Times Magazine
the rest of the time she followed the engagements like all the other reporters!

I dare say if you dig deep enough you might come across a photograph of
myself with Jimmy Saville taken around 1970 at the Jersey Festival of Flowers
when I had occasion to meet him regarding some publicity stunt. (There were
more photographers there than flowers) And if you did ....

Would that make me a secret paedophile

a reply to: Tangerine

We're not talking about attendees at public engagements which of course are incredibly hard to vet and would be an unfair expectation; we're talking about personal guests at a royal residence. Those people are intensely vetted as a matter of protocol by the security services for obvious reasons.

I'm willing to bet that if it turned out you repeatedly had the most prolific child rapist in history over for Christmas and other festivities you would probably react like most sane individuals and create distance from that person and their crimes as publicly as possible while condemning their actions. I certainly would.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

"There were huge amounts of the british populance that supported the Nazi,"
WTF are you talking about? & it's British with a capital 'B'. Cheers.
We went to war against them we didn't support them.
"dressing up as a nazi, lots and lots of people do this at fancy dress parties all over the country"
He's not "lots of people", he's a potential future King of the UK! FFS! But hey lets just excuse this behaviour as a youthful indiscretion,
"Harry and the nazi uniform. That is like spitting on every British soldier`s grave who fought for this country against those evil nazi germans."
What he said.

a reply to: HumanPLC

When someone accuses someone of being a pedophile because of an ALLEGED card they ALLEGEDLY wrote that was ALLEGEDLY posted on the web but is nowhere to be found, then that claim deserves to be ridiculed. When someone accuses someone of being a pedophile due to guilt purely by association, then that claim deserves to be ridiculed.

Do you actually think Prince Charles personally vets everyone admitted to the Palace? Certainly not. To then blame him because the people who are ALLEGEDLY supposed to vet such people either did not do so properly or did not operate on rumor is absurd. Saville was an entertainer who enjoyed access to many famous and powerful people and social circles. If you want to claim that Prince Charles knew that Saville was a pedophile (that is he was in possession of factual evidence) make the claim and back it up. Note that rumors do not constitute factual evidence.

If you believe that every person Prince Charles shakes hands with every day is vetted, you are in the throes of a fantasy. He shakes hands with people on the street and people who have gathered outside virtually every event he attends. Presidents and Prime Ministers do the same. Those people are not vetted.

You seem to have a deep-seated desire to smear the royals. I ask you to consider the possibility that you have unknowingly met and possibly even invited disreputable people into your own home. It's possible we all have. I suspect that your motive is hatred of the royals for reasons that have nothing to do with Saville. You are entitled to believe that the very notion of royalty is absurd but you do not have the right to accuse them of heinous crimes without citing evidence that they have committed those crimes. Imagine yourself being accused of a heinous crime based solely on rumor and speculation and without evidence.

I want to be clear that I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for anyone convicted of child molesting but I do not believe in bypassing the legal system and lynching people either literally or in the court of tabloid newspapers or the internet.