mikey mikey wrote:
ffs I just asked you for a link/pointer to it....is it that fucking difficult?

diamondgeezer wrote:
I think its this one.

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/Todays-News/7213...tar-Wars-Coming.html

andyh wrote: I have now.
I had to pause it for a while, he really was an annoying noxious twat eh?

No mention of water rats or masons though.

feather wrote: He was the first chav I reckon, LOL!!!

I'll lay good money on you never hearing a peep about it despite filling the vomit bucket.

diamondgeezer wrote:
I've already quoted it

andyh wrote:

I missed it too then lol

andyh wrote: LOL at 1st chav.
You nailed that one.

He really was devoid of any talent eh?
He just wore hideous clothes, pulled dumb faces and gibbered garbage for a living.
wtf people?

psketti wrote:
Post 238.

feather wrote:
He was also one ugly mother-ucker

andyh wrote:
LOL... if I'm not mistaken, you're speaking about summit completely different

The thing mikey and DG are discussing above is related to a post made by cloud the other day on another thread... someone help me out here if that aint right please and ta very much

psketti wrote: If he was that we probably wouldn't be discussing him.

psketti wrote:
The way I see it, its why his name was dragged into the convo, looking at that its MM's reply based on Dawns mention previous.

andyh wrote:

diamondgeezer wrote:
Cheers.

Though I don't think there's a reluctance to discuss the possibility of his being one. To my mind anyeay, it's more that so many people across the internet are stating things about it as being fact, based on stuff like that Sutcliffe / Bruno photo, which in reality is not proof, as discussed earlier. And that's the 'smoke' that can be said to be proof of the fire. It's flawed logic, and so not helpful in trying to determine the truth, yet I've seen nobody elsewhere even question it.

Your comment pretty much gets to the crux of what's bugging me, because I don't know whether they are involved at some high level. It was purely the implication (not from yourself) that it's a well known fact that Masons (generally) are a set of paedo's.

Being married to one, and friends with others, who I 100% know are as sickened by the likes of Saville as I am, I hope you can see why I'd find that line of thinking highly offensive.

So thanks for clarifying your stance, & it's cool.

feather wrote:
Feather, you are truly a selfless hero. This is for you...



(I think that's a peach on it )

I've been looking online and googling like a mad person to see if I can find proof that Jimmy Saville was a mason to give to feather .....and I can't find anything

I do know though that I watched a programme years and years ago about Water Rats and he was on it saying he was a Water Rat (I'll try and find a link if it exists)

Gilly , Jimmy Saville was the deviant , I suppose in a way it does not matter if he was a mason or cub scout , it was him as a person who was evil

dawnbreak wrote:
If you think Freemasons are all tard, with the same brush, then that would mean
All Policemen are Bully boys
All Soldiers are Mass Murderers
All Doctors are Quacks
All Conspiruguru's are Full Of Shit
All Chefs can't cook
All Dentists are Bastards
All Thiefs are Heartless

Shall I go on

errm no?

i didn't once say all Masons are pedo's or weird buggars who worship at the feet of Jimmy Saville did I?

The masons,,,,,the high up one's do do things that are underhand

And they cover everything up


Many Masons do hold positions of power in areas such as Politics, healthcare,.........and the biggest one is Judges !

These people have to now declare their membership and the list is huge

I can not believe how many mason defenders there are here .......and people defending Jimmy Saville


Weird ?

dawnbreak wrote:
Come on, dawn, that's just mean.

No-one is defending Saville or any child molester. A brief re-read of this thread will confirm that for you.