Conspiracy sites Name Gordon Brown ''Paedophile''

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

All I can say is this is a terribly misguided conspiracy. Linking the alleged Dunblane 'coverup' with such tripe is truly sick. Everyone knows the Dunblane papers have been locked away for such a long time to protect people who were abused by Hamilton, and the fact that some of those involved in the incident may still be around in 100 years time.

And I do know a bit about Dunblane, as I personally know people that lost their children there.

In fact, anyone that knows the stroy of Thomas Hamilton knows he was a serial pest to the police and politicians. Claiming he was part of some sort of elite is a complete joke. I lived within half a mile of him at the time and his reputation in the community was far from being a figure of the establishment. He was a weirdo and a loner.

[fotworth]

David Icke hasn't retracted any of his stupid claims about various famous people being shape-changing human-eating alien reptiloids either. It's still garbage that only loonies believe.

So you dont think there is a Scotich paedophile ring involing any law inforcement officials ?
Inportant point, DO you trust the BBC ?
What conclution did you arrive at with your thread on the scotich police man ?


http://www.ukskeptics.com/showthread...-Abuse-is-real

Im skeptical but Im going to see how the reports that are covered on sites includig Ickes pan out.
I wouldent want the situation were any scum could say they was inosent and it must be so because the lizzard man was breaking the story. please answer the three questions that are posted above the link as well as thoughts on the statement below it.

[tolman]

I wouldent want the situation were any scum could say they was inosent and it must be so because the lizzard man was breaking the story.

I wouldn't want the situation where people get accused of very serious crimes with limited chance of defending themselves.

Especially when alleged allegations are about historic events, there's little anyone could do but protest innocence, unless allegations were so specific as to dates/times that there was a chance of someone proving an alibi for things that happened 10 or 20 years ago, and even then, some people would still think/say "I bet the allegations are true anyway, just a mix-up about the dates".

It's an indisputible fact that some people can be consciously or unconsciously guided into thinking abuse happened to them years ago even when that's not the case. People have been wrongly convicted or had their children permanently taken away based on such false memories.
That's why however honestly convinced someone may be that abuse happened, or however convincing they may be, allegations should always be handled very carefully.

If it is concluded that there isn't sufficient evidence of what actually happened to bring a case (or even to be confident about what did happen), making allegations public does end up effectively being a form of punishment without trial for people who have a reasonable chance of being innocent.

To do that just because some people *might* sometimes be guilty isn't what many people would call justice.

[Croydon Bob]

Im skeptical

No, you're not.

[BillyGunfish]

Hmm wasn't Holly Grieg's sexual abuse confirmed by medical practitioners?

Weren't BBC journalists stopped from researching the subject.

Aren't all the legal players in this scandal members of the speculative society. The same scottish lawyers involved with Dunblane and Lockerbie.

The BBC connection mirrors the World in action documentary on the franklin paedophile cover up in the states where the program was pulled at the last minute and all copies ordered to be destroyed. Fortunately one copy survived and can be seen in its entirety on the internet.

What about Marc Detroux and the Beligian establishment. Similar scandals exposed but naturally never prosecuted in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Mexico.

You skeptics crack me up. You live in a bubble and refuse to see the wood for the trees. Black is white. Corruption happens by happenstance. The Bildeburgers are a boy scouts group, chemotherapy is a wonderfully succesful treatment for cancer and our civil liberties are not being curtailed.

Deep down you do realise how limp you all are?

[Admin]

Hmm wasn't Holly Grieg's sexual abuse confirmed by medical practitioners?

Weren't BBC journalists stopped from researching the subject.

Aren't all the legal players in this scandal members of the speculative society. The same scottish lawyers involved with Dunblane and Lockerbie.

Do you have answers to these questions? If so, let's see them.

The BBC connection mirrors the World in action documentary on the franklin paedophile cover up in the states where the program was pulled at the last minute and all copies ordered to be destroyed. Fortunately one copy survived and can be seen in its entirety on the internet.

Link to it?

What about Marc Detroux and the Beligian establishment. Similar scandals exposed but naturally never prosecuted in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Mexico.

Another question - how about the answer?

You skeptics crack me up. You live in a bubble and refuse to see the wood for the trees.

Then enlighten us!

And don't use the standard conspiracy theorist's reply of "find out for yourself".

If you have the answers (and by your tone it seems that you think you do) then provide them - with evidence.

[BillyGunfish]

Do you have answers to these questions? If so, let's see them.


Link to it?


Another question - how about the answer?


Then enlighten us!

And don't use the standard conspiracy theorist's reply of "find out for yourself".

If you have the answers (and by your tone it seems that you think you do) then provide them - with evidence.

Certainly the Franklin paedophile cover up documentary detailing the US establishment abuse of children can be found here on youtube ;-)

Presumebly if that copy hadn't been saved when all the others were ordered to be destroyed, you would have claimed it was all someones elaborate fantasy. Isn't it great that it survived and paedophile apologists can't claim otherwise. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi7uCghLg1Q

Regarding the evidence that Holly Grieg was abused well back in 1990 a Dr.Paul Carter who was connected to the Children Hospital in Aberdeen and Hollie's school had reported to her GP and Headmaster that Hollie had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. A nine year old who had contracted a venereal disease. Presumebly even in the warped brain of a uk sceptic that is proof she was sexually abused. Two years later in 1992 her teacher reported to Dr. Carter that Hollie was showing signs of sexual abuse because she was pelvically thrusting.

Her Mother in adition had to pay a doctor to examine her because the filth wouldn't investigate. Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity.

Hollie also received compensation. Why give compensation for a crime that apparently hasn't been committed. I don't know perhaps you can explain that one.

For the Dutroux links to 'elite' paedophile rings the panorama documentary detailing exactly that can also be found on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xer8_a7-UiU

The procurator fiscal in charge of deciding whether a prosecution should go ahead in the Holly Grieg case was Elish Angiolini who has previous of course in delaying child abuse claims and also has considerable links with one of the 'alleged abusers Sheriff Buchanan. This is the same woman who has since been promoted to Lord Advocate; the highest law officer in the land

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-sex-case.html

The lawyer representing Angiolini who claims she has been harassed over this case is Peter Watson the head of litigation at Levy and Macrae. Watson was a key lawyer in the Dunblane case as well as Piper Alpha and also Lockerbie. Watson played a key role in the tribunal of inquiry under similarly speculative society member Lord Cullen who was exposed by Lord Burton as being part of a cover up over Dunblane. Current Scottish justice secretary is Kenny MacAskill who is also speculative society and former partner of Watson at you guessed it Levy and Macrae. MacAskill is currently putting through legislation that will gag anyone making allegations that the police and the legal establishment refuses to take on and prosecute.

Lovely friends you have here.

Nothing to see of course. I know a skeptic can't put two and two together so this may be hard for you. I apologise but still kindly respond to each of these points. Look at each of the videos and kindly respond to them too.

Hope you find all this useful ;-)

[Admin]

Lovely friends you have here.

What do you mean by that?

I know a skeptic can't put two and two together so this may be hard for you.

I've never come across this conspiracy theory before so I'm inviting you to present a well-reasoned and well-evidenced case.

At least I now have an idea of your sources but I can't see anything other than a speculative argument based on very little.

You're making statements like, "Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity." - is there any actual evidence of this?

You see, blindly accepting things that you want to believe is not "putting two and two together" - it's simply being extremely credulous. A true inquirer would be just as sceptical of their own sources as well as those they disagree with.

Now, I don't want to shock and amaze you, but websites such as David Icke's, Jeff Rense's, educateyourself.org, and such like are actually not a reliable source of well-researched and evidence-based information.

[BillyGunfish]

What do you mean by that?



I've never come across this conspiracy theory before so I'm inviting you to present a well-reasoned and well-evidenced case.

At least I now have an idea of your sources but I can't see anything other than a speculative argument based on very little.

You're making statements like, "Dr. Jack Boyle of Glasgow wrote a full report confirming Hollie had been subject to sexual activity." - is there any actual evidence of this?

You see, blindly accepting things that you want to believe is not "putting two and two together" - it's simply being extremely credulous. A true inquirer would be just as sceptical of their own sources as well as those they disagree with.

Now, I don't want to shock and amaze you, but websites such as David Icke's, Jeff Rense's, educateyourself.org, and such like are actually not a reliable source of well-researched and evidence-based information.

Just as I thought you haven't looked at the films. Yorkshire television and Panorama aren't david icke or rense as far as I'm aware. Classic skeptic response ie nonsensical.


The doctor's reports are according to the Mother. I have heard nothing to refute her claims. Doctor's reports are as you are well aware confidential and don't usually have their own urls. For you to actually desire one just reveals your motives as disingenuous.

You failed to respond to any of my points despite my request and despite me taking the time to respond to yours.

I find that unforgivable. Are you the top dog on this site? Really?

P.S Classify a conspiracy theory. All I see here is a massive miscarriage of justice where one of the most vulnerable members of our society has been the subject of a degree of abuse most members of society would find deeply abhorent.

[Admin]

Just as I thought you haven't looked at the films. Yorkshire television and Panorama aren't david icke or rense as far as I'm aware. Classic skeptic response ie nonsensical.

I looked at the first one - it's not a professional looking production. I suspect the rest of them are similar.

I will admit that after debating conspiracy theorists in the past that I have little desire to bother again. I know the MO - you'll offer nothing but Arguments to Ignorance based upon personal incredulity and convince yourself that you're correct unless others can disprove what you believe - which is not easy as you'll never provide any tangible evidence.

The doctor's reports are according to the Mother. I have heard nothing to refute her claims.

That's a classic error of reasoning (the Argument to Ignorance fallacy). You're believing something without evidence as it's what you want to believe. The correct method (i.e. skepticism ) would be to doubt the claim (suspend judgement) until or unless it's substantiated by evidence.

I find that unforgivable. Are you the top dog on this site? Really?

Stupid personal comments are also a feature of dealing with conspiracy theorists. Try making coherent, evidence-based arguments. You don't prove anything by insulting others; all you achieve is to make yourself look infantile.

P.S Classify a conspiracy theory.

There's an interesting piece here: Conspiracies

All I see here is a massive miscarriage of justice where one of the most vulnerable members of our society has been the subject of a degree of abuse most members of society would find deeply abhorent.

You see the "massive miscarriage of justice" because you accept the conclusion without adequate evidence. Guilty until proven innocent (!) Or, guilty no matter what the evidence says.

What I see is a lot of pretty unsavoury claims and allegations and there's nothing to substantiate them.

[BillyGunfish]

I looked at the first one - it's not a professional looking production. I suspect the rest of them are similar.

I will admit that after debating conspiracy theorists in the past that I have little desire to bother again. I know the MO - you'll offer nothing but Arguments to Ignorance based upon personal incredulity and convince yourself that you're correct unless others can disprove what you believe - which is not easy as you'll never provide any tangible evidence.



That's a classic error of reasoning (the Argument to Ignorance fallacy). You're believing something without evidence as it's what you want to believe. The correct method (i.e. skepticism ) would be to doubt the claim (suspend judgement) until or unless it's substantiated by evidence.



Stupid personal comments are also a feature of dealing with conspiracy theorists. Try making coherent, evidence-based arguments. You don't prove anything by insulting others; all you achieve is to make yourself look infantile.



There's an interesting piece here: Conspiracies



You see the "massive miscarriage of justice" because you accept the conclusion without adequate evidence. Guilty until proven innocent (!) Or, guilty no matter what the evidence says.

What I see is a lot of pretty unsavoury claims and allegations and there's nothing to substantiate them.

You state the first film is 'not a professional looking production.'

Conspiracy of silence was produced by Yorkshire television documentary team in 1994. They were one of the top factual filmmakers in the country with a fine reputation for the thoroughness of their research. I told you before the film was ordered destroyed. This copy is of poor visual quality due to that fact. Your response is of course to any impartial reader facile and ludicrous. The fact you refuse to view either that or the panorama expose of elite paedophile rings simply exposes you as a charlatan. Poor you.

You then claim the Mother's evidence is worthless due to lack of evidence. This is not a court of law. I cannot provide evidence of a confidential medical examination and as I stated before you are disingenuous for asking for one. The law will not pursue the case because a sheriff of law is himself one of the accused.

Note you refuse to respond to the point the young girl has received compensation for a crime the authorities claim has never happened.

I made a personal comment about you because I find you utterly derisory. That alone demands it.

Do you find it odd how a Lord Advocate has the final decision over whether to procure a prosecution where one of the alleged accused is a sherrif in your own jurisdiction, indeed someone who she worked with closely and do you think this deserves an investigation in itself.

Do you also believe a journalist working freelance at the behest of the Mother of the victim should be charged with breaching the peace simply for calling for an investigation into why a prosecution was not sought.

Don't you feel just a little bit soiled.

P.S The uncle of Holly Grieg and brother of the father and co accused was found beaten to death in a burnt out car. Coincidence...coincidence.

[Admin]

I told you before the film was ordered destroyed.

But, of course, never offered any evidence.

Do you think I'm going to take a conspiracy theorist at their word?

I cannot provide evidence of a confidential medical examination

Then why are you referring to it as if it supports your claim?

and as I stated before you are disingenuous for asking for one.

Rubbish. The point is valid and pertinent. You're taking something as being true without evidence. That's an indication of thinking going wrong.

The law will not pursue the case because a sheriff of law is himself one of the accused.

Can you back that statement up - erm... with evidence?

Only it looks to me like another claim that you accept as true yet I can't see how you can know this.

Note you refuse to respond to the point the young girl has received compensation for a crime the authorities claim has never happened.

Has she? Did she a) receive compensation; and b) if so, was it for "a crime the authorities claim has never happened"?

Again, you're stating this but I'm not going to take your word for it.

I made a personal comment about you because I find you utterly derisory. That alone demands it.

You were insulting in your first post - before anyone had responded to you.

Now you're a bloody conspiracy theorist FFS! Do you think for one second that I take people like you seriously? You're a bunch of idiots - a prime exemplar of how thinking and reasoning can go wrong. It's thinking like yours that is used to help teach others proper critical thinking skills by utilising all of the errors and logical fallacies you make in your pathetic arguments.

You're just lucky that I am so polite and reasonable that I don't insult you because if it.

Do you find it odd how a Lord Advocate has the final decision over whether to procure a prosecution where one of the alleged accused is a sherrif in your own jurisdiction, indeed someone who she worked with closely and do you think this deserves an investigation in itself.

Who else should have the final decision other than the person employed to do the job? Are the Lord Advocate's decisions transparent?

Do you also believe a journalist working freelance at the behest of the Mother of the victim should be charged with breaching the peace simply for calling for an investigation into why a prosecution was not sought.

Yes, if the journalist breached the peace then I have no problem with him/her being charged.

Don't you feel just a little bit soiled.

No. I'm used to people like you.

P.S The uncle of Holly Grieg and brother of the father and co accused was found beaten to death in a burnt out car. Coincidence?

So what does that prove?

Perhaps he was a drug dealer who got his comeuppance - perhaps "they" did it to silence him. How can we know without evidence?

[BillyGunfish]

But, of course, never offered any evidence.

Do you think I'm going to take a conspiracy theorist at their word?



Then why are you referring to it as if it supports your claim?



Rubbish. The point is valid and pertinent. You're taking something as being true without evidence. That's an indication of thinking going wrong.



Can you back that statement up - erm... with evidence?

Only it looks to me like another claim that you accept as true yet I can't see how you can know this.



Has she? Did she a) receive compensation; and b) if so, was it for "a crime the authorities claim has never happened"?

Again, you're stating this but I'm not going to take your word for it.



You were insulting in your first post - before anyone had responded to you.

Now you're a bloody conspiracy theorist FFS! Do you think for one second that I take people like you seriously? You're a bunch of idiots - a prime exemplar of how thinking and reasoning can go wrong. It's thinking like yours that is used to help teach others proper critical thinking skills by utilising all of the errors and logical fallacies you make in your pathetic arguments.

You're just lucky that I am so polite and reasonable that I don't insult you because if it.



Who else should have the final decision other than the person employed to do the job? Are the Lord Advocate's decisions transparent?



Yes, if the journalist breached the peace then I have no problem with him/her being charged.



No. I'm used to people like you.



So what does that prove?

Perhaps he was a drug dealer who got his comeuppance - perhaps "they" did it to silence him. How can we know without evidence?

Okay I've heard enough. You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists. If it was up to you this would lie dormant and undiscovered and would never see the light of day.

Fortunately there are still some courageous people left in this country who have backbones and are willing to expose these nefarious individuals. Anyone with any cognitive skills can see there is something very rotten in the state of denmark but not you hey.

Just because the authorities refuse to pursue a conviction doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. Why do you think down syndrome children are often at the front line of abuse. It's because they are deemed unreliable witnesses and that is precisely what you are doing.

Just to make that clear. She has named these individuals; among them a sheriff of law, a school head, a top police officer and social worker amongst others.

But she has downs syndrome doesn't she. She's been abused by the darkest wretches of society; the very people there to protect her.

Just imagine if this sort of event was allowed to be exposed. Governments have fallen for less. The whole system would collapse like a pack of cards and that's precisely why the Lord Advocate of Scotland has refused to pursue this case and has detailed her lawyers Levy and Macrae (the leading scottish cover up merchants) to ban anyone from revealing exactly what is alleged to have gone on.

Isn't it great how so many people are now familiar with this case. It's gone absolutely viral and those perpetrators must be very fearful someone someday isn't going to come up behind them and....Pop. Game over. Real justice.

[Croydon Bob]

You're an apologist for a bunch of disgusting child rapists.

You are clearly a sick fantasist. Do you have nothing better to do than post fiction about serious issues like the abuse of a child?

If you actually cared you would do something in the real world about real abuse, not post your disgusting nonsense here. You are vile sick scum.

[BillyGunfish]

You are clearly a sick fantasist. Do you have nothing better to do than post fiction about serious issues like the abuse of a child?

If you actually cared you would do something in the real world about real abuse, not post your disgusting nonsense here. You are vile sick scum.

You're lovely aren't you.

Hollie Grieg. Nah nothing to see there. She lied.

Mark Dutroux. Nah he wasn't procurring children for the Belgian elite. Complete fantasy.

Frankin. Nah they weren't picking up kids and sending them off to party with Bush and the rest of the paedophile republican party in the eighties.

I don't care if the two top British documentary film making producers allege it. You try getting one of these kids on the stand and I'll get my dirty stinking lawyer to rip them to shreds because that's the justice system. We abuse the most vulnerable children in society precisely because their voice will never be heard.

Aint that right Bobby Boy.

You're also an apologist for pederasts the world over.

Congratulations.