Saville & satanic ritual abuse

porsche959

From Twitter - link:-

https://twitter.com/mwalkerdine


Martin Walkerdine ‏@mwalkerdine 5h
@LeightonReality retired Stoke Mandeville consultant, Dr Michael Salmon @ciabaudo @reeves3915 @chigginjones @gojam_i_am @mlilleker
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand

Carol Higgin-Jones ‏@chigginjones 3h
@mwalkerdine @LeightonReality @ciabaudo @reeves3915 @gojam_i_am @mlilleker oh, do we know anyone else that frequented the hospital like 1/2
Reply Retweet Favorite More Expand

Carol Higgin-Jones ‏@chigginjones 3h
@mwalkerdine @LeightonReality @ciabaudo @reeves3915 @gojam_i_am @mlilleker 2/2 Jimmy So-vile? Coincidence?

Martin Walkerdine ‏@mwalkerdine 3h
@chigginjones @LeightonReality @ciabaudo @reeves3915 @gojam_i_am @mlilleker 2 more nhs workers will be arrested soo mark my words on this

porsche959

After 30 years without an answer it's time to find out who protected the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-after-30-years-2824776#ixzz2lUg92IrO
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-after-30-years-2824776

porsche959

An update from The Real Whitby website regarding their investigations into Savile and accomplices in the Leeds and Scarborough areas.

http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/official-peter-jaconelli-innocent

Daithi 1

enno99 wrote: »

MK ultra and ritual abuse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQ8g1jtR8o

havent watched it yet

I will put it here if anybody wants to have a look

Thanks.

I haven't watched it either but it's nice to know it's here if I do decide to watch it. I won't have to go directly to youtube.

enno99

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Thanks.

I haven't watched it either but it's nice to know it's here if I do decide to watch it. I won't have to go directly to youtube.

LOL

I know the reasoning behind putting it here escapes me now
I did watch it later but like all these testimonies I find it hard to judge

when she said she was sent to the Athenaeum Club, London to work (second part of the video) to either work or spy Reminded me of Savile getting membership there

The late Cardinal Basil Hume is being held responsible for the election of Sir Jimmy Savile as a member of the Athenaeum, the historical Pall Mall establishment

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9596850/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-causes-anguish-at-the-Athenaeum.html

“It was Cardinal Basil Hume, at the time the Archbishop of Westminster, who put this character up for membership, and, while we did give consideration to blackballing Savile, we knew that would have had to result in something that could not be countenanced – Hume stepping down.”

Makes you wonder what he had on Cardinal Basil Hume

Or are they trying to control the damage by saying they didnt want him as a member but didnt have the balls to throw him out

Or were more than one of them in his little black book

Athenaeum Club, London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenaeum_Club,_London#cite_note-3

It has a long list of notable members

porsche959

Questions for the Home Office regarding Establishment child abuse cover-ups

Dear Mr . Mrs or Ms. L. Smart,
Thank you for your letter undated and addressed wrongly to ____ _______ which arrived in yesterday’s post ie Saturday 30th November.
I think I would have had more confidence that the Home Office was going to address the issues I raised with the Prime Minister and take my letter seriously if you had taken the trouble to at least get my name right.
I quickly realised in reading the first few lines that your reply was going to be a mirror copy of the almost identical replies that Conservative Party MP’s have been sending to their constituents in response to the latter forwarding my “Open Letter” to them.
You have not addressed a single issue that I specifically raised with the Prime Minister, The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and your reply is dismissive and rather condescending.
I am well aware that Operations Fernbridge and Operation Fairbank are “live investigations” – I have in writing from the Operation Fernbridge team that they were only set up to address the allegations I made which resulted in Tom Watson’s PMQ on 24th October 2012.
You go in to detail of what the Government intends to do to “urgently address the missed opportunities to protect children and vulnerable people”. I was well aware of all these initiatives before I wrote my letter to David Cameron. These are addressed to abuse in the community, in schools, in children’s institutions, in hospitals etc and you well know as do the politicians that I have written to that that is not what my letter is about. Please afford me a certain level of credibility.
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the similar initiatives made in the immediate aftermath of the death of Maria Colwell in 1973 when I had already started out on my long career in child protection, and am aware of all the similar soundbites that come from whichever political party is in power at the time through the deaths of Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly.
My letter is very specific as you well know and you have made not a single reference to the issues I raise.
I will repeat them.
1. The allegations regarding the role of senior politicians, the security services and the Crown Prosecution Service in covering up the horrendous abuse carried out by Sir Cyril Smith over 5 decades.
2. The rise of Sir. Peter Morrison to become Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and more crucially PPS to Prime Minister, Mrs.Thatcher, in 1990 and her general election campaign manager that same year despite it being known for many years that, in the words of a Government Minister, he was well known ” in Westminster circles ” to be ” a pederast “.
3. The statement by the late Tim Fortescue, Edward Heath’s Chief Whip from 1970 – 1973, on prime time national TV that if an MP got in to trouble over the abuse of ” small boys ” it would be blatantly covered up, not referred to the Police or Social Services but merely recorded in the Whips Dirt Books to use at a later date for leverage on voting intentions.
4. Why was a British Prime Minister so close to a life time paedophile (a fact the Security Services should have and probably did pick up long before her term as Prime Minister) that she invited him to allegedly 11 – 13 Chequers New Year’s Eve parties.
5. Why did the same Prime Minister allegedly persevere, in spite of advice to the contrary from her closest advisers, in knighting a man many years after it was known in some circles that he had a deviant sexual history even if the full extent of it didn’t emerge until many years later.
6. Why was the same man so welcome in Prince Charles’s properties despite the security services and similar vetting institutions having enough opportunity to tap in to the ” gossip ” about him that was around for decades.
You state “child abuse is an abhorrent crime, no matter when, or WHERE it takes place. We are committed to tackling it, whatever form it takes”
Really – why do I and probably millions of people doubt your sincerity.
You attempt to divert the issue by stating that Operations Fernbridge and Fairbank are “live investigations”. You and I well know that the issues I raise in my “open letter” will not result in live investigations or trials as all the individuals I refer to are dead.
It did not stop the Government setting up Inquiries in to the BBC’s and the NHS’s role when Operation Yewtree were only setting out on their ” live investigation”.
Mr. Cameron promised that ALL institutions would look at the role they played in the failure to detect what Savile was doing.
My request was that Parliament address the issues raised and that an Independent Inquiry be set up and party politics be totally removed from the equation ie give the power back to the victims and expose the most powerful abusers and those individuals or organisations that protected them throughout.
The last agency that my letter should have been passed on to to provide a reply was the Home Office.
With respect, and this is actually subject to a live investigation, the Home Office will have to deal with allegations that it played a key role in the funding of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
In an Old Bailey trial on the 6th November 1984 evidence was given to the court under oath and not contested by the Defence Counsel that ” a telephone number at the Home Office was a contact point for members of the Paedophile Information Exchange ” and that a one time Chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange ran the organisation while he was an employee of the Home Office, not only giving his work number as the contact point but also sending out information on meetings etc on Home Office headed notepaper.
One has to ask was this an officially condoned situation or an inexplicable lapse in the security services activities.
Even as recently as 2006 a serving Home Secretary declared that a significant section of the Home Office was ” not fit for purpose “.
What conclusions are the public reasonably expected to draw from the above “evidence ” of the “support” given by the Home Office to an organisation advocating that sexual relations with children aged 4 and upwards be legalised.
The Home Secretary and the Home Office have failed to find any record of a one million signatures petition accompanied by several dossiers prepared seperately by a Conservative MP and Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad (the fore-runner to the Paedophile Unit). These dossiers received coverage from every national newspaper for an 18 month period in 1982 – 83.
You mention the Minister for Crime Prevention. I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of asking him to personally respond to a letter which raises such important issues about the most vulnerable children in our society, bearing in mind Mr.Cameron’s soundbites on the breaking news re. Savile last year – ” Collusion should NEVER happen again ” and ” The measure of how our society is, is how we treat its most vulnerable members “.
Mr. Baker should be the ideal person for me to address my concerns to.
His Wikipedia entry states :-
“Baker is known for uncovering scandals and conflicts of interest among MP’s and the government”.
Manna from heaven for me one might think but of course there is such a thing as “Cabinet Responsibility” which will take priority over any other consideration such as the rights of children when the abuse might be carried out from within the Westminster safe house.
May I formally request in the presence of an MP of my choice a meeting with Mr. Baker. That is what we expect of our elected representatives, to put transparency/ honesty and the opinions and hopes of the electorate before self – interest and self- preservation in the face of alleged criminality.
For me the response by Mr.Cameron and Mr.Clegg to my “Open Letter ” is the equivalent of putting it straight in to the shredder.
I anticipate that this is what will happen to this letter.
Yours sincerely
________________ (The source of Tom Watson’s PMQ)

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/questions-for-the-home-office-regarding-establishment-child-abuse-cover-ups/

enno99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQGavtZ_0U

just listen to this:eek::eek::eek:

Frankie Lee

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQGavtZ_0U

just listen to this:eek::eek::eek:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

What is referenced in the interview, it is natural to be sceptical about activists like Maloney who are associated with Icke but the evidence definitely supports his claims.

enno99

Frankie Lee wrote: »

What is referenced in the interview, it is natural to be sceptical about activists like Maloney who are associated with Icke but the evidence definitely supports his claims.

Its hard to tell which is more tragic that these children have been tortured or even murdered
Or that the information could be brushed aside and ignored by some because somebody used David Icke or Alex Jones or whoever to get more exposure

Emme

enno99 wrote: »

Its hard to tell which is more tragic that these children have been tortured or even murdered
Or that the information could be brushed aside and ignored by some because somebody used David Icke or Alex Jones or whoever to get more exposure

I'm not a fan of David Icke but if he, Alex Jones or Bill Maloney don't expose the information who will?

We know what happened in this country with clerical abuse and how difficult it is for things like this to come to light.

Torakx

Yep it's hard to hate them for that reason.
Sometimes it''s hard to know when its paranoia or not.
Alex Jones says some things that make him look like he is exposing things, but then cuts people off a lot of the time when they are about to talk about a serious issue. He seems a distraction like Icke.
Russel Brand looks like the messiah archetype. Speakign for the people and probably will have to be crucified as an example, also it would give him a good foundation to lead movements if he was crucified...as appose to just not letting him on TV anymore like Icke. So maybe Icke is legit now or was? who knows haha
I don't.

porsche959

"At a big London railway station in the spring of 1970, a plastic carrier bag was found in the regular search for bombs before the station closed for the night.

"The contents were an odd assortment of letters and photos, which seemed to have been taken at a kinky party attended by some well-known figures in entertainment.

"The bag was duly taken to the station office and, as a senior rail worker wrote out a report for the lost property office, two MI5 men and a special branch officer arrived and demanded the photos."

- T Stokes

Putin

Jonny7 wrote: »

So by this leap of logic Margaret Thatcher encouraged pedophilia and worshiped Satan also?

Duh, Maggie Thatcher WAS Satan.

porsche959

Jimmy Savile abused corpses and boasted he made jewellery from their glass eyes: NHS report reveals shocking new details about paedophile's crimes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670444/Jimmy-Savile-abused-corpses-boasted-jewellery-glass-eyes-NHS-report-reveals-shocking-new-details-paedophiles-crimes.html#ixzz35jheKvnk


The things now being officially reported about Savile, if you said them a few years ago you'd be called a crazy conspiraloon.

Harold Weiss

porsche959 wrote: »

The things now being officially reported about Savile, if you said them a few years ago you'd be called a crazy conspiraloon.

Yep, Cognitive Dissonance.

In the unconscious part of the public's mind, they know these things go on, they just don't want to accept it as being factual.

Edward Heath was accused of being a child rapist and murderer long before his death and yet he never challenged the allegations against him in any court.

Freemasons covered up child abuse too. There was a story in Wales

Former Birmingham police officer Raymond Ketland, 66, of Nant y Coed, Glan Conwy, became involved with the girl after noticing sexual activity on Llanddulas beach.

He admitted two charges of sexual activity with a minor, taking indecent photographs of a child and facilitating a child sex offence, and was jailed for two and a half years.

Ketland had become involved partly through a fellow Mason.

Andrew Thomas, prosecuting, said: "He recognised one of them as a fellow member of his Masonic Lodge, who walked up to him and asked 'Do you want to have a bit of fun?' He pointed out a girl who was with them."

Mr Thomas later confirmed Ket-land had refused to divulge the identity of his fellow Mason to investigating officers.

Catholic Bishop Gerard Crane, called as a character witness by Ketland's defence, said his friend was "totally distraught" at what had happened.

Nothing new there, Freemasons always involved in some kind of criminality.

porsche959

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Yep, Cognitive Dissonance.

In the unconscious part of the public's mind, they know these things go on, they just don't want to accept it as being factual.

Edward Heath was accused of being a child rapist and murderer long before his death and yet he never challenged the allegations against him in any court.

Freemasons covered up child abuse too. There was a story in Wales



Nothing new there, Freemasons always involved in some kind of criminality.

I think it's more or less proven Freemasons were involved in the Welsh care home abuse scandal but the allegations about Heath are totally unproven and speculative. He may well have been gay but no evidence he abused kids. Even post Savile scandal no alleged victims have come forwards.

Harold Weiss

porsche959 wrote: »

Even post Savile scandal no alleged victims have come forwards.

It's not uncommon for boys to go missing to cover up crimes committed on them. They're abused and then murdered. Take the Franklin cover up or Marc DeTroux part of a pedophile ring that was never investigated properly by Belgian police....it's always the same wealthy people in powerful positions that can cover up this stuff and get away with it.

Conspiracy of Silence, a documentary listed for viewing in TV Guide Magazine was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, on May 3 1994.

This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies.

Many children suffered the indignity of wearing nothing but their underwear and a number displayed on a piece of cardboard hanging from their necks when being auctioned off to foreigners in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Toronto, Canada.

At the last minute before airing, unknown congressmen threatened the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who ordered all copies destroyed

enno99

Elite child sex slaves "1981" forgotten documentary




watched this long time ago now cant remember if it was posted here
remember reading that the school teacher suicided himself after

enno99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6FKEwjPmHQ

porsche959

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Yep, Cognitive Dissonance.

In the unconscious part of the public's mind, they know these things go on, they just don't want to accept it as being factual.

Even just staying with Savile, there are numerous photos of him easily available on web with Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh, other royals and other high profile figures - yet most of public simply doesn't want to know or even ask any questions.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Yep, Cognitive Dissonance.

Or an unwillingless to cast allegations without proof? There is a lot more information (both reliable and otherwise) now than there was back then...

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Edward Heath was accused of being a child rapist and murderer long before his death and yet he never challenged the allegations against him in any court.

Is there any evidence that he was even aware of the accusations? He would have to have known about them and considered them sufficiently damaging to be worth pursuing before challenging them in court surely?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Freemasons covered up child abuse too. There was a story in Wales

Where was the bit where Freemasons covered it up? There was one member of the ring who was a Freemason, and possibly one other. Where was the cover-up?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Nothing new there, Freemasons always involved in some kind of criminality.

Surely you mean; nothing new there, Freemasons are always being accused of being involved in some sort of criminality?

porsche959 wrote: »

I think it's more or less proven Freemasons were involved in the Welsh care home abuse scandal

Actually, i don't think so. I think there were plenty of unsubstantiated allegations thrown around (Brown Bomber can probably dredge up a few of them), but I think it's more or less proven that there was no Masonic conspiracy.

Harold Weiss

Elements of any organized group involved in criminal acts would never allow Saville knowing too much about their activities without something personal hanging over his head too. In this case, it was child abuse.

To take that chance is to risk being given up to the authorities someday by Saville.

Jimmy Saville knew personal things about rich, famous, powerful individuals and they knew of him and what he did, that's why Saville got away with it all for so long. If you have a more reasonable explanation, let's hear it.

He was never arrested and charged because he knew too many personal things about the wealthy.

Even street gangs don't allow members inside their inner circle without first being bloody or doing time in jail.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Elements of any organized group involved in criminal acts would never allow Saville knowing too much about their activities without something personal hanging over his head too. In this case, it was child abuse. To take that chance is to risk being given up to the authorities someday by Saville.

What organized group involved in criminal acts precisley?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Jimmy Saville knew personal things about rich, famous, powerful individuals and they knew of him and what he did, that's why Saville got away with it all for so long. If you have a more reasonable explanation, let's hear it.

Well, maybe that they didn't know of him and what he did?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

He was never arrested and charged because he knew too many personal things about the wealthy.

Possibly. Or there was never sufficient evidence presented to convince the DPP that they could successfully prosecute such a famous philanthropist without risking their careers. I'm not saying he wasn't by all current accounts an entirely disgusting predator, just that 'it's all down to cognitive dissonance and freemasons' is a bit silly.

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

What organized group involved in criminal acts precisley?
Well, maybe that they didn't know of him and what he did?
Possibly. Or there was never sufficient evidence presented to convince the DPP that they could successfully prosecute such a famous philanthropist without risking their careers. I'm not saying he wasn't by all current accounts an entirely disgusting predator, just that 'it's all down to cognitive dissonance and freemasons' is a bit silly.

Really?

Yet, many people working in television witnessed him along with under age girls innumerable times over a 50 year career, but of course, you think nobody suspected anything strange, right?

....you're displaying cognitive dissonance yourself with that belief.

Torakx

There as been many interviews where eye witnesses have seen him literally abusing children and teenagers, only to keep their mouths shut out of fear. And a rational fear at that. The man was a sociopath at the least, possibly a psychopath, it's a little hard to tellwith him. He was extremely egotistical and narcicistic. Also considering him upbringing with "the duchess" his mother and the stuff she did to him(dressed him up like a girl right?), I would also lean towards sociopath. Not that I'm an expert or anything.

Either way, many people knew quite well that he was a dangerous man and a rampant pedophile. Sure he was fiddling with girls on live tv....
And thats where I agree with the cognitive dissonance too.
I saw those clips for the first time and thought it was extmeely obvious he was messing around with them on the stage. Of course you can say I had the benfit of hindsight, which is partly true. But it was very obvious if you watch them and people jst don't see what they do not want to know about.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Really?

Really. But if you have any factual answers to the questions I asked, I'll happily read them?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Yet, many people working in television witnessed him along with under age girls innumerable times over a 50 year career, but of course, you think nobody suspected anything strange, right?

So, how do you get from 'insufficient evidence' to 'nobody suspected anything strange'? Is that cognitive dissonance, or just old fashioned hyperbole?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

....you're displaying cognitive dissonance yourself with that belief.

Of course, because being skeptical of unfounded speculation and saying so is inconsistent with, eh, believing the speculation to be unfounded? Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to explain how saying something is silly, and knowing that something is silly, is cognitively dissonant?

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

Really. But if you have any factual answers to the questions I asked, I'll happily read them?

The best option is that you read about Jimmy Saville, that will answer all your questions. Hope that helps.

Of course, because being skeptical of unfounded speculation and saying so is inconsistent with, eh, believing the speculation to be unfounded? Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to explain how saying something is silly, and knowing that something is silly, is cognitively dissonant?

You're entitled to your own opinion, Absolam. I'm not here to convince you Jimmy Saville was protected by wealthy people. I think it's self-evident he was otherwise he would have been locked up along time ago for abusing children.

Perhaps you find that difficult to accept because you're a Freemason and you feel personally offended by my accusations but that's your problem.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

The best option is that you read about Jimmy Saville, that will answer all your questions. Hope that helps.

Thanks. Bizarrely, I decided to acquaint myself with the facts before posting on the thread, which is why I challenged your assertions about Heath and Freemasons.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I'm not here to convince you Jimmy Saville was protected by wealthy people. I think it's self-evident he was otherwise he would have been locked up along time ago for abusing children.

Self evident? As in, you have no actual evidence, so you simply believe it's true?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Perhaps you find that difficult to accept because you're a Freemason and you feel personally offended by my accusations but that's your problem.

No it's easy to accept that you've arrived at judgements based on your imagination rather than evidence, but you're right; I am personally offended when you offer lies as facts (such as Freemasons covered up child abuse )because you couldn't be bothered finding out the actual facts.

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

Thanks. Bizarrely, I decided to acquaint myself with the facts before posting on the thread, which is why I challenged your assertions about Heath and Freemasons.

Self evident? As in, you have no actual evidence, so you simply believe it's true?
No it's easy to accept that you've arrived at judgements based on your imagination rather than evidence, but you're right; I am personally offended when you offer lies as facts (such as Freemasons covered up child abuse )because you couldn't be bothered finding out the actual facts.

Thank you, Absolam.

You've clarified everything I ever wanted to know about Jimmy Saville and his high level connections.

It's my opinion Freemasons have covered up child abuse. My opinion, you see?

If a Freemason goes down for something illegal, he might give up his buddies and their illegal activities what ever they might be, that's how it works.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Thank you, Absolam. You've clarified everything I ever wanted to know about Jimmy Saville and his high level connections.

Perhaps it's that attitude to rigorous inquiry that led to you make untruthful statements in the first place?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

It's my opinion Freemasons have covered up child abuse. My opinion, you see?

Well done. At least now you simply have an erroneous opinion, instead of claiming a lie as a fact.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

If a Freemason goes down for something illegal, he might give up his buddies and their illegal activities what ever they might be, that's how it works.

That's a little bit obtuse. That's how what works?