Wide range of child and adult abuse inquiries

Precisley Marky. I think his retirement would have been permanent too. Little, unimportant people don't hold Royalty or governments to ransom.

oh sure, permanent.  

oh, i don't think prince andrew is a very sharp pencil.

Marky wrote:oh, i don't think prince andrew is a very sharp pencil.

Thick as mince springs to mind, however he does have a posse of advisers and lackeys who should have pointed him in the direction of the Florida state laws on the age of consent, all of which is irrelevant if he has done nothing wrong.
I reckon there will be nothing to pin on him and it will put the frightners on any other whistleblowers especially those who challenge the rich and powerful.
This girl looks not too unhappy to be pictured with him for someone who claims to be a sex slave. I know that evil people do traffic women however she just doesn`t look haunted to me. Wrong?

Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

Dee Coy wrote:

Mimi wrote:Perhaps we all need to read again `Gerry`s Tunnel Vision`

http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/

What I`ve always found extremely odd is Charles & Camilla taking an interest in this case and sending their good wishes, or whatever, to the McCanns - since when have the royals ever done this to a subject who has lost a child?  Did they do this for April Jones`s parents or Ben Needham`s parents ?

Is the new SY remit purely to get the remaining samples back to England? A fascinating read, Mimi, not seen before.

Is it Diana, or something else? If Diana, what was Gerry's implication,  I wonder. If something else, then what?

There were, of course tenuous reports of a yacht with royal presence being present around that part of Portugal in May 07. Any references now being removed, naturally, so impossible to say whether or not this legend had any credibility.

I did find these two links. Both of which are not credible sources and are expressing speculation not fact. I guess both are the authors' own opinions. Take them as read or with huge pinches of salt


http://icenirising.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/maddy-missing-links/

http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.it/2013/07/prince-charles-meets-red-devils-2.html

Thanks for those links DeeCoy - I find it odd that cuddlecat had ribbons with a black equal-armed cross on them.  The other ribbon/wristband may have `fatima` written on it - well I can only see the TIM clearly. The black equal-armed cross seems to have links with either a fascistic pop group of that name or the Black Cross Brotherhood which in this article sounds rather black indeed :-

"The Black Cross: The Cross of Darkness


German Nazi Black Cross - American SRIA Black Cross

The Black Cross is regarded my many as a thoroughly Satanic symbol. This Cross of Darkness also has a connection with the Crusades - with the Teutonic Knights.



The ancient Brotherhood of the Black Cross has throughout history opposed the Fraternity of the Sages of Light. Whereas the Sages of Light have worked for Millennia to further the spiritual evolution of mankind and the Solar ascension of developed Souls, the Black Cross Brotherhood has always sought power and domination, keeping mankind enslaved in matter and blind to the spiritual, energetic dimensions.

Perpetual enemies of the Sages of Light,  the Brotherhood of the Black Cross has throughout history involved itself in politics, power, and the subjugation of mankind. Unsurprisingly, the Black Cross Brotherhood has perpetually attempted to subvert both political and esoteric movements. The Golden Dawn is merely the most recent spiritual movement that The Black Cross has attempted to subvert, creating a host of client orders, which can be readily recognized, once you understand The Black Cross as common symbol for each of them.

Black Dawn Rising!

Grand Wizard, KKK - Supreme Magus, SRIA

In the esoteric world today, we find The Black Cross in a host of Black Cross Rosicrucian orders including SRIA (Anglia), SRIA (America) and the ORC (Order of the Rose and Cross), and lurking behind Golden Dawn puppet orders they control. The Black Cross is also found behind one extremist political movement after the other throughout history, as well as behind one Holocaust after the other, from the extermination of Pagans under the Roman Catholic Inquisition, to the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany.


The Jewish and Pagan Holocausts must never be forgotten!

I find it deeply disturbing that today we find The Black Cross not only in Black Cross Rosicrucian Orders like the SRIA, but also in other Christian extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

Turn the sound down if you go to this site
http://hermetic-golden-dawn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/black-cross-brotherhood-golden-dawn.html

_______________________________________
There`s also the Teutonic Knights - they have an equal-armed black cross in their symbolism :-

"Teutonic Knights
Coat of arms of the Teutonic Order.png
Coat of arms of the Teutonic Order.
Active c. 1190 – present
Allegiance Holy Roman Emperor (1190-1806), Papacy
Type Catholic religious order
(1192–1929 as military order)
Headquarters Acre (1192–1291)
Venice (1291–1309)
Marienburg (1309–1466)
Königsberg (1466–1525)
Mergentheim (1525–1809)
Vienna (1809 – present)
Nickname Teutonic Knights, German Order
Patron The Virgin Mary, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, & Saint George
Attire White mantle with a black cross
Commanders
First Grand Master Heinrich Walpot von Bassenheim
Current Grand Master Bruno Platter[1] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Knights

All of the Royal Navy vessels are the "Queens" vessels. I memory serves me, there was such a vessel indeed nearby. I do remember it has been checked and all aboard were counted for. There were no Royals aboard. This is so long ago, that I'll have problems finding it again. We have to be very careful with myths IMO ...

Oh & Yes! I'm back again after some computer problems. My thanks to Candyfloss, Freedom & Tigger

chirpyinsect wrote:

hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind. There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down. So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

chirpyinsect wrote:Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

yup, it's called lack of evidence and as for someone talking soon, after seven years that's unlikely although you can never say never.

Mimi wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind.  There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down.  So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose.

that the gaspars are doctors doesn't make their statements any the more valid than if they ran the corner shop. and on the subject of the gaspars, they witnessed the same thing twice but didn't think anything of it for another two years. in fact he didn't really make anything of it at all. only mrs gaspar's mind went creative. couldn't be that it was a private joke between two male doctors that others may not find particularly amusing could it?

and that's about as polite as i can get.

Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual).

In fact I don't much agree with your analysis of the case on the whole, I think it's clear we are diametrically opposed, but I do also quite like the sceptisism of your last post, which raises some valid points.

I want to say one thing on this issue and then I'm going to run off.

First of all, though I believe there could well be a royal paedophile scandal out there, this is not it for me. The girl was 17.

Secondly, I'm not convinced this is even a sex slave scandal. I'm not saying a 17 year old girl willingly becomes a prostitute; but all the same, it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And that's the crux of the matter. A case like this simply muddies the waters in the public mind.

Actually that thought occurred to me too.  A lot of trumpeting about "under age girls" and then when you read it properly, it's little more than a technicality.  The legal age in Florida, where this allegedly happened, is 18.  If it had happened somewhere else, e.g. Scotland, it wouldn't have been a "crime" at all.  The only reason it's a huge story at all is because there's royalty involved.

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual).

might help to answer if i knew what you called yourself. i don't really recall your current name. sorry.

Resistor wrote:

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual).

In fact I don't much agree with your analysis of the case on the whole, I think it's clear we are diametrically opposed, but I do also quite like the sceptisism of your last post, which raises some valid points.

I want to say one thing on this issue and then I'm going to run off.

First of all, though I believe there could well be a royal paedophile scandal out there, this is not it for me. The girl was 17.

Secondly, I'm not convinced this is even a sex slave scandal. I'm not saying a 17 year old girl willingly becomes a prostitute; but all the same, it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And that's the crux of the matter. A case like this simply muddies the waters in the public mind.

Actually that thought occurred to me too.  A lot of trumpeting about "under age girls" and then when you read it properly, it's little more than a technicality.  The legal age in Florida, where this allegedly happened, is 18.  If it had happened somewhere else, e.g. Scotland, it wouldn't have been a "crime" at all.  The only reason it's a huge story at all is because there's royalty involved.

think the palace should tread carefully where issuing denials are concerned.

Mimi first of all let me apologise to you. I think I didn't explain my position very well. I was trying in a cack handed way to clarify that I (and because it was in reply to a comment by Marky) and he were not laughing at the situation per se but more at the idea that Gerry could hold the establishment to ransom. That was in response to Hicks who I thought felt we were finding it amusing. My feeling is that he would not have that power.
If the use of the word ludicrous offends you then it was not my intention and was not me trying to rubbish anyone else`s theory. There is enough of that elsewhere. I wasnt even aware of your personal take on this but I should have considered how it may read to others.
It is possible he knows something so damning that people in power have been persuaded to assist but my take on that is that it is unlikely. I should perhaps have put the word ludicrous in inverted commas because it was meant as a bit of irony given that Gerry uses the word so frequently.
Now I will depart from agreeing with Marky in case anyone thinks I concur with what he has just written.
JS was given the keys to Broadmoor where dangerous and deranged individuals who committed heinous crimes were incarcerated. This was done with the full blessing of HM Gov. He made a cosy little home from home for himself and carried out his lewd practices there. Hardly so what.
He became the doyen of charity work which he used as a means of abusing children who were sick in hospital. Hardly so what.
Those at the BBC and other organisations knew of his behaviour but did nothing yet some of them are feted by the establishment and given honours whilst those who have to deal with the fall out from his sick, depraved ways have to soldier on, often taking their own lives in the process. Hardly so what.
The Queen has, mostly never put a foot wrong in her long reign (I am no Royalist btw) and she has a posse of advisers who are paid to make sure she is abreast of anything that could compromise her position so how did JS manage to slip under the Buck House radar? Was it a case of keep your enemies close?
If you can find excuses for that thing (he was not a man) then you will be in a minority of one.
As for the Gaspars, perhaps they should have said something at the time. Maybe they didn't put as much store on the comments until MBM went missing. We don't know, but to say it was a bad taste joke between 2 men is too apologetic. The Gaspars perhaps didn't say anything at the time to the 2 involved because they didn't want to embarrass themselves or the wives. I would imagine they distanced themselves from the friendship though.
Mimi once again I am sorry if I offended you.

chirpyinsect wrote: Now I will depart from agreeing with Marky in case anyone thinks I concur with what he has just written.

JS was given the keys to Broadmoor where dangerous and deranged individuals who committed heinous crimes were incarcerated. This was done with the full blessing of HM Gov. He made a cosy little home from home for himself and carried out his lewd practices there. Hardly so what.

He became the doyen of charity work which he used as a means of abusing children who were sick in hospital. Hardly so what.

Those at the BBC and other organisations knew of his behaviour but did nothing yet some of them are feted by the establishment and given honours whilst those who have to deal with the fall out from his sick, depraved ways have to soldier on, often taking their own lives in the process. Hardly so what.

The Queen has, mostly never put a foot wrong in her long reign (I am no Royalist btw) and she has a posse of advisers who are paid to make sure she is abreast of anything that could compromise her position so how did JS manage to slip under the Buck House radar? Was it a case of keep your enemies close?

If you can find excuses for that thing (he was not a man) then you will be in a minority of one.

As for the Gaspars, perhaps they should have said something at the time. Maybe they didn't put as much store on the comments until MBM went missing. We don't know, but to say it was a bad taste joke between 2 men is too apologetic. The Gaspars perhaps didn't say anything at the time to the 2 involved because they didn't want to embarrass themselves or the wives. I would imagine they distanced themselves from the friendship though.

have tidied your post up so it reads easier. in the first instance you need to read what i said again. in the second, if you can find anywhere in that post that even remotely hints at any sort of excuse then you point it out.

Marky. Firstly thank you very much for "tidying up" my post. However I left school many years ago and no longer require that sort of correction.
Secondly, you need to read your post again because it sure comes across to me that you are dismissing the actions of JS by your repeated use of the words "so what".
If I have got that wrong then so what!

chirpyinsect wrote:Marky. Firstly thank you very much for "tidying up" my post. However I left school many years ago and no longer require that sort of correction.
Secondly, you need to read your post again because it sure comes across to me that you are dismissing the actions of JS by your repeated use of the words "so what".
If I have got that wrong then so what!

well, since you could care less if you've got it wrong i won't bother drawing you any pictures.

Marky, enough of the stirring and wind-ups please.

You are of course welcome to express your opinions but the wording sometimes leaves a little to be desired in the tact department.

Freedom wrote:Marky, enough of the stirring and wind-ups please.

You are of course welcome to express your opinions but the wording sometimes leaves a little to be desired in the tact department.

yes, mustn't upset the apple cart huh.

Marky - why are you so angry?

Oh dear chirpy - what have I started.  I know my post was tagged onto your reply to Hicks, but the root of my annoyance was at Marky`s perpetual needling of other posters` ideas with constant put-downs.  GM having some dirt on the royals may well be ludicrous, but equally may not - there may be reasons we don`t know about.  I`m always open to ideas and the royals/MI5 being involved is likely IMO.  I just don`t understand why these things can`t be discussed without Marky coming here like a fly swatter and splatting peoples` ideas - it`s just like over yonder !  Anyway thanks for your apology and I understand where you were coming from.

Mimi wrote:Marky - why are you so angry?

not angry at all simply responding to a post. i suppose you could say that if they knew then what they know now then things would have been different but they didn't. implying that maybe they did is wrong. so saville had links with the royals. yes...and...what are you implying? or yes...so what. i guess i'm just not sensitive enough.

note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.