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

I do not believe we should wait for the investigation, that is a typical blind trust in authority and it is exactly what got us in this mess.

How do we know those investigating are not Freemasons instructed to find a scapegoat or cover it up?

COVERUP!

Text

"The BBC in Jersey provided copious air-time to the politicians responsible for the corrupt suspension of the Police Chief, and proceeded to peddle – wholly unchallenged – a plainly false, obviously dishonest account of events. This is the BBC – pro-actively engaging in an illegal child-abuse cover-up. In the present day."

______beforeitsnews/eu/2012/10/another-bbc-child-abuse-cover-up-obes-all-round-2457110.html

COVERUP

"Sexual abuse against children was uncovered at the Bryn Estyn home, near Wrexham, North Wales. It was systematic and organized
As the police investigation continued, newspaper articles,beginning with the Independent on Sunday, linked a former police superintendent, Gordon Anglesea, to child sexual abuse. He successfully sued for libel, receiving damages of £375,000, in 1994. The tribunal heard evidence alleging that Mr Anglesea did commit serious sexual misconduct at Bryn Estyn, but were not persuaded that the libel jury’s verdict was wrong."

chris-ukorg.org...

Originally posted by stumason
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.

Oh come on Stu Mason, it was a terrible thing for him to say and not at all reasonable or intellegent, in fact it was a very dumb thing for the PM to say.

By saying that he has basically said that there are a number of gays on the list, Phillip didn't mention gays or names, now Cameron has thrown gays into a pot that didn't have them in before he opened his fat, rich self righteous mouth

Originally posted by network dude

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.

Wow your cold heartedness is really shining through, that 'tool' you speak of is an abuse victim, so lay off calling abuse victims tools for a start mate, that may be how you talk in your lodge but it's not the way most people view abuse victims telling their story. He's not a conspiracy theorist, he's a councillor and abuse victim, got it?

Jimmy Saville is the main person in this investigation? Not quite, Jimmy Saville is the most famous person in this investigation, I would say the main person in the investigation would be the person who has committed the most crimes, wouldn't you? A peadophile investigations is based on peadophile acts commited and not how famous they are.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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?

I think the real question is how many married freemasons would cover for a fellow mason who is a paedophile.

Originally posted by lifttheveil

Originally posted by stumason
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.

Oh come on Stu Mason, it was a terrible thing for him to say and not at all reasonable or intellegent, in fact it was a very dumb thing for the PM to say.

By saying that he has basically said that there are a number of gays on the list, Phillip didn't mention gays or names, now Cameron has thrown gays into a pot that didn't have them in before he opened his fat, rich self righteous mouth

And just to add to that, the list isn't even a list of known gays, people on it are very well known, for example Edward Heath, Gordon Brown, Michael Portillo and Peter Mandleson are four people on the list, you can see the others here: victims-unite.net...

So you can see, it is not being Gay that connects them, rather positions of high power and Lordships

This is all tragic and disturbing, to find a childhood hero is a peadophile and got away with it all these years because of his position is sickening, however, I take faith that every cloud has a silver lining.

Many of us have read for many years about these elite peadophile rings in high up government from the likes of Icke and many others, but maybe, just maybe, these sicko's who have been protected by their wealth and power might just be shaking a little in their boots right now, and hopefully they'll be outed for what they have done

Just wanted to also point out it's not the first time Downing Street and MP's have been at the center of a Paedophile investigations but they put a stop on it.

TORY PAEDO COVER-UP

POLICE probing an underage sex ring at the heart of Maggie Thatcher’s government were warned: “Stop investigating if you want to keep your jobs.”

Officers in London were ­ inquiring into allegations made by a teenage rent boy that a Cabinet minister had been abusing him. The youth claimed to be one of a number of boys regularly having sex with rich and powerful men in the 1980s – some of whom would fly to the illegal orgies from Europe.

As well as the Cabinet minister – who is still alive – he pointed the finger at judges, European bigwigs and senior civil servants. He told his story to detectives, who are understood to have received other allegations against the minister.

But a former detective who worked on the case revealed they were ­suddenly told to halt the probe. The furious ex-policeman said: “It wasn’t that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.

“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to ­continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”

Read more: www.dailystar.co.uk...

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by The X

 

I don't know that anyone would defend the character of all masons or all "whatever group you want" without knowing the facts. What is happening here is Freemasons and others trying to let facts and evidence be put out before the lynching happens.

If one, or many people involved in this at any level are in fact masons, they should get far worse punishment than a non member. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. None are above reproach.

Does this mean that as a lodge member if you knew of or suspected another lodge member of being involved in any kind of illegality, you would go to the police with your evidence/suspicions?.

i ask you again, please answer the question above, i get the feeling you are unwilling to say you would because it may stymie any kind of progress you could make within your lodge.
if this is the case, what hope for those that have been abused by masons?.

For Jimmy Saville without a doubt - it was his position in TV with children, his shows that made children's dreams come true. So there has to be questions asked how he got in that role and not challenged. This was made worse by the fact that he got nowhere near the "Children in Need" charity as they did not trust him!

Anecdotal evidence from counsellors shows that the vast majority of child sex abuse is committed by a close member of the family and does not involve a ring, so the label of Freemason, I think is simply distracting and will not help the victim.

reply to post by The X


The answer is absolutely yes.

For the record, far from holding up his "progress in the lodge", this would be expected of him. One brother in my lodge was nearly put to trial just because he chaired the membership investigation of a brother found decades later to be abusing his daughter. He had to go down to the jailhouse and get paperwork signed to clear his Masonic name, even though he was in no trouble with the authorities at any time.

Demonizing an entire group because of a select few individuals? Sounds like ATS.

BTW, anyone can join the Freemasons. The only requirement is that you believe in a "Supreme being", which is totally open to interpretation. You can believe in Allah, God, Christ, or have your own personal supreme being (like I do) and discussions on politics and religion are forbidden in blue lodges.

On top of that, there are quite a few appendance bodies that accept wives and female relatives of Freemasons. Order of the Amaranth, and Order of the Eastern Star are two. Shrine Association also includes women in their... reindeer games.

The massive amount of anti-Masonry propaganda, and completely mis/disinformation on the subject that exists on this site is staggering. Seriously, go ask a Mason to join the Freemasons, and rid yourself of ignorance.

reply to post by Heehaw


go to hell.

I joined this conspiracy forum to settle a troubling episode.

My best friend wrote an unfavorable article about the Freemasons, but on top of this around the same time he also sent an email to a colleague in New York to inquire about the misplaced nukes at Minot. The American colleague claimed it was all made up (since proved otherwise)

He visited a Freemason lodge in the North of England in Huddersfield and wrote an unfavorable article about the many layers of the organisation.

Within a year of interviewing a member of the Freemason lodge and publishing the unfavorable article + sending an email to New York he had a heart attack at 26 years old.. A non smoker all his life and from a family with no history of heart disease.

He battled through and approx 10 month later he received a diagnosis of Leukemia, but a rare form of Leukemia that only one other person in the world had something similar at that time. Basically it was a 1 in 500 million chance of having this condition.

These sick bastards are doing pre-emptive strikes on journalists or anyone who gets close to the truth.

When I read Susan Lindauer's book I realized that his heart attack was manufactured.

www.guardian.co.uk...


News of the World phone-hacking whistleblower found dead
Death of Sean Hoare – who was first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson knew of hacking – not being treated as suspicious

Not being treated as suspicious !

We live in a cesspitt of corruption

reply to post by rolfharriss

That's quite a rude opening.

Who cares if your friend wrote an unfavorable article, he's not the first.

A heart attack at 26? Its not extremely unusual. Stranger things have happened.

Are you saying Freemasons have caused disease to form in your friend? Sad. You're story shows no proof of Masonic involvement nor would we care about his articles. Far too many anti-Masons think themselves way too important or that they are "on our radar".

Post proof that Freemasons had anything to do with your friend or go away.

Originally posted by lifttheveil

Originally posted by lifttheveil

Originally posted by stumason
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.

Oh come on Stu Mason, it was a terrible thing for him to say and not at all reasonable or intellegent, in fact it was a very dumb thing for the PM to say.

By saying that he has basically said that there are a number of gays on the list, Phillip didn't mention gays or names, now Cameron has thrown gays into a pot that didn't have them in before he opened his fat, rich self righteous mouth

And just to add to that, the list isn't even a list of known gays, people on it are very well known, for example Edward Heath, Gordon Brown, Michael Portillo and Peter Mandleson are four people on the list, you can see the others here: victims-unite.net...

So you can see, it is not being Gay that connects them, rather positions of high power and Lordships

I'm slightly confused now, are you talking about the list from This Morning now or a the more general list floating around the internet? Apparently, the 'Schofield' list only had about 5 names on it and only 3 were legible (according to Staines over at order-order).

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by The X

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by The X

 

I don't know that anyone would defend the character of all masons or all "whatever group you want" without knowing the facts. What is happening here is Freemasons and others trying to let facts and evidence be put out before the lynching happens.

If one, or many people involved in this at any level are in fact masons, they should get far worse punishment than a non member. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. None are above reproach.

Does this mean that as a lodge member if you knew of or suspected another lodge member of being involved in any kind of illegality, you would go to the police with your evidence/suspicions?.

i ask you again, please answer the question above, i get the feeling you are unwilling to say you would because it may stymie any kind of progress you could make within your lodge.
if this is the case, what hope for those that have been abused by masons?.

In all honesty, I'd say it depends on the crime. If I found out a brother fudged on his taxes a bit, I don't think I would circle the wagons, but If anyone got hurt, or the crime was something that only a bad person could have done, I most certainly would go to the police. As any other mason has the obligation to.

reply to post by rolfharriss


I am sorry about your friend. But knowing of all the members on this site who continually write "unfavorable" things about masonry, we would have a hard time filling all the hit orders just within this site. Now go look at other sites.

Seek help, professional help. Please.

Who cares whether they are Freemasons or not.. Either way, a pedophile is a pedophile and should be named and shamed regardless of their social status or affiliations. To think this is what the rich do in there playtime..

Originally posted by Heehaw
Demonizing an entire group because of a select few individuals? Sounds like ATS.

BTW, anyone can join the Freemasons. The only requirement is that you believe in a "Supreme being", which is totally open to interpretation. You can believe in Allah, God, Christ, or have your own personal supreme being (like I do) and discussions on politics and religion are forbidden in blue lodges.

Oh really? I think I'll go and knock on my local lodge and join right away then

Get real, you have to be introduced by another Mason, then you have to be voted on by the lodge members and face a black ball, so no, One Does Not Simply Walk into Mordor, erm, I mean Masonry

Jimmy Savile's funeral