Sanctum Zone

Keyword
A+ A A-
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Concerns About Child Abuse Coverage on TPV

Concerns About Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 16:30 #1

  • electricdreams
  • electricdreams's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 165
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
I posted much of this (I will tweak it here) on the main thread but think this is a special area to keep an eye on.

I'm getting rather concerned about the child abuse aspect now...by that I mean the coverage (and lack thereof) on TPV.

- Sonia hits quite hard about this in her short time there, but then is unable to continue

- The two main 'anchors' now - Allen and Windows - don't seem to know the first thing about the subject (Richie Allen says there would never be any impropriety at the likes of the paedophilic BBC ffs!)

- Bill Maloney - who helped give a platform to Icke once at a rally - is totally ignored, as are other leading activists/researchers in this area

- Lots of strange stuff happened on the Savile thread on DIF from the start imo - 'random' bannings of genuine posters (including child abuse victims) who seemed to be actually posting some of the best stuff, and obstruction of others

- No actual 'news' show - which almost every day would feature the ongoing institutional and establishment child abuse scandal in the UK. Instead we have Ickey picking and choosing other stories as presented by the MSM and using them to pontificate

- Edwina Currie, who officially put Jimmy Savile in charge of Broadmoor, and wrote in her published diaries that she knew at least one paedophile was among Thatcher's closest aides, is interviewed twice (?) by the same inept muppet (Richie Allen) who apparently hasn't even heard of Jimmy Savile, and is not questioned on it (bet she wouldn't have gone on Sonia Pouton's show!)

- David Icke has been shown to have edited the quotes from Currie's diaries to leave out some of the most incriminating bits (!)

- The show WTF - 'porn' episode. They have a good chuckle about how young they all were when they first watched porn (with the consensus being it's 'usual' now about the age of 12). They also talk generally about how to get child porn from the 'dark web'. Their guest was a 'porn star' who justified the sado-masochistic lesbian stuff she does as 'acting' but said she drew the line at 'ageplay' on webcam (basically where the 'performers' dress and act underage, and play out the 'fantasies' of those paying) but lots of her friends do it.

- I saw this show first broadcast one Sunday around noon, is often on repeat, and names one of the most disgusting legal videos ever to have been uploaded to the internet afaik, which many viewers would not have been aware of, but as it was such a 'gas' to these people, may very well have looked at afterwards out of interest.

- Peter Tatchell (known paedo apologist who now says he was misquoted and misunderstood blah, blah, blah and 'human rights campaigner') has been on a few times. Including the initial Telethon! This seems to have been one of the reasons Sonia didn't take part that night (the other being, she says, that she didn't think it fair to ask for even more money before they'd started, which is a wonderful stand imo). However, David Icke addressed that question on the Telethon, and had a huge rant about people misjudging Tatchell and 'unfairly' questioning his inclusion. Why is David Icke so vehemently promoting Tatchell that he was one of the first guests on and had a diatribe in his defence?

- THAT photo of Russell Brand and Icke at The Groucho Club, Soho, London, whose website was busted for hosting a massive paedophile ring (which didn't receive the attention it should have). That club (other members obviously include all the MSM types like Keith Allen) is notorious for drugs etc and has private rooms upstairs where - it's rumoured - more or less anything you like can be discretely arranged for you.

- Icke says he named Savile while alive, but I cannot find any link to that. Anyone got one?

- I'm sure there's more, these are just off the top of my head.

I'm not suggesting anything about Icke or any other individual, but this all seems quite wrong to me - the opposite in fact of what it should be.

Richie Allen, as well as failing to grill Currie or notice any impropriety of Jimmy Savile at the BBC, calmly reported the verdict of the Woolwich 'killers' on his show that day. And that was it. A minute (if that) to report the sentence before moving on.

This is Bill Maloney committing treason at the rally against child abuse (the same one he helped to give David a platform at):

Last Edit: 29 Jan 2014 13:12 by electricdreams.
You must register to post here.

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 17:12 #2

  • electricdreams
  • electricdreams's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 165
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
This was posted a few days ago on the main TPV thread and alerted to me just now so have asked for clarification from Chandra. The thread's now a dead link (screencaps everyone remember please!).

I have also been told by a number of members from DIF in the past that the McCann thread, as well as others, had been subsequently and comprehensively wiped of many of the posts. Go figure.
chandrakavi wrote:
Goldenprince13,

In DIF they used to have this thread, which was very long. i remember at the very end because he was asked to close it,
Months later sean closed it with a post saying, "we should be more open to these topics"

Later the Jimmy Savile paedophile news blew, and the thread dissapeared.
And they started their long thread against Savile going on still today.




forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=199503
I see Nothing wrong with paedophile thoughts

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/92260-th...ml?start=3500#172884

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/General/92260-th...oice.html?start=3860
You must register to post here.

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 17:12 #3

  • Refugee
  • Refugee's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 159
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
Hi, I share all your concerns so a big 'thankyou' for such an eloquent post.
My vibe on TPV- at the moment - is that it being used as controlled opposition. So a focus on the fear, bad stuff - with elements of new age esoteric - oh and a means to make Garth an 'alternative' Simon Cowell/Max Clifford promoter of dubious talent.

On the limited occasions I have tuned in -on spec - one time there was Ritchie - on the subject of fracking........... well that would seem ok superficially, til I listened to him-(and if I hadn't known anything about fracking) - I'd have come away from that interview thinking the official line that fracking was not harmful was the message that Ritchie was delivering.

It was like subliminal nudging

The same is true of the pushing Edwina and Tatchell and in our faces- almost as if - well they're on TPV - which is the twoof that msm won't cover - so they, and what they do and say, must be acceptable.

Essentially TPV masks the issues - tries to normalise cover-ups and the attempts to lower the age of consent.

Yes - it is dark forces - but it's those NLP mind programming tactics employed by TPV that I find particularly distasteful.

Also when I see the mods silence posters who make strong statements on child abuse - as on the JS thread ( e,g Tony Roma to name a well-known) then it makes me question what Agenda is being followed - and to what/whose purpose?

More than the distractive ( tho amusing) potential money launder/ soap on a shoestring - imo this is where TPV is ultimately most dangerous. Imo it's a Hoodwink in plain sight.

As to that 'outing Savile claim'.........no-one can find any evidence- and it begs the question - why the fuck didn't Icke do anything about what he knew? Same as Edwina? - Take the 30 pieces of silver and keep schtum?
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Babs, electricdreams, Goldenprince13, Panther

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:15 #4

  • Refugee
  • Refugee's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 159
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
Icke And Savile Zps2798b613


:hmm:
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: psketti, robinsoncrusoe, Liliths F_U, marina, electricdreams, Panther

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:18 #5

  • chandrakavi
  • chandrakavi's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Gold Boarder
  • Rank5
  • Posts: 2744
  • Thank you received: 1255
  • Karma: 22
Interview to a paedophile APOLOGIST november 2 ,2013 on TPV
Anybody see it?

earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/dav...le-apologist-to-tpv/



Peter Tatchell


PETER THATCHELL
A love letter to the NSA agent who is monitoring my online activity. :D


www.happyplace.com/24470/a-love-letter-t...g-my-online-activity
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 18:22 by chandrakavi.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Babs, electricdreams, Goldenprince13, Panther, Emily_Rose

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:28 #6

  • Panther
  • Panther's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 37
  • Thank you received: 108
  • Karma: 0
Peter Tatchell - One of TPVs first guests.
PETER TATCHELL:
Peter Tatchell is accused of hypocrisy for his Channel 4 hatchet job on the Pope (The Trouble with the Pope) on the eve of the latter’s visit to Britain . But what of The Trouble with the Tatchell?

Tatchell complains about the scandal of priests abusing mainly teenage boys, but he himself has argued for the elimination of ages of consent, he sees nothing wrong with adult/child sexual encounters and said in a paedophile campaigning book that it is court appearances and societal pressures that cause a victim to have anxiety over child sexual abuse, rather than the abuse itself.

Catholic writer Damian Thompson provides compelling evidence that Peter Tatchell cannot even be trusted to report accurately on his subject, and that is even before he begins to mention the homosexual abuse scandal.

But in the campaigning book ‘Betrayal of Youth’, edited by the Vice-Chairman of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, and published in 1986, Tatchell wrote that children need:

‘protection against self-destroying feelings of guilt and anxiety which are so often stirred up by sexual encounters outside the ages of consent precisely because they are illicit and regarded as shameful. It is usually this social shame, more than the sexual act itself, which harms young people. The psychological scars of court cases and societal disapproval often remain long after the actual sexual encounter is forgotten.’ (BOY p118)

The editor of ‘Betrayal of Youth’ wrote helpfully: ‘Readers will by now be aware that all the contributors to this study agree that we should be working towards the day when when children’s rights are recognized and accepted. … The mere fact of an adult having consensual sex with a child should not of itself be construed as an abuse.’ (Middleton W in ‘Betrayal of Youth’ page 179)

In the same book, Tatchell asked: ‘What purpose does it (the age of majority) serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?’

His views don’t seem to have changed. In 1997, Tatchell wrote to the Guardian to say: ‘Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.’

Last year, in an article headed ‘Don’t Criminalise Young Sex, he wrote: ‘If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old’s interest? It is fair?’

On his website, Peter Tatchell argues for a sexual consent law which accommodates the requirements of a fourteen-year-old boy he calls Lee who has been ‘having sex with boys since the age of eight and with men since he was 12.’ Lee says he ‘likes men in their 20s or 30s. They are more experienced and serious.’

Tatchell comments: ‘The age of consent laws don’t make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship.’ According to Lee, and Tatchell does not bat an eyelid at this: ‘The law is stupid. If I know what I’m doing and I’m not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to have sex with who I want.’

Tatchell, who has not masked his approval of the anonymous casual sex prevalent in the homosexual world, was even invited to a Christian event this year, the Greenbelt Festival.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: ‘There can be no doubt that the Catholic Church did wrong and did immense damage to its reputation and to the cause of Jesus Christ with whom people inevitably identify it with, by covering up such scandals, moving priests on and failing to address the anguish of the victims.



‘As an organisation which upholds the Protestant settlement of the United Kingdom , you will not normally find Christian Voice defending the Pope. But it is impossible to keep silent in the face of Peter Tatchell’s hypocrisy. He is the man leading the charge against the Catholic Church for the sexual abuse perpetrated by a minority of its priests. And yet he sees nothing wrong in adults and children having sex together as such. He is on record speaking with no sense of criticism of 9-year-olds having sex with adults. And even where there is abuse, he blames the stigma imposed by society and the court system for the trauma victims suffer rather than the sexual activity itself.

‘Nor does Tatchell confront the elephant in the room which is that ordinary homosexual men who fancy teenagers, as many do, have infiltrated an institution which gives them privileged access to exactly that group of targets. Frankly, how secularist and homosexual campaigners and especially paedophilia apologists like Tatchell can keep a straight face when condemning the Catholic Church for abuses caused by their own gay ‘brothers’ is truly amazing.’

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUPPORT A MAN WHO GIVES AIRTIME TO A MAN LIKE PETER TATCHELL, THEN TELL ME? WHERE IS ALL THIS CONCERN YOU EXPRESS (AND ICKE EXPRESSES) TOWARD THE SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN AND THE PAEDOPHILIA ASSOCIATED WITH IT?

IF YOU SUPPORT THIS AND IGNORE IT ALL FOR THE SAKE OF INVESTING BELIEF IN DAVID ICKE OR FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING YOUR ART OR MUSIC BROADCAST ON THIS CREEP’S CHANNEL, THEN, FRANKLY, YOU ARE ONE HYPOCRITICAL, DESPERATE, SICK, DESPICABLE INDIVIDUAL!

Russell Brand – Masturbates strange men in public toilets YET HE’S “ENLIGHTENED” and part of Icke’s “squad”.

Peter Tatchell – Supports paedophilia YET HE’S “ENLIGHTENED” and part of Icke’s “squad”.

Paul Gambaccini – Not invited as yet but watch this space.


[earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/dav...le-apologist-to-tpv/
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 18:42 by Panther.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: chandrakavi, Babs, electricdreams

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:29 #7

  • Blue_Tackler
  • Blue_Tackler's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Long live the Queen!!!
  • Rank0
  • Posts: 1453
  • Thank you received: 920
  • Karma: 0
Hey I recall seeing Michael Shrimpton on TPV were he stated that someone he knows and referred to this person as 'a nice chap' knows of a paedophile within the political system in the UK but does not want to disclose who it is....

And Shrimpton refers to this person as 'nice chap'.

I can't see why TPV or Shrimpton can broadcast such information without being questioned by the police, surely Shrimpton is protecting a person who is protecting a paedophile and the police are not following this up, and TPV seemed to accept this from Shrimpton without questioning his morals.
To me if TPV were against child abuse as much as anyone else they would have either pressed Shrimpton for the name of this person or reported him to the police, surely that's a lead no?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: chandrakavi, Babs, electricdreams, Panther

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:31 #8

  • Goldenprince13
  • Goldenprince13's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1253
  • Thank you received: 1097
  • Karma: 0
chandrakavi wrote:
Interview to a paedophile APOLOGIST november 2 ,2013 on TPV
Anybody see it?

earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/dav...le-apologist-to-tpv/



Peter Tatchell


PETER THATCHELL

If icke had even been a quarter of what he claims...this man's links to P.I.E and the likes of "orwellian control system" policy makers : harriet harman and patricia hodge, should have had him running a mile even at the suggestion....but as always the perception deception is played by icke.........

13003
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 18:33 by Goldenprince13.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: chandrakavi, Liliths F_U, Babs, electricdreams, Emily_Rose

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:36 #9

  • revlovejoy
  • revlovejoy's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 46
  • Thank you received: 97
  • Karma: 0
Refugee wrote:
Icke And Savile Zps2798b613


:hmm:

Shared the same tracksuits, same producers, same private members club.

Hotbeds of organised paedophilia activities.....sports, entertainment and politicos? Savile only had one of those careers.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Refugee, Panther

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:44 #10

  • thoreau
  • thoreau's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1563
  • Thank you received: 2189
  • Karma: 47
In regards to the thread that was on ickes this is my personal view of what happened and what sean ment by his statement...

A thread was started with the op stating that he had paedophilic thoughts that he had not and did not intend to act on and it was his belief that having thoughts alone was not wrong - it was in acting on those thoughts that was wrong.

The thread descended into a lot of abuse towards the op and a lot of people asked for it to be closed but it was left open in order to protect the op's free speech.

No other poster admitted to paedophilic thoughts nor suggested that acting on those thoughts was acceptable and the majority view was that having any sort of paedophilic thoughts was wrong and those having them should face consequences.

The thread was eventually closed due to the abusive nature of the posts within and sean made the statement that we should be more open to these sorts of topics.

My belief (and I am no supporter of seans) is that he felt we should be more open to discussing the topics rather than just shutting down and throwing abuse. Not that he feels people should be more open to those with paedophilic thoughts or to the thoughts themselves.

I would also like to say that I can in some respects understand why tpv don't go near bill maloney who undoubtably is doing the best he can to get info out there - the video posted is described as 'bill maloney commiting treason' - remember that tpv's priority is staying on air - much like any mainstream news source and as such they cannot open themselves up to libel nor press certain 'celebs' or well known figures on anything for fear that they will cease to attract said people to appearing on their programmes.

My personal belief is that this is the root cause of why they have not addressed such issues in the manner their viewership expected. Tpv have not established themselves nor attracted enough financial support to be able to make waves.
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known.

“Just living is not enough, one must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower”
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Weeman, electricdreams, Quality Street, tumbleweed

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:50 #11

  • Panther
  • Panther's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 37
  • Thank you received: 108
  • Karma: 0
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: electricdreams, Refugee

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 18:59 #12

  • Blue_Tackler
  • Blue_Tackler's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Long live the Queen!!!
  • Rank0
  • Posts: 1453
  • Thank you received: 920
  • Karma: 0
Here it is



Shrimpy does not want to embarrass this person as he's in Shrimpy's opinion an 'awfully nice chap' ..... erm?

About 9 minutes in to it.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: electricdreams

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 19:17 #13

  • Refugee
  • Refugee's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 159
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
@Thoreau
The point you make about TPV not being in a position to make 'waves'. I don't believe they will ever be in position to do so- so they were surplus to requirements from day 1.

So many other individuals and small, teams make ''waves'' on youtube and on their blogs/forums - many for free- or for a small sub or donation - NOT perpetual funding or deriding those who don't stump up.

The idea was that they would present all sides and all views - so the obvious place to start was Tatchell and Currie?

Currie - best known for shagging a PM, salmonella and eggs - and covering up/not reporting pederasts - and they talk to her about Banking & Finance. :conf: :conf: :conf:

Since when did she become an expert.?

And Shrimpton is a spook- trained for obfuscation and being disingenuous - half lies/half truths - no solid facts - and no inclination to do anything other than Talk - (and get dosh for doing it) - so pretty much in the icke mould?

To me they are mealy mouthed apologists - making a living out of an ''alternative'' media stage - they all play their part - are word perfect - and totally ineffectual on any practical level.

The very fact these 'guests' were showcased at all, whiffs to me of a different agenda than the one TPV publicly proclaim.
None of them have exhibited personal integrity.

If ''paedophilia is the glue'' - as Icke so often pronounces - then why doesn't he make any attempt to dissolve it?

@Blue_T
Thanks for putting up the vid. Shrimpy is just another fish imo- deflecting rumours onto dead men like Heath - and away from the abusers still out there in the palaces and halls of 'power'
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 19:21 by Refugee. Reason: added
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: thoreau, Blue_Tackler, electricdreams, Panther

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 19:37 #14

  • thoreau
  • thoreau's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1563
  • Thank you received: 2189
  • Karma: 47
@refugee

I do think that an alternative channel that reaches masses of people that do not actively search out alternative source material is needed - though I do not think tpv with its current management and format is this channel.

I agree that there are many people fighting to get info out there for free - I respect bill maloneys passion for getting info out there and what he is attempting to do even if his delivery is not to my personal taste and do feel he would be an excellent guest for tpv as would others.

I do not disagree with your statements about currie or shrimpton at all nor do I disagree that their showcasing goes against what tpv said they stand for.

My belief is that the target audience for tpv are not those already aware of people like maloney, spivey or others - their target market are those who are not already buying icke books. They want to expand the brand.

They are replicating already known and accepted formats for television and attempting to appear like a legitimate force by getting mainstream people to contribute - not to mention the mainstream people to make the programmes rather than the hundreds of volunteers from ickes forum and other 'alternative' places.

The fact that facebook is their chosen medium of communication after everything that has been said about facebook also speaks volumes about the direction they want to go in.

To get where they want to get they have to compromise everything they said they would be in order to get donors.

Imagine if the campaign for donations had included a 'taste' of a days programming - it would either be a day of a blank screen or it would include some bloody awful programmes with people like currie and tatchell on - having watched the 'taster' how many people would have still donated?

TPV was never going to be able to broadcast the sorts of things that small independent activists do because they want to expand and become a sort of alternative bbc with the scope and finances enjoyed by the bbc. So they have to be careful. They have to attract mainstream commentators and they have to abide by offcom regulations. Everytime I have seen richie read out a letter he has had to not read it all out citing libel laws as an excuse.

I am in no way making excuses for them - they suck monkey balls - I am just not convinced there is any nefarious reason for the way they have acted other than in order to grow 'brand icke'.

I also believe that icke is doing so for different reasons than sean. I believe sean views tpv as a business and icke as a vocation and sean is incharge of tpv.
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known.

“Just living is not enough, one must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower”
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: electricdreams, Quality Street

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 19:37 #15

  • musky
  • musky's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 108
  • Thank you received: 131
  • Karma: 0
Icke And Richards One Eye
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: electricdreams, Refugee

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 20:02 #16

  • Weeman
  • Weeman's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • My Name is Bob and I Have Bitch Tits...
  • Posts: 252
  • Thank you received: 407
  • Karma: 0
thoreau wrote:
In regards to the thread that was on ickes this is my personal view of what happened and what sean ment by his statement...

A thread was started with the op stating that he had paedophilic thoughts that he had not and did not intend to act on and it was his belief that having thoughts alone was not wrong - it was in acting on those thoughts that was wrong.

The thread descended into a lot of abuse towards the op and a lot of people asked for it to be closed but it was left open in order to protect the op's free speech.

No other poster admitted to paedophilic thoughts nor suggested that acting on those thoughts was acceptable and the majority view was that having any sort of paedophilic thoughts was wrong and those having them should face consequences.

The thread was eventually closed due to the abusive nature of the posts within and sean made the statement that we should be more open to these sorts of topics.

My belief (and I am no supporter of seans) is that he felt we should be more open to discussing the topics rather than just shutting down and throwing abuse. Not that he feels people should be more open to those with paedophilic thoughts or to the thoughts themselves.

I would also like to say that I can in some respects understand why tpv don't go near bill maloney who undoubtably is doing the best he can to get info out there - the video posted is described as 'bill maloney commiting treason' - remember that tpv's priority is staying on air - much like any mainstream news source and as such they cannot open themselves up to libel nor press certain 'celebs' or well known figures on anything for fear that they will cease to attract said people to appearing on their programmes.

My personal belief is that this is the root cause of why they have not addressed such issues in the manner their viewership expected. Tpv have not established themselves nor attracted enough financial support to be able to make waves.

I was a moderator during the time that thread was posted and can confirm that (the embolden) was not only Seans view, but every mods view also, and for the reasoning you stated.

That particular thread got opened and closed maybe four or five times in total.
Unlike so many other supposed 'team' decisions that were/are purported to be team decisions (when in fact it was usually the decision of one or two 'higher ups' what stayed or got deleted) this was the exception. We deliberated constantly and everyone got their say.

I wanted that thread left open and was an active poster iirc. Painful as it was, I actually wanted to find out where these thoughts form and most importantly why.
Trolls and asshats put an end to that.
The soap box and high horse brigade were out to vent their disgust at the mere thought of it being a valid point for discussion/investigation.

That's why I get a bit pissed off seeing this 'apologist' label getting thrown around.

So, I want to hear or read somebody else's view on a subject and make a further enquiry - suddenly I'm an apologist or a sympathiser? It's such a backwards way of conducting a conversation - it stunts conversation and therefore learning and is just the PC way of forcing your opinion onto others and an effective bullying tactic.

I think it was Daddy Feather that wrote this:
To depict something doesn't mean you necessarily endorse it.

and it has many qualities. Think about it.

It appears the case that if you can't outright accuse someone of being something (a paedophile - a racist etcetera) the next best 'damning' thing you can do is label them an apologist a sympathiser or a NAN!

What happened to letting people post and allowing them to either raise valid points or dig their own grave? What is achieved by shutting down one side of the process? Bear in mind this is what TPV and DIF are doing and people don't like it.
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 20:10 by Weeman. Reason: Spacing
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: thoreau, oioioi, Space Bandit, hugorune, Blue_Tackler, Quality Street, tumbleweed

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 20:31 #17

  • Refugee
  • Refugee's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 159
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 0
@Thoreau

I totally follow your reasoning. I don't fundamentally disagree that Icke and Sean come at this from different perspectives and motivation.
I don't trust Sean at all.
I have reservations about Icke, his brand and his nepotism. On one hand I can empathise with choosing people you know and family - if you think they are in sync with your aims and values.
Yes I've seen many indulgent parents- and to my mind Icke is over compensating Gareth - and ''what he suffered'' as a child - and I personally view Garth and Sean as bad apples.

@Weeman

You were there and I'd accept the view of those that were. I joined because of what I read about JS and the wider picture. My field was finance - I twigged the manipulation some years back - worked on the investment side of some of these foundations - and smelt rotting fish. I don't think I ever saw JS on TV -I don't watch it - but the bigger picture unfolding really struck a chord.

So, my problem with Sean's ''give everyone a voice and let them debate and discuss'' is that the same openness does not seem to apply to TPV - and certainly not on the JS research on dif - or other related forums.

We were edited and censored every step of the way - nothing to do with potential court cases or conjecture or speculation - we were actively
barred from even quoting earlier comments in the same thread - if a mod decided they were O/T...........

Zhiba virtually spelled (there's a lot to that word) it out - you can post on JS and Broadmoor - everything else got deleted and posters were suspended or new threads created.

Where's the debate - the wide ranging connections - the ability to discuss and debate??? When did the rules change?

I can almost pinpoint it.

It all started to get prescriptive once that TPV initial fund-raising was underway. Thereafter it was ''tow the line'' - or get shafted.

Now why would that be?

Has TPV received private ''sponsorship'' elsewhere? Someone/some org/entity (other than reptilian from the planet zorg of course) who now governs and censors free debate?

Every man has his price - according to More- it looks as if DIF and TPV have been bought - to me.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: thoreau, Blue_Tackler, Weeman, electricdreams, Quality Street, Panther, tumbleweed

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 20:48 #18

  • thoreau
  • thoreau's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1563
  • Thank you received: 2189
  • Karma: 47
@refugee

cant disagree with your bad apple assertion in anyway

I have little time for most of the dif admin and mods - weeman was an exception imho which leads me to...

@weeman

ty for confirming what I thought

I agree with much you have written. I believe any subject can be discussed if those wishing to discuss it are open to giving others the same courtesy they themselves expect. Which was my issue over at dif. Both sides were not treated equally by the mod team. Who made the decisions I have no idea so unfortunately i tend to view the entire team as culpable.
Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known.

“Just living is not enough, one must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower”
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Weeman, electricdreams, Quality Street

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 21:10 #19

  • Babs
  • Babs's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Senior Boarder
  • Rank3
  • Major Diva
  • Posts: 623
  • Thank you received: 772
  • Karma: 0
I would also like to know why TPV after having Chris Spivey on standby for an interview chose at the very last minute not do so, this is when he "outed" Mother Damnation/Sharon Gifford as being his contact at TPV. For those of you who do not know Chris Spivey he does not mince his (strong language alert) words on paedophilia and the like.

Who and what are TPV so scared of that they cannot interview these whistleblowers?
I did what I thought was best at the time and when I knew better I did better. :)
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 21:16 by Babs.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: essexwheeler, electricdreams

Child Abuse Coverage on TPV 27 Jan 2014 21:10 #20

  • Weeman
  • Weeman's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • My Name is Bob and I Have Bitch Tits...
  • Posts: 252
  • Thank you received: 407
  • Karma: 0
Refugee:
So, my problem with Sean's ''give everyone a voice and let them debate and discuss'' is that the same openness does not seem to apply to TPV - and certainly not on the JS research on dif - or other related forums.

We were edited and censored every step of the way - nothing to do with potential court cases or conjecture or speculation - we were actively
barred from even quoting earlier comments in the same thread - if a mod decided they were O/T...........

Zhiba virtually spelled (there's a lot to that word) it out - you can post on JS and Broadmoor - everything else got deleted and posters were suspended or new threads created.

Where's the debate - the wide ranging connections - the ability to discuss and debate??? When did the rules change?

I can almost pinpoint it.

It all started to get prescriptive once that TPV initial fund-raising was underway. Thereafter it was ''tow the line'' - or get shafted.

Now why would that be?

Has TPV received private ''sponsorship'' elsewhere? Someone/some org/entity (other than reptilian from the planet zorg of course) who now governs and censors free debate?

Every man has his price - according to More- it looks as if DIF and TPV have been bought - to me.
thoreau wrote:
@refugee

cant disagree with your bad apple assertion in anyway

I have little time for most of the dif admin and mods - weeman was an exception imho which leads me to...

@weeman

ty for confirming what I thought

I agree with much you have written. I believe any subject can be discussed if those wishing to discuss it are open to giving others the same courtesy they themselves expect. Which was my issue over at dif. Both sides were not treated equally by the mod team. Who made the decisions I have no idea so unfortunately i tend to view the entire team as culpable.

It doesn't take a genius to note I'm semi-bloody-literate, but the points you have both expressed regarding inconsistencies, favouring of opinion and bias I challenged myself whilst there (both as a mod and a member) - and for that I'm now....... err...... here. :woot:
Last Edit: 27 Jan 2014 21:13 by Weeman.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: thoreau, oioioi, electricdreams
Moderators: psketti, oioioi, batou
Time to create page: 0.194 seconds

Latest Members Blogs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

What is going on when it comes to 9-11 I…

The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....

Read more

9-11 Eleven Years Later

9-11 Eleven Years Later

With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...

Read more

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass An…

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass Animal Deaths

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...

Read more

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
56%
Most Recent Donation:
$122 USD on 4th Jan 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
 
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
 
More Info: Donation options for TZ

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.

TradeZone Latest

Visitors

Today428
Yesterday762
Week1910
Month30201
Total1008558

Your IP Address: 216.73.217.63 Your Browser and OS: Unknown - Unknown Wednesday, 22 April 2026 11:27

Who Is Online

Guests : 772 guests online Members : No members online
© 2012 – 2021 Sanctum Zone | All rights reserved. This website is a place for people to express and discuss their views on the news and world events. DISCLAIMER: Please Note: Views expressed and submitted by contributors are their own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions and beliefs of the Sanctum Zone website and its founder(s) , administrators , moderators , and any other website maintenance technicians, personnel and volunteers. Articles and messages posted on this website and forum are solely the opinion of their authors.

Login or Register

LOG IN

Register

User Registration
or Cancel