Or a BBC pre­sen­ter, or a Knight and friend of the roy­als, or a Roman Catholic, or a influ­en­tial fig­ure in the pop busi­ness, or a night club owner, or an NHS porter, or a “bene­fac­tor” of var­i­ous childern’s homes, or a visitor-​come-​warden of Broad­moor, or a close friend of Mag­gie Thatcher, or an hon­orary green beret of the Marines, or a Knight of Malta or a friend of Israel, allegedly.


well someone was covering his ass .......and i suggested those asre coverers were masonic......it's sort of a well accepted fact now so why question it?

Yet there are people within Freemasonary who'd probably sooner cut their own throats & chuck themselves out of a boat than have any part in hurting children. And who's wives would do it for them should any hint of something like that be suspected.

Dawn, you're calling something an accepted fact, that I'm calling speculation. Why question it - because you that's the right thing to do when dishing out accusations of unspeakably vile actions.

or roll their trousers up

dawnbreak wrote:
True evidence of Satan worship, that is!

its like anything isnt it. good cops bad cops, good priest, bad priest. i think its called human nature.
i guess you got people like savile whos a mason and a pedo, and maybe his mason buddies did use their influence. i dont think it tars every mason with the same brush, but it makes people suspicious of the organization as a whole if you consider they act to protect the group by hiding shit like that. all oranges are fruit, but all fruit's not an orange.

especially bananas

dawnbreak wrote:
The majority of which are green.

Was Saville even a mason?
Anyone got a credible link?

It seems that every other organisation made capital from their association with his 'good guy, tireless charity fundraiser' image, from the church, NHS, politicians and even royalty but an organisation whose public face is charity work didn't exploit that?

I need convincing he was a member.

FTR. I am not now, nor ever have been a mason.

batou wrote:
I agree re individuals, but my point is, it was surely the BBC who protected him. And even Blair protected many pedo's. Isn't everything getting blurred into 'Masonry', being named a handy cover-all?

feather wrote:
Again, speaking only of the ordinary lodges that I've some actual personal knowledge of, the funds they raise for charities is usually donated anonymously, or at least not publicised.

Space Bandit wrote:
...or yellow, and with brown speckles when ripe.

i dunno lol good point feather. i didnt see anything concrete, just circumstantial, like the ripper and bruno pic.

As a result of your post, Feather, I've Googled the question as to whether Saville was a Freemason.

There's no mention of it in the Wickipedia entry on his life.

Other than that, there are lots & lots of headlines talking about his being an evil mason / zionist, yet every one of them is some forum or other, and I've only seen pure speculation that he was. Pages of people jumping to conclusions, which are then quoted as 'facts' by other people on other forums and perpetuated. Tbh, it gets on my tits!

Gilly wrote: I appreciate that Gills and it aligns with much of my experience in charities as well. Most donations are low-profile.

Without evidence that Saville was a Mason though all the other speculation is groundless.

The sad reality is that so much is built around the cult of personality that people in important positions of trust are prepared to whore their trust to bask in the benefits of reflected limelight.

If/when they discover all might not be squeaky clean, they scramble to cover up the scandal before takes down them or their organisation. From some, a few kids as collateral damage is a price worth paying to save embarrassment.

It's not the likes of Saville they are out to protect, it's themselves.
Imo it's one of the reasons peados are attracted to major organisations, they understand there will be a strategy of 'circle the wagons' which means they be quietly dropped or shifted sideways rather than publically outed and proscecuted.

That makes sense, Feather (and again, I will never defend the higher levels because I've no idea what does & doesn't go on there) except that when you know some of these people, and see they're ordinary,decent folk, like you and me, it doesn't really ring true that they'd cover something like that. They'd be more likely to lynch the likes of Saville publicly.

Gilly wrote: I did the same, and got the same results, before posting my question Gilly.
Which was why I asked for a credible link.

Isn't it the same syndrome inverted.

Jimmy Saville = Good Guy,
Let's be associated with him so people will see we're also good guys.

Jimmy Saville = Bad Guy,
Let's associate him with all the people we dislike so people will see they're bad guys.

How about we drop the whole generalised fuckwittery completely?

We're letting the peroxide producers, who are really the ones behind all this, get away!!

feather wrote:
I like your thinking.

I would say freemasonry was perhaps a useful institution for ladder climbers a long time ago.

Today its the CFR/Chatham House etc.

I've seen a couple of pictures of Saville at mason bashes. Whether he's doing charidee work or hanging with his mason buddies wasn't clear and I couldn't find any articles relating to the pics.

Frankly, to equate every freemason with child abuse is lazy, tabloid thinking. Enough examples of similar 'logic' have been posted by Mikey, so I needn't bother. Oh, alright then, all muslims are terrorists.

Thanks to such instant generalisations I find myself occupying one particular catergory. I'm a white guy, in my 40s, single and I live alone. Can you guess??
I like a nice stroll. There's a few really nice National Trust parks in my area and when I walk around them drinking in the beauty I constantly see parents steering the kids well away from where I am. Then there's the Paddington Bear stares from the dads and on one occasion a young mum screaming at her kids to 'keep away from that man'. (ok, the shotgun didn't help )
The whole deal is saddening more than anything else. Christ, I even try to look harmless. Do you know how to look harmless? Me neither.
I've effected a kind of smiley openess that probably makes me look drunk and confused.

Drunk and confused is an appealing look.