Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > OPEN FORUM: Information share

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14-10-2017, 09:56 AM   #61
grimstock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 409 (226 Posts)
Default

Now we may start to understand a little bit more about why the Spannermen charges took up to two and a half years to attach so tenuously to the OAPA. The Crown Prosecution Service had been compelled to submit the required goods and enable a satisfactory outcome to an extreme and religious demand made upon the judicial system from the only body able to make such a self-righteous demand - the Church of England, whilst having been at the same time fully endorsed by Downing Street.
The following questions should then arise;

(1) If the outcome of the earlier part of the operation had also been a demanded requirement?
(2) The degree and depth of any royal influence or powers that may have been brought to bare upon Operation Spanner both in the methods used and the resulting statistics and legacies?
(3) The degree and depth of any masonic influence being brought to bare on the deciding factors involved with the targeting of gay men during Operation Spanner?


We are informed by Raphael Samuel that in the run up tp the 1983 election, " Mrs. Thatcher annexed ‘Victorian values’ to her Party’s platform and turned them into a talisman for lost stabilities."
https://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/78p009.pdf
Although there is no doubt that Downing Street had specifically chosen the Spannermen for incarcerations as a means of indirect and retaliatory harassment of a whistleblower , it is extremely unlikely that No.10 had pulled the idea and demand for the police enforcement of " traditional Judaeo-Christian Family Values" out of a hat.
"The 1980s saw a new wave of social conservatism as Margaret Thatcher
sought to enshrine Judaeo-Christian family values within the fiscal, legal
and social fabric of the country."
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/6041/full

After all, the Office of Witchfinder General had always been under the remit of the General Synod, and not Downing Street, and it would appear the two had worked together in this matter by perhaps finding the common ground in a little help from each other. From the wish of Downing Street to firmly affix Mrs. Thatcher's term of office through the support of the church and both their Metropolitan and Manchester Police agents; and by the wish of the church,
(1) as a return to Christian fundamentalist values to perhaps try and stop or slow the ongoing and dwindling support of the church from the public at large, and
(2) to perhaps appease demands from extremist members of the Synod to make examples of perceived waywardness of gay men and their practices, (and also perhaps where the possibility existed that self-harm and other unsanctioned and alternative methods may have been perceived as having been used to attain "enlightenment" of one form or another).
If we look at the timelines of both the Operation Spanner procedures, and the dates of the elections in June 1983 and June 1987, although the first part of Operation Spanner had completed before the 1987 election, it had actually already been at least, if nothing else, in the information gathering stage prior to the 1983 election. Similarly the second part of Operation Spanner (the Spannermen case) appears to have fallen mostly into Mrs. Thatcher's third term of office, and provisionally ended on 19th December 1990 - on her departure from Number 10; although the Spannermen raids had commenced several months prior to the 1987 election.
Thus Operation Spanner on the whole was not linked to any outcomes from either election, and carried on regardless of whomever may have subsequently inhabited No.10.
Unless, of course, any of those particular electoral procedures may be brought into disrepute hereafter, the Operation could not have been a crusade by Mrs. Thatcher alone.

There can be no doubt that Operation Spanner was an integral and pre-planned attack on gay men on behalf of the Church and the State under the banner of "Christian Family Values" to be enforced and brought through the courts by the Synod's "Witchfinder General", and tasked the Crown Prosecution Service with the legal difficulties of criminalising rough sexual foreplay previously regarded as consensual behaviour between adults, and outside the boundaries of legal procedures.

So the purpose of the false claims by the police and media and to the courts now come into focus as the means to an end - and the end of the Spannermen case was, quite mistakenly, considered to be the incarcerations of the men, albeit on extremely tenuous grounds.

Last edited by grimstock; 15-10-2017 at 08:13 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2017, 03:31 PM   #62
grimstock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 409 (226 Posts)
Default

Just to backtrack a little - I have mentioned references to "Lost In Care" in previous comments, and provided a link, but failed to identify and itemise.
So, here is the link again if you have missed it:

"LOST IN CARE" (pdf: The Waterhouse Inquiry Report)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g.../dh_134777.pdf

Chapter 21 deals with the Bryn Alyn Community and John Allen.(pages 306 to 343)

Last edited by grimstock; 16-10-2017 at 03:41 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2017, 06:52 AM   #63
grimstock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 409 (226 Posts)
Default

The case may have cost some £19million prior to the ECHR hearing.

"It may be that I am putting too much emphasis on this passage. But I doubt this. The whole case might have been thought incredible only a few years ago, and is still astonishing to many. It cost, I am told on good authority, £19 million of public money - money that would not have been so freely lavished on a case that was not regarded as a worthwhile investment. It imposes a restraint previously unknown or ambiguous on certain kinds of sexual behaviour. I see no reason to doubt that it will be mined as a precedent for restraints on other kinds of sexual behaviour as and when the relevant authorities decide to move against them.

I could now launch into a polemical attack on the right of these unelected old men to alter the law, creating crimes where none existed before. I will not do this, however, since I believe that the Judges are on the whole far better at legislating than any Parliament than I can remember or imagine. Indeed, if the Judges had been left totally in control of the making and interpretation of laws since around 1870, we might today be living in something like a libertarian utopia, complete with flights to the stars and indefinite life extension.

However, there are instances where the Judges go wrong, usually on account of some defect in the common law caused by their predecessors' having allowed their natural bigotry to intrude into their professional duties. This is one such instance. I accept that the Court of Appeal was probably required to follow the reasoning of the earlier cases. The House of Lords was not. Since 1966, it has been possible for the Lords to depart from a whole line of decided cases, and to establish a new principle more in keeping with common sense or justice or both.14

The Lords did not decide to depart from the established line of precedents. We must therefore hope that the European Court of Human Rights will reach a just decision, and will then prompt the British Government to do what is has so far shown no intention of doing - that is, to push a short Declaratory Bill through Parliament, to tell the Judges how the 1861 Act ought to be interpreted.

This is in every respect a saddening case. And we must not forget that it is most saddening because there are now men imprisoned in this country for acts that are regarded in almost no other Western jurisdiction as criminal."

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/flhtm/fl18sado.htm

Last edited by grimstock; 17-10-2017 at 06:53 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2017, 08:14 AM   #64
grimstock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 409 (226 Posts)
Default

Just to add a little piece of context - necrophilia was perfectly legal in the UK until 2003. ( Presumably this had been deemed "appropriate" behaviour until 2003? )

It is also interesting to note that flagellation and mutilation by self or others for religious purposes in a public place is NOT against the law in England providing the participants are over16 years of age:


Morality? I hope someone is checking the religious flagellants and mutilators to make sure they are not sexually aroused, (in which case they would be breaking the law as it now stands).

Child circumcision is not against the law, but I have never heard of any child who had consented to it.

Last edited by grimstock; 18-10-2017 at 07:22 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
child abuse, gay, law, suspicious deaths, westminster paedophiles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.