>>2890

This is the stuff revolutions are made of.

If it turns out their was a massive paedo conspiracy in Government and the House of Lords and it was covered up, there will be marches akin to the protests on the war and the Papers will got to a town we will never be able to come back from.

"The media that toppled a regime" is a tag line too delicious to pass up.

>>2891

>If it turns out their was a massive paedo conspiracy in Government and the House of Lords and it was covered up, there will be marches akin to the protests on the war and the Papers will got to a town we will never be able to come back from.
Nah, everyone is too fucking fat to revolt these days. I don't know whether the obesity epidemic is naturally occurring or the result of decades of planning by the elites, but the end result is the same either way.

>>2891
Nobody gives really any shit.

>>2893

How did you manage to massacre an entire language in such a short sentence?

>>2894
It's you who knows not English enough.

>>2891
ANY DAY NOW EH LAD?

I smell carpet. Sweeping is surely imminent.

>>2891
>If it turns out their was a massive paedo conspiracy in Government and the House of Lords and it was covered up
>If

No idea what's going on, but Norman Tebbit reckons there may have been a cover-up... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit

>>2899
Do you think he's just trying to get his retaliation in first?

>>2900
It's possible I suupose - my first thought is that he's old / nearly-dead enough that he no longer cares, so is simply telling the truth as he sees it, but given the alleged links to Number 10 all things are possible I suppose (wasn't one of her senior civil servants discredited for noncery some years back? Add that to her closeness to Savile and it's entirely plausible that warning shots are being fired by those who were part of those circles).

Sage for uninformed speculation.

>>2901
*Should have said something more like "those who were part of the circles around Maggie, not necessarily those who were part of paedophile rings - I'm no great fan of Tebbit, but I doubt very much he'd've had any active role in noncery or even the concealment thereof, though he seems to have at least suspected that some of those in Mrs T's inner circle had such roles.

>>2902
I think it's likely he had an inkling that there was rotten goings-on in Parliament and associated circles, but didn't act on those inklings in any meaningful way. Like, I suspect, many other people in that august institution.

There was a crazy period in the 1990s where Rochdale went through a completely bogus satanic abuse scare. Families were accused by Social Services of all manner of devil worshiping, that turned out to be nonsense. It's interesting that Paul Flowers was Vice President of Rochdale Social Services during that time.

>>2904
>Paul Flowers was Vice President of Rochdale Social Services during that time
You mean the Co(ke)-Op guy?

>>2905

The crystal Methodist

Sorry Modz, reposting as I have only just noticed this thread.

By the way lads, I thought I'd drop this link, as it took me a little bit of tracking down yesterday:

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-and-theresa-may-establish-a-national-inquiry-into-allegations-of-organised-child-abuse

It is Tom Watson MP's petition for a proper inquiry into the missing dossier.

>>2907
I've signed already, although it's my understanding that change.org is a complete paper tiger and has no tangible effect. I don't know why ARE TOM didn't use http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ instead.

>>2908

Coz they'd lose the petition m7, innit.

>>2908
I've made the mistake(?) of signing petitions on several of these websites and now I get spammed by them constantly asking me to sign others. Change.org, 350.org, 38 Degrees, All Out, Oxfam, Greenpeace... I only bother to sign about 5% of them, but I can't bring myself to unsubscribe because they are all worthy causes.

>The head of the children's charity NSPCC is to head a review of historical child sex abuse allegations, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

It's fucking on now, chaps. Well, maybe not, but an inquiry of some shape is going to go down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28189072

>>2911
I thought an inquiry had already been launched.

>>2912
Nah I think ARE Dave just asked one of his mates to have a "look".

An inquiry seems like a good idea. I somehow doubt the true extent of absolute corruption and inherent abuse of power within the establishment will come to light though.
I reckon it would all come crumbling down fairly swiftly if all the dirty doings of our rulers were to truly be exposed.
Still, better than nothing I guess.

>>2913
Just in time for election season too!

>>2914
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28189072

>A Hillsborough-style inquiry will also be held, led by an independent panel of experts on law and child protection.

>This would be wide-ranging and would not report before the next election.

Sadly it looks like Paedolection MMXV will not be upon us. Unless there are healthy amounts of 'leaks'.

>>2915
I'm not surprised it will get dragged out till after the election. It's all still pretty fucking mental though, will certainly be an interesting lead up to the elections regardless. It's crazy just seeing the different ways in which they're trying to spin this and reduce the damage as much as possible.

>>2916
I don't know about that, the Labour front benches were asking for this - ARE WATSON is the founder of the change.org petition, for example. It's highly likely that the Tories (and, as a plus, the Lib Dems too, what with Cyril Smith and so on) are going to be knee-deep in noncery whereas Labour have a comparatively squeaky clean reputation in that regard at least.

>>2917
It actually pains me quite a lot to be posting a link to the fucking mail, but..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681827/Labour-Lords-sex-attacks-12-children-Horrific-allegations-include-rape-sexual-assaults.html

I don't think any party is really squeaky clean. I'd imagine they're all in it up to their eyeballs. It's just interesting seeing all the different stuff being thrown out there, and who knows what's "truth" and what are attempts at obfuscation and interference.
Gove saying there won't be an inquiry, now there is. Lord Brittan being accused of the rape of a woman but not having any of the other rumoursnoncing being associated with him in the press. The Mail deflecting from the Thatcher cabinet to a Labour Lord etc etc.
A lot of the online discourse has been interesting as well. I don't think they're going to be able to put this to bed quite as easily as they used to although the internet is definitely a good tool for spreading all sorts of confusion.

Saying all that I don't think for a second that the full depth and breadth of just how rotten our entrenched elites are will be properly exposed at all. Nothing that would fundamentally undermine any major institution anyway, be that Westminster, royalty, the courts/police, social services or whatever else.

>>2918
>I'd imagine they're all in it up to their eyeballs.
Given are Ed and co's insistence on an inquiry, as opposed to the Tory/Lib Dem flim-flamming over yes-no-maybe-all-in-the-past-eh, I find it hard to believe that Labour MPs are going along with it and taking a punt that the filth won't investigate them also.

Maybe there was something to the BNP political broadcast, afterall.

>>2919

I've had some cunt at my local going on and on about the "hundreds" of paedos in the House of Parliament. I was going to post further but realised I was just playing into his hands. Enjoy your day lads.

>>2920

Dear God, can you imagine the political landscape after paedogate? With the liblabcon obliterated UKIP and the BNP would be the government and opposition on rotation, with the Greens playing the part of the third party.

>>2922
The Greens, who actually have an MP, would play third party to two parties that have never had an MP between them, one of which no longer has any MEPs?

>>2923
The Greens do have an MP, but you can't run the UK from Brighton.

>>2924

LIES!

>>2923

If the current political powers dissolved, historical records would be entirely obsolete. The Greens have an MP and UKIP/BNP don't, sure, but that's not the question. The questions is where would the current support for the three main parties go, and since the Tories have a plurality we can assume that most of the current voters would go for UKIP, the party which shares the most values with the Conservatives. Labour is very politically aligned with the BNP, they're just not as racist or as crazy. The Greens share most of their values and have the most similarity to the Lib Dems.

>>2926
Hmm... I'll grant your premise that tories would switch to UKIP, but I think fewer lefties are racist than you seem to, and suspect that the Greens would become the main left-of-centre party.

Not that this has anything to do with nonce-hunting in Westminster.

>>2927

Sorry, I don't think I was clear on the Labour/BNP thing. It's not that I think lefties are racists any more or less than the general rate, it's just the the BNP if you remove the racism very closely mirror Labour, or possibly more Old Labour (which most lefties prefer). If the BNP toned it down a bit during paedogeddon they could take droves of the labour supporters.

Perhaps it would be more of a 1. Ukip 2= BNP, Green with some Labour supporters who would refuse to have anything to do with the BNP making up the numbers for the Greens.

>>2928

But the same could be said for the Greens (basically old labour when you strip away their gimmick - environmentalism rather than racism, obviously) and I think that matters - most people are not particularly racist, so when given a choice between two parties with similar core policies and a gimmick they disagree with, they'll choose the one with the less actively offensive gimmick.

More to the point, I think the BNP vote is a spent force since the arrival of UKIP who cloak their racism better - those whose main focus is immigration would rally to UKIP, those who vote on other issues would go UKIP if they're right of centre and Green if left.

Sage for treating half-arsed "I reckon" as though it were solid prediction.

>>2926

>Labour is very politically aligned with the BNP

>>2927
>Not that this has anything to do with nonce-hunting in Westminster.

Yeah, this thread got derailed pretty quickly.

>>2932

The rails are over here:

Inquiry announced: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10951506/Theresa-May-launches-major-new-inquiry-into-child-sex-abuse-allegations.html

Former head of Paedophile Information Exchange kept stuff in Home Office filing cabinets whilst working there as an electrician: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10950563/Former-chair-of-Paedophile-Information-Exchange-claims-he-hid-material-in-locked-cabinets-at-the-Home-Office.html

Why are you people discussing ridiculous hypotheticals? Also, stop bringing up the greens in every thread, they're a political irrelevancy. And I live in Brighton, suburb of Hong Kong.

And to the lad above, labour are the most closely aligned political party to the bnp there is in mainstream politics.

But they're also an irrelevancy, the tories aren't going to die.

>>2934
>Why are you people discussing ridiculous hypotheticals?
Double-check where you are, lad.

>>2934

>And to the lad above, labour are the most closely aligned political party to the bnp there is in mainstream politics.

What ever you think you know about these two parties, you simply can't state something as controversial as "Labour is very politically aligned with the BNP" without backing it up.

What's obvious to you is certainly not obvious to me.

This kind of thing would never happen in Hong Kong.

>>2936
They differ only on socially liberal policies really.

Given this is boo, would it be reasonable to assume the sudden avalanche of derailment posts are the work of GCHQ lad going mental behind 16 proxies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHKwzpwK8Ss

http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/more-than-10-politicians-on-list-held-by-police-investigating-westminster-paedophile-ring/

Time to stock up on the tinfoil lads! Tesco's do a blue stripe roll for about 80p

>>2939
A Tesco Value tin-foil hat? Have some pirde, lad.

>>2940
*pride

As a country without any true revolution I don't believe the people of the United Kingdom have earned the right not to be raped by their power holders.

>>2942

Eh?

There is evidence at least 20 prominent paedophiles - including former MPs and government ministers - abused children for "decades", a former child protection manager has claimed.

> Mr McKelvie - giving his first television interview for 20 years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28203914

>>2943

Any country whose peoples labour beneath the heel of a monarch are inherently accepting of rape by those in power.

>>2942

Mate we've had like, half a dozen uprisings and civil wars since the middle ages.

It's not out of the question for it to happen again, but the question you have to ask is who exactly it would benefit. History has shown that revolutions only tend to throw one set of elites out and replace them with another who are by no means any better.

>>2946

Then you have another revolution, and another, and another, until the inevitable and most deserved end.

>>2942
Fuck off you zionist prick.

There was never a revolution that was truly led by the people.

The smearing of Leon Brittan as a nonce began during the 1980s due to far-right factions within the security services who were unhappy about a Jew being in the Cabinet - this was covered in Private Eye at the time.

>>2948
Well no, but then that's true for much of Europe as well. Succesful revolutions like the civil war here, or the French business tend to be led by whatever middle class is about at the time, and truly peasant-led ones like the Peasant's Revolt tend to be put down. That doesn't mean the English Civil War wasn't a genuine revolution though, or that the flourishing of radical ideas amongst genuinely working class groups like the Diggers and Levellers wasn't a thing...

The middles classes are people too you know, and (pre-universal education) tended to lead revolutions because they were generally better educated and had been exposed to a wider range of ideas, none of which makes them inherently bad people of unworthy of historical importance.

Sage for rising to such transparent bait.

>>2950
It wasn't even bait my friend.

A lot of your comment I disagree with on the source of those revolution, but I know there just is no way to discuss it without being ridiculed.

History I don't believe has been told truthfully, and I'm not just on about biased accounts here. I'll remind you of a quote from Churchill (someone who knew more than he let on), "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

If anyone dares to try and speak of or discuss the alternate history that some people wish to research or know of, they are ridiculed, smeared, boycotted.

Here's another quote, Voltaire this time. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

I won't even mention, because any real mention of the trigger words gets shouted down as racism - which I find particularly abhorrent, as it is not a hate for a race, but a hate for an organisation.

>>2918

While I am aware that I haven't finished reading the thread, I just want to jump in here: as on of the lads from the Winchester, I would like to make you fully aware that every one of us cunts worth a damn knows Brittan is a nonce. We just need the fucking proof. It is not a surprise the "dossier" went missing under his watch - he has a predilection for young boys. Very young boys. This is why we are currently hammering the shit out of him on both "dossier" and rape - we still do not (yet) have that fucking video of him at Elm House. But we know of it, please believe me on this. We fucking know of it and would quite happily sell our grandmas for a fucking copy, partially because we hate the cunt, and partially because, at the end of the day, we somehow manage to retain a small level of morality. Only a small bit, mind.

>>2952
> lads from the Winchester
Not him, but I'm not following you. Was that an autocorrect mistake?

>>2953

There was an autocorrect, I just play with it, because I like to think I am one of the boring old sods pissing my life away at a certain pub in London. I'm not, but it gives me a wry smile every time.

>>2954
So did you actually mean Westminster?

>>2949

GCHQ lad please go. And no, this thread is not about people stitching up Hebrews. The nose knows this.

> A victim of an alleged establishment paedophile ring told yesterday how he was ordered to wear a fairy costume before being abused.
The orphan was 13 when he and his 12-year-old brother were sent by staff at their children’s home to the Elm Guest House for ‘a treat’, it is claimed.
He said boys were plied with alcohol before being told to pose for pictures wearing girls’ clothing. The men at the guest house – said to include MPs and pop stars – would then abuse the children after pretending to play hide-and-seek, the victim said.
More than a decade after leaving care, the victim’s brother, Peter, killed himself six days after his 28th birthday.
A line in his suicide note which appeared to refer to his ordeal read: ‘I will get those b*******.’

Also: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Pedophocracy - It wouldn't be a /boo thread without this spooky link

>>2956

The page your link goes to could have been written by the Kipper at my local. FFS.

>>2955

Nope.

>>2955
j0urnolad filters to Ed WInchester or something I think.

>>2952
I'd like to believe that and I'm sure there are some decent sorts within the press and media in general just as there are within the wider political classes and establishment.
I just tend to think that you're working against entrenched power structures that are going to be hard to overcome.

I'd imagine any real evidence will be long gone by now or if it does still exist it's going to be being held by people not willing to let it go public. Also if the press were to somehow get a hold of some real solid evidence would it not be possible that they would just get told by the lawyers they can't publish for whatever reason? D-noticed or whatever?
I think the best we'll get is a few victims testimonies and they'll be discredited as much as is possible.

Also what I find just a bit sad is that the inquiries(and I may well have this all arse about tit) seem to just be about how the institutions failed, i.e. losing the files and that, and while I think those sorts of things should definitely be investigated I get the feeling that the actual brutal and fucked up crimes of people in power systematically abusing young vulnerable children might well get lost.

>>2959

Indeed it does. Or did, anyway. Right, I fucking hate posting like this, but I am short on time, so...

>I'd like to believe that and I'm sure there are some decent sorts within the press and media in general just as there are within the wider political classes and establishment.
I just tend to think that you're working against entrenched power structures that are going to be hard to overcome.

Amira Hass was quoted by Robert Fisk in his excellent "The Great War for Civilisation" as saying that the role of journalists is to "monitor the structures of power". Some of do actually do this. It is hard, challenging and you risk being Rosened, but fuck 'em.

>I'd imagine any real evidence will be long gone by now or if it does still exist it's going to be being held by people not willing to let it go public. Also if the press were to somehow get a hold of some real solid evidence would it not be possible that they would just get told by the lawyers they can't publish for whatever reason? D-noticed or whatever?
I think the best we'll get is a few victims testimonies and they'll be discredited as much as is possible.

The Met have the video. Thank you NotW for causing a near complete cessation of relations with the Met. It is there, it has been seen, and I know the coppers who have seen it - from past work. They will be doing everything in their power to nail the cunt. It is incredibly difficult to work child abuse cases without becoming rather vindictive to those abusing children. I can personally vouch for this, and I hate children.

D-notices are national security only, and can be breached. No media lawyer (if provided with *proof*) of this would refuse to sign off. They may have a few sleepless nights, but that is what they are there to do.

>Also what I find just a bit sad is that the inquiries(and I may well have this all arse about tit) seem to just be about how the institutions failed, i.e. losing the files and that, and while I think those sorts of things should definitely be investigated I get the feeling that the actual brutal and fucked up crimes of people in power systematically abusing young vulnerable children might well get lost.

We shall see. Do not expect the pressure to die down though - the sheer loathing between the lads who work at the Winchester and politicians at the moment means all gloves are off. My phone has been going critical for the last week regarding this. There are scores to be settled...and given the attempts to regulate the press (rightly or wrongly) this is the kind of story where even the most muck-raking of hacks can prove what they do is in the Public Interest. FOR THE GREATER GOOD[.

Right I need to dash before the shops shut. Further questions welcome.

>>2960

On an aside, I cannot believe I just posted that from my phone, while risking missing the shops shutting. Fucking Cardiff. Apologies for a couple of typos/missing words.

>>2961
> Apologies for a couple of typos/missing words.
I just assumed you were drunk and illiterate, like all journalists.

>>2960
>>2961
No worries Mr Winchester. Appreciate the long reply.

If the Met have the video then surely they could have prosecuted at anytime? Why have they just been sitting on it for the past couple decades?
I have fuck all understanding of this stuff so excuse me if I'm asking stupid questions.

In regards to D-notices and national security could an argument not be made(behind closed doors one would assume) that if the shit really hits the fan with this stuff then it might constitute a threat to "national security"/the rotten fuckers in power?

Can't really think of anything else specific at the moment but just to reiterate I hope you nail the cunts to the fucking wall.

Interesting BBC article about possible involvement of Special Branch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28201997

>A man claiming to be a former Home Office civil servant last week told the Sunday Express that not only was PIE receiving funding from the Home Office in the 1980s, it was doing so at the request of Special Branch, the intelligence-gathering arm of the police. And he believed the police were not interested in catching child abusers.

He said his superior told him that Special Branch "found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles... I was aware a lot of people in the civil service or political arena had an interest in obtaining information like that which could be used as a sort of blackmail."

/BOO!

http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/cia-mossad-mi5-and-kincora-boys-home.html

"Over a month ago the Archbishop of Canterbury,with support of Cardinal Nichols and the president of the Methodist Church, wrote to the Home Secretary saying a full public inquiry is required into institutional child abuse, which I followed up in the House of Lords a few days ago.

A full public inquiry is required because under those terms people have to take oaths and therefore swear to tell the truth. My fear is the whole story won't come out without that.

We're absolutely clear that the Church of England and other churches need to be involved in this inquiry as we already know there are parts of our history that involve church people having committed abuse.

So we have to be investigated just like anybody else and there will probably be some unpleasant and difficult stories to handle and I accept that's part of the reality.

We think there is a real problem around institutional abuse, so schools, civil service, police, politicians and the church, we need to try and get to the bottom of why people can get into institutions and use those institutions as a safe place to abuse.

Victim survivors need justice and they need their story to be heard and, as a nation, we need to help them to move on."

> The Right Rev Paul Butler - The Bishop of Durham

"Regarding the destroying of Whitehall files, when I worked as a civil servant at the then DES in the late 70`s and early 80`s, I was sometimes given this onerous task.

It meant that files that had not been active for a while had to be speed read and a form ticked. Basically, any file which had information that was still relevant or pending i.e. a decision had been made but not yet carried out, or if the material might be of interest historically to future researchers.

If the file did not meet this criteria, it was destroyed and the form which was retained, signed and dated by the civil servant, would show why the decision had been reached. If it did meet either criteria, it would be sent to the archives.Also, registries where paper files were stored would undertake regular audits so all files could be accounted for. Any missing files would be flagged up and searched for.

These both left a paper trail which was signed and dated by the acting official. How could 120 files go walkies? How could they not be seen as pending?

Files could certainly be sent to other Government departments, but, as always with the civil service, the Registry would have a written record of where the file was sent and by whom.

Files were considered to be very important and their movements were logged assiduously. Time consuming but it protected us all. Any file that was moved or destroyed was recorded and dated. Lost files would spark panic and poor registry staff would have to hunt for them, even searching our desks!

Lost files would be tracked back to their last movement, the Registry having a separate log of these, and the official it was logged out to would be questioned. Paper trails everywhere, signed and dated! Civil service rules!"

> Penelope123 - Nutter from The Guardian's comment section

>>2966
> we need to try and get to the bottom of why people can get into institutions and use those institutions as a safe place to abuse.

It's simple really. The real people who rule the world make SURE that whenever a position of power opens up, they can put forward someone who is a kiddy fiddler. Then hang this sword of Damocles over their head in return for them doing as they wish.

Almost everyone (probably actually everyone) in the government has some grubby, dirty secret. I suppose in the old days the threat of being exposed as a homosexual was probably enough, these days that's accepted so they have to use the greatest taboo - peadophilia.

All these terrible places were run as sting operations to get blackmail material so that the real rulers of the world had fodder to manipulate with.

>>2968

It seems unlikely. If you put powerful people in the corner they tend not to react well. The instant you threaten them with the paedo stuff they'll launch a full scale war against these elites.

If you look at JFK for example, when he did that executive order thing basically ending the power of the banks, nobody outed him as a homo or a paedo, they just shot him.

>>2969
> If you look at JFK for example, when he did that executive order thing basically ending the power of the banks, nobody outed him as a homo or a paedo, they just shot him.
Which is a Last Resort. They would much rather he had toed the line.

> It seems unlikely.
So do a lot of things until they are known to be true.

>>2969
> The instant you threaten them with the paedo stuff they'll launch a full scale war against these elites.
I don't think you really get it do you. There are people and forces above government. You can't just launch a full scale war. For example - JFK.

And is the OP of this thread not giving you pause for thought?

>>2970
>>2971
I think the odds of some privileged old men who have never heard the word no turning to paedophillia to get their kicks are much greater than the odds of a few shadowy elites running paedo rings at the highest levels of world government and remaining undetected for centuries.

>>2972
Then explain why there haven't been any arrests of politicians yet over Yewtree. Plenty of entertainers fed to the dogs, but no one with any real power. Dead men obviously don't count, so they can release their names, and it's obvious from the names released this goes right to the top. I mean, come on, Ted fucking Heath! He was Prime Minister of England and protected by the secret services who knew he was a nonce! The only reason this happens is so that people with other interests can wield power over them.

I get the feeling neither of us is going to change our minds here, so I'll (probably) leave it at that.

>>2973

Perhaps the only difference in our perspectives is that you think x is protecting y, while I'm of the opinion that y is protecting itself.

>>2963

The Met only got it a couple of days ago - hence every hack in London hammering their contacts, desperate to get it.

And no, D-Notices would be ignored for something like this, even if "The Establishment" were to try for one.

>>2972
> I think the odds of some privileged old men who have never heard the word no turning to paedophillia to get their kicks are much greater than the odds of a few shadowy elites running paedo rings at the highest levels of world government and remaining undetected for centuries.
I'll just quote this from the Evening Standard.
"I believe that there is strong evidence ... that there’s been an extremely powerful elite among the highest levels of the political classes for as long as I have been alive — I’m 65 now.

“We are looking at the Lords, we are looking at the Commons, we are looking at the judiciary.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/peer-backs-claims-that-powerful-people-abused-children-in-homes-9591629.html

>>2956
I am not GCHQlad, here is the Private Eye clipping from circa 1984. Rabbitholes go deeper than expected.

>>2978
Funny thing is it wasn't a smear, it was the truth.

And the spooks only leveraged it when they wanted something.

https://www.youtube.com/v/p6HFknUsh9E

>>2980
I'll admit that in this context that song suddenly seems far more sinister than it did, but I'm reasonably sure that you have something more than that in mind, so would you mind explaining?

>>2981
what can one say? one can romanticise it in ‘images’ or one can talk about the ‘cold hard truth’….you cannot attain ‘the life of the soul’ if you are not ‘naturally born’.

if you are the product of a SIS experiment – granted, that is as SH I.T. as it can be….

you have to ‘make your peace with it’ somehow – as kate golby was to do….

…to make ‘war’ upon those that have souls….and then try to ‘harness them’ and ‘make them work for you’ as slaves – is the DEMONIC at work and to the nth degree….

….and the ‘angels’ take revenge in the end – as history tells us….recent history….they can write you terrible, terrible life scripts….do you really want that?

not that ‘those of us who were naturally born’ are angels or devils….it is just that we had that ‘spark from the beginning of creation’ – the ‘soul spark’ that came from another dimension – that was to begin our lives upon this planet….

the ill had realised ‘the above’…how to create ‘human beings without a soul’…’easily programmed robots’ in the main….’no mess and no fuss’ in relation to those with a soul, fighting back for all they were worth….to stop themselves from being enslaved.

>>2982
I hope you're having a lovely summer, Em.

>>2982
Ah. I'm afraid you've rather lost me, and I don't know who Kate Golby was, but... having read several of your blogs recently (assuming you're Are Emily, and if not you mimic her writing style very well) could you please take down the scans that display your name, address, mobile number etc. I know you think they're significant evidence of foul play by sinister forces, but they're also potentially dangerous should a scammer find them, and some of us worry about you...

Lady Butler-Sloss to chair abuse inquiry: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/08/lady-butler-sloss-chair-child-abuse-inquiry

>>2985
She both looks and sounds like a butch lesbian pedo. I smell a cover up.

>>2986
Butler Sloss is an odd pick to lead this inquiry.

I know it's the Daily Heil, but; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357642/Judge-gave-James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-secret-identity-casts-doubt-child-porn-sex-crimes-link.html

We might have expected an old fashioned fire-breathing nonce hater to be running the show but B.S has a history of claiming things like 'there was [no] evidence to show that paedophiles who seek out indecent images online also carry out physical assaults' ("‘There is no evidence that those who watch child porn go ahead and do it. Not to my knowledge. There may be evidence but I have not come across it").

It also seems pretty fucking stupid do drag an 80 year old out of retirement, given this inquiry could go on for years and years, and the leader of this inquiry could be called on to give evidence at a later date. This makes me suspicious.

>>2987
>*pretty fucking stupid to

>>2984

Not enough FULL CAPS to be ARE EM.

ACTIVATE GOLD PROTOCOL

>>2987

While obviously THE ESTABLISHMENT would try and avoid censure, B.S. is pretty fucking independent in her views. inb4 EXACTLY...

>>2985
It's not a public inquiry, so it means fuck all. The security services and Westminster will know about it.

>>2990
It's a direct quote from her blog.