Jump to content

london has fallen


bamboozooka
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hokuspokus said:

I can't agree. It could be like the good old days .

I would welcome back all those others Boots, Van City Strummer

Let's have a "ding dong"!!

 

Oh yeah.....the really old days......on the old Icke forum with no moderation, but it doesn't work like that anymore... you yourself were banned as a result of Sean X as were dozens of others....

 

He'll do what he always does... play victim and pretend Icke is his best friend....... while trying to organise fellow Crowley lovers to do some forum gang stalking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

This guy is a troll pretending to be an Icke supporter.

 

6 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

 

....but he is going to turn this place to shit.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, hokuspokus said:

I can't agree. It could be like the good old days .

I would welcome back all those others Boots, Van City Strummer

Let's have a "ding dong"!!


No.
Lets not have a ding dong.
Let's not detract from focusing on this present nightmare situation.
Let's not discourage others and new members from joining in reasonable discussions.
Let's continue bringing facts into the forum without the 'ding dongs'..
Let's not allow old tired agendas ruin this 'new' forum.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you go far enough around the left , you meet the right .

Everyone complains about censorship but everyone wants to 

censor everyone else. Effin ' madness.  And I never thought I'd 

see the day when I would be standing up for Seanx , yes he has

overstepped the mark however... 

(mod note - remarks about moderation removed. PMs about moderation only - thanks) 

 

 

Edited by Basket Case
Removed remarks about moderating
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Basket Case said:


Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Good-bye...
 

HAL 2001.jpg

🙂 rewatched  that on Saturday. Now I'm awake and have listed to Saturn moon matrix theory completely get what Kubrick was flagging. Will make another thread.

 

Been off posting as have had some awful personal stuff to deal with. Back on track now. 

 

And remain appalled that this March was allowed to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2020 at 1:51 PM, bamboozooka said:

soros funded paramilitary march in london. police stand down as usual

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1317507/Nigel-Farage-Black-Lives-Matter-news-London-BLM-protest-Brixton

 

 

31468910-8585073-image-a-70_1596362400253.jpg

 

Clearly a political uniform - which is illegal in the UK

 

A few years back they lifted some on the far right for this and that was fleeces with a common logo 

 

I trust that the police will be responding to a far more overtly paramilitary uniform in the same manner.

 

Ah fuck it who am i kidding - this will be tolerated and the police will apologise for their uniform being hostile

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2020 at 11:21 AM, hokuspokus said:

Guys

 

Just have a think about it. 

Whilst Sean's mob running amok was the beginning of the end

of a once great forum it would not be good to turn this into an

echo chamber 

 

Sorry, wrong Sean. Thought you were talking about moi.

Edited by Sean Adl
Oops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sean Adl said:

Sorry, wrong Sean. Thought you were talking about moi.

 

Bye Sean.

 

Edit to ask:

Actually .... tell us all why you should be allowed to post?

Edited by ink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Bye Sean.

 

Edit to ask:

Actually .... tell us all why you should be allowed to post?

Why shouldn't I be allowed to post? My name is brought up every so often. I've not done anything warranting a ban as far as I'm aware. I'm sure people would like to question/attack/talk to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sean Adl said:

Why shouldn't I be allowed to post? My name is brought up every so often. I've not done anything warranting a ban as far as I'm aware. I'm sure people would like to question/attack/talk to me. 

 

Things are not forgotten .... and I see no reason to forgive.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sean Adl said:

What is it you are specifically talking about?

 

Personally .... I have zero interest in any discussion with you, thus I have asked for confirmation of action on your interaction upon this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ink said:

 

Personally .... I have zero interest in any discussion with you, thus I have asked for confirmation of action on your interaction upon this forum.

That's fine.

 

Re: modgate on another thread. Would be good and insightful for members to know the FULL story on that. Not just the one-sided version involving a freemason and bunch of icke-haters. I know the Icke family are well aware of what went down there and probably would rather the icke-haters didn't get a monopoly on telling their version of events. Just my two cents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sean Adl said:

That's fine.

 

Re: modgate on another thread. Would be good and insightful for members to know the FULL story on that. Not just the one-sided version involving a freemason and bunch of icke-haters. I know the Icke family are well aware of what went down there and probably would rather the icke-haters didn't get a monopoly on telling their version of events. Just my two cents. 

 

As you would know .... it isn't gone.

I just need confirmation of action.

I am certain that you can comprehend this requirement .... considering all past deeds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sean Adl said:

Why shouldn't I be allowed to post? My name is brought up every so often. I've not done anything warranting a ban as far as I'm aware. I'm sure people would like to question/attack/talk to me. 

 

6 minutes ago, Sean Adl said:

That's fine.

 

Re: modgate on another thread. Would be good and insightful for members to know the FULL story on that. Not just the one-sided version involving a freemason and bunch of icke-haters. I know the Icke family are well aware of what went down there and probably would rather the icke-haters didn't get a monopoly on telling their version of events. Just my two cents. 

 

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say, but perhaps start a new topic in the correct area, rather than using this thread.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

 

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say, but perhaps start a new topic in the correct area, rather than using this thread.

 

Well said G.O. 

 

I have no idea who the real Seanx is but as long as the current mods (apologies for discussing moderators)

are on the ball which I am sure they are then I for one would enjoy the return of Sean/Boots/etc . They are 

entitled to their opinion others are entitled to theirs . I would love a vibrant DIF forum . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, hokuspokus said:

Well said G.O. 

 

I have no idea who the real Seanx is but as long as the current mods (apologies for discussing moderators)

are on the ball which I am sure they are then I for one would enjoy the return of Sean/Boots/etc . They are 

entitled to their opinion others are entitled to theirs . I would love a vibrant DIF forum . 

 


lt is not SeanX.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2020 at 7:52 AM, Eldnah said:

 

Clearly a political uniform - which is illegal in the UK

 

A few years back they lifted some on the far right for this and that was fleeces with a common logo 

 

I trust that the police will be responding to a far more overtly paramilitary uniform in the same manner.

 

Ah fuck it who am i kidding - this will be tolerated and the police will apologise for their uniform being hostile

 

 

Yes, I would say, it is covered in the current 1936 legislation. The full Act can be seen in the links below.  However, regarding the legislation of "political uniforms", the Police Commissioner/Chief Constable (in this case of the Met Police) and the Secertary of State has to authorise arrests and Attorney-General has to give approval for a court to carry out proccedings beyond the initial court charge.

 

Quote

 

                                                                              ukpga.gif

 

 

 

 

                                                                         Public Order Act 1936
                                                                  1936 CHAPTER 6 1 Edw 8 and 1 Geo 6

An Act to prohibit the wearing of uniforms in connection with political objects and the maintenance by private persons of associations of military or similar character; and to make further provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public processions and meetings and in public places.

[18th December 1936]

 

1 Prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects.

(1)Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform signifying his association with any political organisation or with the promotion of any political object shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that, if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the wearing of any such uniform as aforesaid on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other special occasion will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder, he may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, by order permit the wearing of such uniform on that occasion either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.

 

(2)Where any person is charged before any court with an offence under this section, no further proceedings in respect thereof shall be taken against him without the consent of the Attorney-General [F1except such as are authorised by [F2section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences 1979]], so, however, that if that person is remanded in custody he shall, after the expiration of a period of eight days from the date on which he was so remanded, be entitled to be [F3released on bail] without sureties unless within that period the Attorney-General has consented to such further proceedings as aforesaid.

 

Prohibition of quasimilitary organisations.

(1)If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, are—

(a)organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police or of the armed forces of the Crown; or

(b)organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose;

then any person who takes part in the control or management of the association, or in so organising or training as aforesaid any members or adherents thereof, shall be guilty of an offence under this section:

Provided that in any proceedings against a person charged with the offence of taking part in the control or management of such an association as aforesaid it shall be a defence to that charge to prove that he neither consented to nor connived at the organisation, training, or equipment of members or adherents of the association in contravention of the provisions of this section.

 

(2)No prosecution shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney-General.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/introduction

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/6/contents

 

 

Edited by Orange Alert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orange Alert said:

 

Yes, I would say, it is covered in the current 1936 legislation. The full Act can be seen in the links below.  However, regarding the legislation of "political uniforms", the Police Commissioner/Chief Constable (in this case of the Met Police) and the Secertary of State has to authorise arrests and Attorney-General has to give approval for a court to carry out proccedings beyond the initial court charge.

 

 

I imagine someone will allow the - its not a political uniform defence  - as despite chanting the same political slogans were not political.

 

Along with the now obligatory apology because it was a white officer who spoke to them and they were terrified they were about to be the next Floyd George (despite a review of footage confirming the officer acted appropriately 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...