diforumreject wrote:
I think 'inactive' means you've been placed on a ban by a ordinary mod, no amount of infraction points adds up to a ban, so a upper mod has to cut you out, the lower mod can't do it.
So 'inactive' = awaiting the guillotine.

Before it goes- another one about to bite the dust?

www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061958852&postcount=33
Iwantthetruth
That's one feisty fighter - her hubby threw Cyril Smith out of their house many years ago - and reported him to the police (and her hubby was a policeman) as they caught Cyril touching up a young boy.

Curiously enough, the police couldn't find the record of that complaint, so Iwantthetruth reinstated the original report

The rate DiF mods are going - banning and restricting posters - many of whom have worked hard to expose child abuse- raises a ?n mark about whom they are trying to silence and why.

Added to TPV refusal to give Bill Maloney a VOICE ............ well everyone is free to join whatever dots they choose - and maybe the final picture isn't a pretty one?

A few days ago, on 25th November, David Icke published an extract from Edwina Currie's Diaries 1987-1992 in which she outed Peter Morrison as a 'noted pederast':

www.davidicke.com/headlines/7...eter-morrison-

The article says:

Currie wrote:

One appointment in the recent reshuffle has attracted a lot of gossip and could be very dangerous: Peter Morrison has become the PM’s PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary].

Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast”, with a liking for young boys. He admitted as much . . . when he became deputy chairman of the party but added: “However, I’m very discreet” — and he must be!

She [Thatcher] either knows and is taking a chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move. It scares me, as all the Press know, and as we get closer to the election, someone is going to make trouble very close to her indeed.’

Thatcher didn’t know? Are you having a laugh? Clearly everyone knew, including many in the media, and what was that Currie said about Chester MP Morrison? – He admitted as much when he became deputy chairman of the party, but said he was very discreet??

However...

I alway check sources when I read attributed quotes and I could only find repetitions of the same quote on other sites, forums and blogs, so I found a copy of Edwina Curries Diaries 1987-1992 on eBay for £2.00. It arrived today and I immediately searched for the quote.

On page 195 of the hardback edition published by Little, Brown, it says, verbatim:

One appointment in the recent reshuffle has attracted a lot of gossip and could be very dangerous: Peter Morrison has become the PM’s PPS. Now he’s what they call a 'noted pederast', with a liking for young boys; he admitted as much to Norman Tebbit when he became deputy chairman of the party but added' 'However, I’m very discreet' - and he must be! She either knows and is taking a chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move. Teresa Gorman told me this evening (in a taxi coming back from a drinks party at the BBC) that she inherited Morrison's (woman) agent, who claimed to have been offered money to keep quiet about his activities. It scares, me as all the press know, and as we get closer to the election someone is going to make trouble, very close to her indeed.

I'm guessing that David Icke did not source the quote from Currie's diaries because there are several sticks of dynamite which were omitted from his article;

1. Norman Tebbit is named as having been told by Peter Morrison himself that he was a pederast.

2. Teresa Gorman is named as also being privy to this information.

3. Morrison's agent was alleged to have been paid to keep quiet about his activities.

The diaries were published in 2002 so either nobody was remotely interested in Morrison's 'activities' or nobody has had the remotest interest in Currie's memoirs.

But there was far more to this diary entry than David Icke let on.

www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061168459&postcount=1

You don't have to be here to make pals, but if you speak insultingly to other members, you can expect to be pulled up for it. The site hasn't just started - it's been running a good while now, and we welcome new members, but as I said, if you are rude to people, don't complain if you get flak back. Employ common sense instead. Expect to be addressed in the same way that you address others. All members are deemed 'insiders', not 'outsiders', so don't abuse it.

diforumreject wrote:
Mine certainly went "inactive" for a few days then without warning changed to "banned" with "no reason specifiied."

Of course if mainstream media did this, Sean, David and his sycophants would be going CENSORSHIP REPTILES NWO!

I've been stewing on this a bit, and would just like to say that if people want to get things off their chest about their experiences, and if they want to us the hide function, for whatever reason, they shouldn't have to justify that to anybody - it should be just a given.

I intend to watch the spectacle of icke & Co / TPV self-destructing, and will be commenting on it throughout, as I see fit.

If the history seen on here, of people's maltreatment at the hands of DIF mods persuades any readers to think twice about their own trust in Icke / Sean, then all the better.

I'll also add that, without wishing to sound patronising I'm delighted at the quality of posting from the new members of here, and really pleased at having lots of new playmates, and seeing some old friends again.

Babs wrote:
When you are posting, if you look on the line above the smilies (that starts with the bold B), in the third section there is a button that to me looks like two people hugging. If you click that you'll see two [ ] boxes appear with the cursor in the middle. The [ ] boxes should say hide and /hide.
Just write the text you want to hide between those boxes. Or you could type the tags manually.

I for one appreciate your concern at blowing folks' cover. Though as said many times now, it's pointless anyway due to DIF admin socks.
Though it does force them to log in if they want to see the text. Which means we can see they have been here.

Personally, unless it is truly sensitive info, I'm all for posting out in the open. If you're all going to get things off your chest, it's fitting that everyone in webland can see it.
And like I said, this thread looks proper shit if you aren't logged in.

And quite clearly they don't like the hide tags - makes that job that bit harder stalking members over here to ban them over there eh?

Before I became a member the hidden stuff didn't bother me at all tbh - though I missed a lot on this thread, I guessed people had their reasons, and I knew all I had to do was sign up to read. No biggie for me as a guest (at the time)

Icke is far too much under the influence of Sean, and is obviously an easy touch for Gissajob Gareth.

Has Sean ever spoken about his own views about the way the world is governed? Does he really support the work?

Sean seems to be in charge of every aspect of Icke's business activities. It is all a bit odd.