musky wrote: Ahh you have the advantage over me Musky.
See I don't have access to the Security Services manual on set procedures and protocols or their training sessions pertaining to the vetting of individuals likely to have close contact with Royals.

Please share.
Unless that was just speculation of course.

FFS, Savile helped to negotiate Charles and Diana's divorce. He roamed through the palaces in his tracksuit and jewellery, waving his cigar about and slobbering up the arms of the staff. Savile said 'I've known the royal family for a million years, I work deep cover and get things done' etc. He had Charles round for dinner with three waitresses with 'HRH' on their pinafores. Charles sent him gold cufflinks for his birthday with a note saying 'no-one will ever know what you've done for this country Jimmy'. There are numerous photos of Savile and Charles through the decades, laughing and joking, romping through the highlands in kilts etc.

feather wrote:
You think that anyone can become friends with royals and gain access to the palaces without the intelligence services looking hard at their activities and associates?

musky wrote: I hate to be this blunt but any photos, films or evidence of them tampering with kids together in that wee folio of non-crimes you listed up there?

I've read through the thread, and there have been a lot of good points raised on both sides. It's very complex to try and decide the right way forward.

On one level, I see danger for ordinary people who make too much noise about this subject - you're basically sitting ducks. It's too easy for the wrong comment to be picked up on, and people to end up in court and end up with their lives blighted. Or worse - we've seen cases of people speaking out getting targeted for mental assessment. And if you rattle enough cages, how easy would it be for the authorities to manufacture a case for you not being a fit parent yourself, and take the ultimate revenge by removing your own children? Knowing the corruption that exists in the upper echelons of most establishments, I've no idea how to defeat that.

But that doesn't mean we can just pretend these things aren't happening & stick our heads back in the sand.

Miss Behaving's testament to practical assistance given to actual victims is very uplifting, and I applaud the people involved in providing that help.

I'm sensitive to both perspectives, in that on the one hand, my brother & myself were picked up by a pedophile when we were little. We escaped unharmed, but that was due to luck, and as a parent, the knowledge of how easy in it is for kids to be snatched has always haunted me.

If it weren't for the possibility of innocent people being burned, I'd happily vote in the death penalty for kiddy fiddlers.

On the other hand, I see people here constantly referring to freemasons as though they're demons in human form. My husband is a freemason, and although I don't much like him much, it hurts me every time 'The masons' are pointed out as being pedo's and every other evil thing imaginable, because I know it's not true. I've said before on here that I don't know what goes on in the upper levels, but I do know that my husband is just a decent, boring, ordinary bloke, who is as deeply upset & disgusted as any of us at the thought of kids being abused - and not only is he innocent of these accusations, but he wouldn't associate with others who were involved in those things either. Yet that innocence doesn't stop people casting nasty aspersions.

Anyway, after all that, my gut instinct that a separate, dedicated forum is the way to go.

I don't think it's fair to put onus on the facilitators here to manage such a thing.

feather wrote:
I didn't say they were nonces. I'm saying they were knowingly friends with a known nonce and happy to pal and laugh around with him.

musky wrote: What I 'think' is not necessarily true.
Evidences changes what I 'think' into what I 'know'.
I merely keep asking for evidence, you consistently cease to provide anything of substance and that is the core of this entire discussion.

musky wrote: but how do you know they knew?

Because the secret services would tell them. That's what they're for, that's what they do.

Have I wandered into a Daily Mail forum by mistake?

musky wrote: I hate to sound like a stuck record here but.......
You state this with such confidence because..............?

Also, I'm tired of trying to argue with four or five people. Why am I the only one?

musky wrote: Nope, The daily Mail forum doesn't usually bother it's ass with evidence.

That's fine, thanks for all giving it consideration anyhow. I can see the general consensus is that it would change your forum, cause too much additional work in moderation and risk the status quo.

In 'our' defence, we were up front, honest about our intentions and hoped to be an asset to your forum, not put it at risk or upset the 'old timers'.

No offence taken and I hope none given. We will let you have our forum link if we ever get one up and running and hope you will all pop by for a cup of tea... or something stronger.

Bring your own mugs (and chocolate biscuits please).

P.S. If we come across any non CSA posters who don't believe in lizards, we will point them in your direction
P.P.S. It's okay Scal, you can breathe easy again. Enjoy your curry

musky wrote:
this is not the davic icke forum , thats for sure

musky wrote:
If this statement is wrong, then things would get interesting.

musky wrote: I have not argued with you once.
I have asked you to substantiate your assertions is all.
Why?
Because one day someone from this forum may be called to a courtroom to do just that in defence of an article or statement published here.

Do you consider that unfair?

feather wrote:
I state it with confidence because for the secret services to neglect to mention, over a period of several decades, to the woman who they all swore an oath of allegiance to that her husband and son's buddy Jimmy was a paedo and gangster would propose a level of sustained incompetence on their part that is simply unbelievable.

Miss Behaving wrote:
pppppppps

i sense a lttle sarcasm in your snide i can breathe again


listen if you like bullshit , go elsewhere

and just for me






































































































go fuk yourself

musky wrote:
Im not arguing, sorry if you think I am. If you made four or five different points, then they are all going it explored individually.

Which brings me back to my issue with a sub forum, is it to make a statement or open up examination of points raised? .