Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're taking the royal wee

No, I think everyone should know.

In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.

We should know if they hate Jews. People who question the establishment are very often guilty of anti-semitism. OK, it might not be identifiable as such, in which case we refer to it as "structual anti-semitism". I learned all this stuff on U75.

ETA : the people cited were doing this many years ago, like many others including David Icke.
 
Indeed. She discussed it in a more general doc about the group, her and other sisters went pretty far in saying what they thought without saying what they felt they could not say.
 
Louis+Theroux+and+Jimmy+Savile+

not a million miles from turquoise

usurping the garb of the prophet - blasphemy :eek:
 
Consider

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/252...work-is-obstructing-police-investigation.html

and

Interview from 12m 30s



Both relate to a fairly widely discussed possibility of child abuse and cover up which may or may not have substance to it, and could be worth re looking at in view of recent revalations *

* Caution: people involved in production of these items may

1) Be unable to accept that things happen by co-incidence

2) Hate Jews, overtly or in a more opaque "structural" sense

3) Have a disgusting propaganda agenda, including the plainly self-seeking agenda to treat some systematic child abuse allegations with a degree of appropriate seriousness instead of the moral response which is to say it's all tinfoil hat nonsense presumably made up or imagined by those who say they are victims.

4) Deserve to be scorned, despised and groundlessly accused of treating Icke like a hero.

Any data pertaining to these possibilities is fully appreciated.
 
No, I think everyone should know.

In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.

We should know if they hate Jews. People who question the establishment are very often guilty of anti-semitism. OK, it might not be identifiable as such, in which case we refer to it as "structual anti-semitism". I learned all this stuff on U75.

ETA : the people cited were doing this many years ago, like many others including David Icke.

NO you idiot. did anyone say it was anti-semetic to say that saville was a paedo and how horrific it was that it was all covered up for decades? of course not every criticism of a coverup is an example of anti-semitism :facepalm:

of course they didn't when he wasn't fucking jewish anyway!

the only anti-semitism is when people like icke go on about the banks and the bilderberg group, trying to link this coverup of saville's child abuse to a conspiracy about "international bankers" and the bilderberg group - saying that because this conspiracy occurred that the bigger conspiracy must be true.
 
Consider

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/252...work-is-obstructing-police-investigation.html

and

Interview from 12m 30s



Both relate to a fairly widely discussed possibility of child abuse and cover up which may or may not have substance to it, and could be worth re looking at in view of recent revalations *

* Caution: people involved in production of these items may

1) Be unable to accept that things happen by co-incidence

2) Hate Jews, overtly or in a more opaque "structural" sense

3) Have a disgusting propaganda agenda, including the plainly self-seeking agenda to treat some systematic child abuse allegations with a degree of appropriate seriousness instead of the moral response which is to say it's all tinfoil hat nonsense presumably made up or imagined by those who say they are victims.

4) Deserve to be scorned, despised and groundlessly accused of treating Icke like a hero.

Any data pertaining to these possibilities is fully appreciated.


you fuckin opportunist prick
 
you fuckin opportunist prick

Broadening out a discussion based on events is synomymous with opportunist?

Is it Bollocks.

I don't even know much about the above issue. I do think it is worth consideration and I don't think it is opportunist to say so. Exactly what do you suppose I gain by it?

Oh, did you find where I said Icke was my hero?

You seemed so certain, it can't be that hard to dig up.

Or was it another pile of nonsense that you sanctimoniously act upon with fuck all to substantiate it?
 
"broadening out a discussion based on events" did you fuck, you opportunistically started talking about your favourite theories about international bankers, the bilderberg group, and the like and implied that because of the jimmy saville revelations people will have to start examining these a bit more closely, or at least not dismiss them

you then started saying that people who dont subscribe to such bollocks must view any attempt to expose conspiracy's like saville's cover up as anti-semitism and implied - disgustingly - that we think that the victims are making it up

i think most people can work out who's talking a pile of nonsense here
 
NO you idiot. did anyone say it was anti-semetic to say that saville was a paedo and how horrific it was that it was all covered up for decades? of course not every criticism of a coverup is an example of anti-semitism :facepalm:

of course they didn't when he wasn't fucking jewish anyway!

the only anti-semitism is when people like icke go on about the banks and the bilderberg group, trying to link this coverup of saville's child abuse to a conspiracy about "international bankers" and the bilderberg group - saying that because this conspiracy occurred that the bigger conspiracy must be true.

I was only using the endemic crime of the banks as an example. There were other examples too.

Most bankers and banks are not Jewish. It's a systemic, political and economic issue and not one of ethnicity or faith (apart from the faith of the cult of capital perhaps)

I don't know the motives for Icke devotees going on about the banks as they did or do, but it's very possible in many instances that they were opposed to a corruption they rightly suspected, and it has / had nothing to do with the Jews.

I put up a serious post raising some serious issues. The first response to that was "It's the jooooooooz" invoking that that post was anti-semitic, in "humour" or otherwise. I don't recall if you "liked" that post or not.

My purport remains, it remains serious and it remains, IIRC utterly unspoken to due to a desire to chase some very typical red herrings:

1) Patterns of awful behaviour and cover-up are alleged over decades and routinely scorned.

2) Some then turn out to be true, with a concurrent cognitive dissonance narrative of "knowledge and suspicion was widespread/how shocking - nobody could have known"

3) It is therefore reasonable to soberly re=examine some of the other patterns that were alleged.

Do you have anything to say about this, or are you going to continue at froth factor 11 and attribute motivations and thoughts to me and others with little or no reason?
 
I was only using the endemic crime of the banks as an example. There were other examples too.

Most bankers and banks are not Jewish. It's a systemic, political and economic issue and not one of ethnicity or faith (apart from the faith of the cult of capital perhaps)

I don't know the motives for Icke devotees going on about the banks as they did or do, but it's very possible in many instances that they were opposed to a corruption they rightly suspected, and it has / had nothing to do with the Jews.

I put up a serious post raising some serious issues. The first response to that was "It's the jooooooooz" invoking that that post was anti-semitic, in "humour" or otherwise. I don't recall if you "liked" that post or not.

My purport remains, it remains serious and it remains, IIRC utterly unspoken to due to a desire to chase some very typical red herrings:

1) Patterns of awful behaviour and cover-up are alleged over decades and routinely scorned.

2) Some then turn out to be true, with a concurrent cognitive dissonance narrative of "knowledge and suspicion was widespread/how shocking - nobody could have known"

3) It is therefore reasonable to soberly re=examine some of the other patterns that were alleged.

Do you have anything to say about this, or are you going to continue at froth factor 11 and attribute motivations and thoughts to me and others with little or no reason?
perhaps taffboy think its time to "soberly re=examine" the case of William of Norwich
 
"broadening out a discussion based on events" did you fuck, you opportunistically started talking about your favourite theories about international bankers, the bilderberg group, and the like and implied that because of the jimmy saville revelations people will have to start examining these a bit more closely, or at least not dismiss them

you then started saying that people who dont subscribe to such bollocks must view any attempt to expose conspiracy's like saville's cover up as anti-semitism and implied - disgustingly - that we think that the victims are making it up

i think most people can work out who's talking a pile of nonsense here

I picked out a few examples from the top of my head, I could have picked others.

The response was for others to indulge their favourite theories as well.

Obviously, if routine child abuse is alleged and people scorn the possibility there is an inference that the victims are making something up. I haven't accused anyone here of that.

Did you find the bit where I said Icke was a hero? The teasing has gone on long enough now I think.
 
I picked out a few examples from the top of my head, I could have picked others.

The response was for others to indulge their favourite theories as well.

Obviously, if routine child abuse is alleged and people scorn the possibility there is an inference that the victims are making something up. I haven't accused anyone here of that.

Did you find the bit where I said Icke was a hero? The teasing has gone on long enough now I think.

you didn't say he was a hero but it's obvious that you think it. interesting that you are - yet again - derailing a thread involving in an actual institutional conspiracy to derail discussion of that and onto the "international bankers", if i was as paranoid as you i would think it was part of some conspiracy myself
 
Frogwoman

The original post I put up behind this spat cited Police, Media and The Roman Catholic Church as well as The BB group and International finance.

ViolentPanda soon put up a post "it's the joooooooooz" which you liked?

Why did you suppose I made that post with an opportunist agenda alluding to anti-semitism?

Is it because you are the opportunist, indulging your favourite theories.

I do not consider international finance crime to be an arm of the jewish or any jewish agenda, because it isn't.

I do not consider the BB group to be an arm of the jewish people or any jewish agenda, because it isn't.

If you have evidence that I do, please post it along with my hero worship of Icke that you keep hiding from us.
 
and another thread about a serious government/establishment coverup gets derailed into anti-semitic conspiracy nonsense. you're not questioning the establishment, you're helping it

Really? Who brought up anti semite conspiracy nonsense? Oh, it was you. And VP (whose comment you liked)
 

from your link
Jersey abuse case: 'Old boy network' is obstructing police investigation

An "old boy network" of officials is deliberately obstructing police investigating decades of alleged abuse at care homes in Jersey, according to the police officer who spearheaded the inquiry.


Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper angrily hit out at the figures who he says have engaged in a "day by day attack" on the inquiry team and the alleged victims of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and other island institutions.


In his most outspoken criticism of the Jersey authorities, Mr Harper told the Telegraph: "I can quite clearly say that the investigation is being held up. There are people on the island who just don't want us going down the route of this inquiry."

Mr Harper, who handed over the reins of the investigation to his successor on Thursday and officially leaves the Jersey force at the end of the month, also revealed fresh details of why he is so convinced that someone deliberately concealed the bones and teeth of five children, perhaps after murdering them.
But he has effectively conceded defeat in the quest to discover exactly how the children died, and who might have killed them, as forensic tests have failed to establish how old the bones are.

"If the test results on the final samples are no more accurate, then the answer is that something very nasty happened in there, we don't know exactly what, and because we can't prove who or what it was there is no possibility of a successful homicide investigation," he said.

Mr Harper has repeatedly said that because some of the 100 bone fragments had been cut, and because the 65 milk teeth found at the home had roots on them, meaning they did not come out naturally, children were either murdered or their bodies were illegally concealed.

But he has faced ridicule from some of the island's politicians, one of whom nicknamed him Lenny Henry, and who will, no doubt, be pleased to see the back of a policeman who has dared to break what he claims is Jersey's code of silence by digging up dark secrets from the past.






He said: "We have had problems dating the bones, but instead of people saying how unfortunate it is that the science can't be of more help to us, the politicians are saying 'this is a waste of time'. The fact that we're trying to bring people to justice for awful abuse is ignored and it's just a constant day by day attack on the inquiry and on the victims."

You do know, don't you, that Harper was made to look like a complete idiot when the "bone fragments" that he had declared were evidence of murder and child sacrifice turned out to be mostly animal bones? The only human bone fragments recovered were tiny and hundreds of years old. Part of a child's skull recovered from the site was eventually analysed and proven to be an ancient piece of coconut shell.

Of course this does not mean that there was not an old boys network in Jersey or that rumours of clandestine networks of child abusers that conspired to pervert the course of justice are baseless.

What it does mean is that, due to Harper's idiocy in confusing animal bones and coconut shell with human remains, he was ridiculed and make to look like a right tit, thus making his claims of conspiracies and secret societies also appear foolish and deluded.

If there really was / is a cabal of powerful people in Jersey who are conspiring to cover up child abuse on a massive scale (I cannot claim to know the truth but it would not surprise me if such a cabal exits / existed) the members would rejoice in the knowledge that Harper's evidence free claims and deluded ramblings served to detract from their activities.
 
you didn't say he was a hero but it's obvious that you think it.

No I didn't say it, that's related to the fact that I don't think it. But you say it's obvious I do think it, and if that is the case then you have no problem providing the evidence.

In being so inflamatory without basis, it again appears to be you who is derailing things a great deal more than I.
 
the "basis" is your posts stretching back years which consistently defend the idea of these mad and poisonous theories.
 
No, I think everyone should know.

In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.

We should know if they hate Jews. People who question the establishment are very often guilty of anti-semitism. OK, it might not be identifiable as such, in which case we refer to it as "structual anti-semitism". I learned all this stuff on U75.

ETA : the people cited were doing this many years ago, like many others including David Icke.

Yes. Because the only people who question the establishment are those who believe in mental banking conspiracies which were, whether you like it or not, first "theorised" by antisemites.

You accuse others of using strawmen then come out with this? You dishonest little shit. In pretty much every thread on here you will find people criticising the establishment yet utterly failing to be accused of antisemitism. How does that work?
 
I have to say that I can't work out if it's frogwoman or her foul-mouthed boyfriend, to be honest.

you think it's OK to use the abuse of hundreds of children to promote icke and his anti-semitic "banking conspiracy" filth? also you just replied to this thread to slag off dotty, who has nothing to do with the arguement and has not replied! yet another decent thread gets derailed AGAIN
 
Taffboy, you say that Icke being right about Savile (he accuses pretty much every public figure of paedophilia so he's bound to be right about one eventually) means that we should take the rest of his lunacy seriously.

So does that mean that if it turns out that your beloved banking conspiracy is correct we should also look into Hitler's theories around Jewish plots aimed at world domination since he was right about the international banking conspiracy?

Or is it just to your favoured loons that we should extend that honour?
 
you think it's OK to use the abuse of hundreds of children to promote icke and his anti-semitic "banking conspiracy" filth? also you just replied to this thread to slag off dotty, who has nothing to do with the arguement and has not replied! yet another decent thread gets derailed AGAIN

I'm simply not used to you using such aggressive languge, frogwoman, so I wondered if it really was you posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom