Nearly everyone on UK paedophile ring list is a Freemason says abuse victim

reply to post by lifttheveil


I don't know about this Freemason suggestion, I think it's very weak.
You could also say that nearly everyone on the list is a Conservative, nearly everyone is wealthy, nearly all of them attended an all boys school, nearly all of them grew up in a Catholic family... there are too many things in common to suggest that this stems from something like the Freemasons.

But...

Assuming that the allegations against many of these people are true, there has to be something in common here. They would have to know who was on "their side". These freaks wouldn't have just been able to rock up at a children's home and hope that someone there was a sicko too. There has to be a network, a way in which these people communicated and met.

When other groups are exposed there is a clear network of associates, and some of these include men in the police force.

How did this happen in a time before the internet? This is something that people are underestimating now that we have phones and the net and can meet various people all over the place so easily. It wouldn't have been that easy back then, there would have to be an underground system, a secret group, a club of some kind.

While I think it is wrong to have that list out there (because it is going to harm justice and we don't know the evidence, just the accusation) I am not so certain that justice will actually be done. If, as we fear, there are very senior living politicians involved in this scandal, and the previous investigations have proven to be corrupt, I think it's likely there will be another cover up.

They're having a inquiry into the previous inquiries! That proves that this process is nothing more than a whitewash.

One of the men leading a previous inquiry admitted that he only focussed on the staff of the children's home, and that all accusations against mysterious rich people pulling up in cars in the middle of the night to take kids away were never investigated! That's the accusation made against politicians and some wealthy elites of this country. That, to me, suggests that they didn't want to uncover this, that they deliberately ignored the cases that they knew would implicate their rich and powerful buddies.

I honestly don't believe right now that justice will be done unless the press actually investigates this themselves. We need some credible investigative journalism to get to the roots of this, because the corridors of power are corrupt to the core, from police to government to judges.

I still think that there is an international link. I find it highly suspect that we have secret events like Bohemian Grove every year, where there are existing accusations involving all kinds of senior business people and politicians, and we have the Franklin scandal, again implicating plenty of politicians in the US at the same time - and with similar stories of children taken from homes in the dead of night by rich people in private cars... all happening at the same time. There are even similar stories of politicians in clubs abusing kids in other European nations too.

I think several things need to happen...

1. All people working for those children's homes from the 1970's, 80's and 90's need to be interviewed, under caution, with independent law students present as witnesses. They need to be made clear that if they know something and do not report the historical evidence they will be charged with obstruction of justice or worse.

2. All aides and assistants of those accused or suspected should be interviewed in the same way, and threatened with the same thing. These people would have known, and many might have used it to further their careers.

3. All police officers and investigators who worked on those cases back then need to be brought in and face the same questions.

4. All senior staff of the BBC at the time accusations are focussed need to be treated in the same way.

All of those who had an opportunity to participate, or who investigated and potentially destroyed leads or ignored instances need to face some serious questions.

Lets not forget that aside from the political accusations, there are massive accusations against numerous people at the BBC during that time too.

I really do believe that we are looking at something truly deep and truly international here. Other cases openly show that there are links to Germany, France, Portugal, Belgium, potentially the US and other nations too. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing similar stories of elites of business and government involved in these cases too, they are all connected - I just don't think it's anything to do with the Freemasons. I just think there is a web of connections throughout the police, legal system, children's homes, care services, schools and government.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

I think you are missing my point. You questioned why masons might jump to defend masonry on a thread that had "mason" in the title. I think it's common sense.

If I made a thread about how people who have a camel in their avitar are actually into bestiality and primarily with camels, don't you think you might step up and try to explain how silly that aligation is? Unless............

seems you fellas have been infiltrated by some vile people, as is the case across the globe. the same can be said of many institutions, the govt., the churches and so on. i guess the question left is how do you ever, as a group/society, see the light of day after you have been branded by the doings of a few.

i'm sorry for all who are members of this group who must now convey something to their friends and spouses as to the validity of themselves or their affiliation with the masons.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by newcovenant

Not too surprising from a group that disdains women and will not let them join in their reindeer games.

Now we know why.

Women don't always sit still for pedophilia.
Men have to watch their backs and will shut up about it as we have seen over and over again.

Your posts state that Freemasons are child-rapists and hate women. Do you think even the many married freemasons hate women? And what do you think the percentage of Freemasons are that rape children? Or do you think thats the general policy of Freemasons?

When you wage slanderous lies about people, thus hurting them, their families and their business, you could at least back it up with some detail, reference or a shred of evidence. Or are you one of those faceless internet-posters who cowardly hides behind a moniker to spew hate and ill-will at every opportunity?

I said it was not surprising TO ME.

You inferred the remainder.

To protect your particular lodge, den, nest, whatever.

Others will defend the College they went to and take pride in, the Boyscouts they send their kids to or the Church they choke up a donation for every Saturday or Sunday depending. It is all the same. When you have hidden people doing hidden things there is room for corruption and that is where these horror stories happen. Don't see many little boys getting buggered during the light of day. Fact remains, where you hide, you will find others also hiding, unsavory at best, some thieves and scoundrels - not sterling characters such as yourself.
They are not all honorable men performing secret rituals in secret like you and your friends may be.
Does this bother you or even weigh heavy? Or are you self righteous and defensive?
One response might help to save children from scoundrels.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

I think you are missing my point. You questioned why masons might jump to defend masonry on a thread that had "mason" in the title. I think it's common sense.

If I made a thread about how people who have a camel in their avitar are actually into bestiality and primarily with camels, don't you think you might step up and try to explain how silly that aligation is? Unless............

While I've already said that I don't think Freemasonry is the link here, you also have to look at this from the perspectives of others.

Don't you think that being a part of a highly secretive group of men might open up all kinds of questions? Secret societies cannot exist in a modern society without suspicion. If there is nothing to hide, why all the secrecy?

I'm not making any accusations, as I said I don't really believe that there is anything seriously untoward here, but it does need investigation. Would you say that the Bohemian Club is 100% above board and should be left alone to practice their secret rights every year in the forest? Do you criticise others for being suspicious of that too? Why is Freemasonry supposed to be so above suspicion?

I'm just pointing out that secret societies deserve some scrutiny. You would expect that in many other instances. What makes a secret society any different from a dangerous cult or a terrorist cell? They all are closed, they are all highly secretive, the members protect each others interests...

You can't seriously be a part of a secret society and expect everyone else on the outside not to be highly suspicious of the highly secretive group of men in their communities. The idea that people are wrong to be suspicious about this is what is fundamentally wrong here IMO.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

I think you are missing my point. You questioned why masons might jump to defend masonry on a thread that had "mason" in the title. I think it's common sense.

If I made a thread about how people who have a camel in their avitar are actually into bestiality and primarily with camels, don't you think you might step up and try to explain how silly that aligation is? Unless............

seems you fellas have been infiltrated by some vile people, as is the case across the globe. the same can be said of many institutions, the govt., the churches and so on. i guess the question left is how do you ever, as a group/society, see the light of day after you have been branded by the doings of a few.

I made a similar point, earlier on. All groups, societies, circles of friends, school tie networks and whatever, will have a percentage of people that will be guilty of something or other.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s paedophile relied on home development photography and would have hidden in plain sight as photography enthusiasts. Now we have the internet and it's unlikely that the previous 'shutter-bug' demographic doesn't exist any more and it's been replaced by computer/internet 'enthusiasts'. Does this mean we should have looked at all amateur photographers with suspicion? Look at people who spend too much time on the internet with suspicion? We could be following paedophiles from demographic to demographic, all the while casting aspersions on each demographic as we go. It's the same with the Freemasons: it says as much (or rather as little) to me that there's Masonic paedos as it does that some paedos used to spend a lot of money on development fluid in Jessops.

That some paedophiles are also Masons means absolutely nothing to me as there's no real connection between the two because if it wasn't the Masons, they'd be using photography clubs, youth club or scouts leadership and so on. No one, in their right mind, would question the nature of the Scouts organisation itself because of paedophilic interest. It's not the scouts that's the problem, it's the paedophiles and it's the same with the Masons.

Honestly, I'm more bothered about Tory party affiliation within the Masons as every Mason I've ever met in real life and heard about regarding any kind of scandal was right wing in their politics.

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by stumason

 

Stumason, the prime minister has embroiled himself in this situation by making a comment that at best can be seen as a little stupid, at worst, running interference by using a minority group as a defence against the full investigation of the allegations.

Philip schofield a long time advocate of child protection, and a person who has made their name and a good part of their living from childrens television was in a position whereby he could ascertain the political will to see the claims investigated with the full backing of the PM's office.

The fact that the PM didn't even look at the list, and then USED a minority group as a defence against getting behind an investigation, doesn't fill me (a member of the public) with warm fuzzy feelings that business will be taken care of properly.

To be honest, i think he said what he did about Gay people because he knows many on the list are, therefore there would be an automatic presumption made by some that Gay = Kiddy fiddler, causing a Witch hunt.

Ironically, the same is happening in this thread. The mere mention of them being Masons now has people up in arms about Masons being Kiddy fiddlers....

Originally posted by The X
The PM's office has been used in the past to ensure police investigations are done properly.
The killing of PC kenneth blakelock during the broadwater farm riots a case in point.
Also the cash for honours enquiry in which the prime ministers office openly welcomed investigation of itself, during which Tony Blair was interviewed three times by police.

I think you'll find, in both cases, any Parliamentary or other Government enquiry ALWAYS happens after the Criminal investigation is completed. It is entirely inappropriate for a PM to push (or dissaude) the Police in any investigation. Specifically, the Cash for honours might have had the PM's office open to investigation by the Police, but they did not instigate the enquiry or attempt to control it, they were merely questioned as anyone else involved. In fact, the Police pushed for Blair to stand as a Prosecution witness, something he resisted.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

I think you are missing my point. You questioned why masons might jump to defend masonry on a thread that had "mason" in the title. I think it's common sense.

If I made a thread about how people who have a camel in their avitar are actually into bestiality and primarily with camels, don't you think you might step up and try to explain how silly that aligation is? Unless............

Of course I wouldn't feel the need to explain as it's a ludicrous accusation, I'd just ignore it unless it was a personal attack by you on me, in which case I'd post a one liner and move on, as I'm doing now

To be honest, i think he said what he did about Gay people because he knows many on the list are, therefore there would be an automatic presumption made by some that Gay = Kiddy fiddler, causing a Witch hunt.

And if you were honest you'd have to admit that what he said was wrong. Even if we look at it from your point of view, he still is the person that revealed to the media that the people on this list ar Gays, Phillip never said that and never would

reply to post by lifttheveil


Indeed, not defending what he said, per se, but just trying to put myself in his shoes. He is probably aware of the list and therefore is probably aware of how many homosexuals might be implicated. All he was saying, I suppose, is not to assume Gay = Paedophile, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by lambros56
Well thank god Schofield never mentioned any names.

Unlike when the police, media and government accused Liverpool fans of causing the deaths of their fellow supporters at Hillsborough.

What has that got to do with the price of Fish in Grimsby on a Wednesday?

You know quite well what I'm on about.

I say we'll done to Philip Schofield for doing what other so-called journalists haven't got the bottle to do.
Its upset you that he handed a list to Cameron that obviously had him stumped ( hence the gay issue ).

You seem to think its unfair that names are being put out on the Internet and certain people are being accused.

But when it comes to thousands of ordinary football supporters being accused by police, government and mainstream media of disgusting crimes over two decades, you play ignorant.

I'm sorry but I'm not taken in by our government, royalty, police , banksters,media and judiciary .

This paedophile ring has been hushed up by those in power for too long so I was happy to see Cameron sidetracked.

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by lambros56
Well thank god Schofield never mentioned any names.

Unlike when the police, media and government accused Liverpool fans of causing the deaths of their fellow supporters at Hillsborough.

What has that got to do with the price of Fish in Grimsby on a Wednesday?

You know quite well what I'm on about.

I say we'll done to Philip Schofield for doing what other so-called journalists haven't got the bottle to do.
Its upset you that he handed a list to Cameron that obviously had him stumped ( hence the gay issue ).

You seem to think its unfair that names are being put out on the Internet and certain people are being accused.

But when it comes to thousands of ordinary football supporters being accused by police, government and mainstream media of disgusting crimes over two decades, you play ignorant.

I'm sorry but I'm not taken in by our government, royalty, police , banksters,media and judiciary .

This paedophile ring has been hushed up by those in power for too long so I was happy to see Cameron sidetracked.

What you are stating is just the proven corruption of police and government, we know all of this.

That doesn't change the fact that publishing a list of people and accusing them of some disgusting crimes without any evidence is not only morally wrong it is criminal.

I agree with you that trust in the police and government is at an all-time low, and I would not be surprised if they do attempt to cover it all up. But publishing a list of names of those accused or just "suspected" doesn't help anyone at all.

If anything, it allows for more covering up, more criminality and corruption, and less chance of justice actually being done.

The press should be hounding the politicians and police, they should be investigating and opening up new avenues of connections and investigations, but that does not mean publishing names of people who there is little or no evidence of actually having committed any serious crimes.

Plenty of those sources I have seen are weak, accusatory, and even list consensual acts between adults as though they are the same as the abuse of kids.

If that is what the PM has seen, then I fully understand his fears and why he felt the need to make that statement.

I read through a link earlier listing names and their supposed crimes, and some of those are listed because they were caught having their jollies with an ADULT BOYFRIEND! That is not a crime, and accusing them of being child molesters because they were caught once having fun with another man is insane!

This is a major problem, and I fear it's only going to get worse as more complete idiots read these lists and associate "caught having sex with a man" with "caught abusing children". They are not the same thing, one has nothing at all to do with the other. Those making such accusations should be arrested.

We need to get at those who have actually committed offences that can be proven, and homophobes or political crazies wanting to use this case as a way to attack individuals they don't like should be arrested.

reply to post by lambros56


To be honest, I don't know much about Hillsborough and was even less aware that people had been publicly named, if they had, then fair enough. I haven't seen anything to indicate they were, however.

I am aware of the Sun and Police comments initially following the disaster, which were largely met with widespread derision but the official Taylor report, even in 1990, blamed the Police.

So again, what's your point?

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by blupblup

 

My sentiments exactly. This thing is already on its way to being covered up and the narrative changed to what Philip Scholfield did. Apperntly mcalpine has put his accusation down to misidentity, bringing into question the allegations. Remember People like mcalpine will have access to the smartest lawyers on the planet, who will have every eventuality covered. So we just sit back and watch another case get white washed and covered up.

We can have our sacraficial lambs like Savile, freddy star and glitter, meanwhile the real power will get away with it.

There is a right way, and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way.
1. make list
2. verify that people on list are what you claim they are
3. publicize list.

If you skip number 2, you are probably full of #2.

Your right there is a right way and wrong way to do things.
1. Child complains to police they are being sexually abused.
2. Police investigate claims.
3.. Possible offender faces judge and jury.

See what has happened, is number 1. It never seems to get as far as 2 and 3 or if it does it gets covered up never to be heard of again

The children involved in this whole sordid affair were primarily in care and were extremely vunerable. They didn't have anyone to turn to, or at least give credance to their claims and therefore all of this was easily brushed under the carpet.

This isn't about people from sectret societies. political parties or indeed their perceived standing in society.

It's a matter of whatever background they are from, regardless of what priviledges they may have had, they need to be reported to the police and a full unbias investigation carreied out.

With regards to Cameron's response to being handed the list, it was purely a knee jerk reaction, because he did not have an advisor on hand to come up with a response for him. What you have to remember the majority on the list are his chums. He did have an air of 'what part of untouchable do you not understand' about him.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
What you have to remember the majority on the list are his chums.

Are they? The thing is that anyone can make a list and hide behind the relative anonymity of the internet while possibly innocent people are destroyed. There is no justice in that.

Some people on this thread are ranting about past mistakes and cover-ups - quite right so, as these were affronts. If the whole affair is to be properly resolved then accusing people without any due process is also an affront. I am surprised people don’t see that!

Already there is one more victim being added. That of a possible false accusation and a reputation of the verge of being destroyed. No one profits from this, least of all the abused. Look to www.bbc.co.uk...

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Cameron knows that there has been a cover up on this sordid story. He should stop trying to confuse issues by playing the homphobe card and ensure that a new inquiry is set up, independent from any political interference.

I appreciate that making lists and accusing people without firm evidence isn't the way to act in these circumstances, but it needs action and it needs action now.

reply to post by newcovenant

Not too surprising from a group that disdains women and will not let them join in their reindeer games.

Now we know why.

Same with the Catholics, but we still trust them to hold confession in little boxes with little boys, yeah?

double post.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by lifttheveil

 

If I made a thread about how people who have a camel in their avitar are actually into bestiality and primarily with camels, don't you think you might step up and try to explain how silly that aligation is? Unless............

Do you have video footage of a police chief and councillor saying that this needs to be investigated?
Do you have anything to go on?

If yes, that that would be the same as what you're talking about.

The person your replying to did not "make up" this allegation..... it's out there, on the news... in the REAL WORLD.

\
This entire thread is a perfect example of why this is wrong. Jimmy Saville is the main person in this investigation. He is NOT a mason, yet the tool in the video, wrongly accuses everyone on the list as being freemasons. How many more are ASSumed to be masons, yet are not, or worse off, wrongfully accused?

Get yer pitchforks and torches bitches.

I love that all we have to go on is hearsay, and immediately everyone wants to persecute this one group because, "I hear they worship Satan!"

You're all pathetic. You don't have any proof, all you have is some random rumor, but once again you're willing to judge the innocent. Shame on you. Shame on all of you.