Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Exposing Child Abuse

View Poll Results: Do you believe the claims?
Yes 75 52.45%
No 44 30.77%
I don't follow these kinds of stories 5 3.50%
Undecided 19 13.29%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-04-2015, 10:21 AM   #16561
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alf hearted View Post
The Secret Family Courts that the lead campaigner didn't realise she could have sat in on? Hmmmm... their obstructiveness knows no bounds.
You misunderstand. The 'lead campaigner' was not allowed, neither was anyone else, other than those allowed in by the judge, throughout the weeks of the 'fact finding'.

The only time the court was open was the morning of the judgement. But this was not published and nobody advised those who had stood vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice throughout the 'fact finding'.

So, if you try to get in one day, then another, then another and you are told it is 'closed', then how on earth is anyone supposed to know that on one particular morning it is open? We are not blessed with a sixth sense or the power to read minds, sadly.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:24 AM   #16562
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

If at first you don't succeed, try again. And again. A more competent campaigner would have cosied up to at least one person who would be in the courtroom, if they couldn't get in themself.

Last edited by alf hearted; 29-04-2015 at 10:28 AM.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:25 AM   #16563
bsharp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 389
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledingue View Post
Now here is a real scandal that has been ignored but which is extremely serious and indicative of the truth that the government is in reality working strenuously to sabotage the historical (Westminster) child abuse inquiry and thus maintain the cover-ups, while saying the opposite in public.

From Exaro News:

Ministers block move to lift Official Secrets Act for CSA scandal.
Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse


Has it occurred to the believers in the True Cult that the Hampstead Hoax was very handy for drawing the attention of interested members of the public, who follow the elite paedo scandals on the internet, away from that very real and shocking event in parliament? We were all reading here...
I agree that it is a real scandal. But it does not mean that it invalidates the Hampstead story..though I think fantastical elements were thrown in to completely discredit it eventually.

I think that it is possible there can be even more of a connection between the two......
bsharp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:27 AM   #16564
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ledingue View Post
Now here is a real scandal that has been ignored but which is extremely serious and indicative of the truth that the government is in reality working strenuously to sabotage the historical (Westminster) child abuse inquiry and thus maintain the cover-ups, while saying the opposite in public.

From Exaro News:

Ministers block move to lift Official Secrets Act for CSA scandal.
Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse


Has it occurred to the believers in the True Cult that the Hampstead Hoax was very handy for drawing the attention of interested members of the public, who follow the elite paedo scandals on the internet, away from that very real and shocking event in parliament? We were all reading here...
But as you keep saying, the 'truth movement'it is only a small minority of people.

When government want to 'bury' a story, they get the whole of the mainstream media machine to work. That didn't happen here.

But I agree that this is a scandal, that politicians will say they want to uncover child sex abuse, while their actions make sure it stays covered up.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:29 AM   #16565
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alf hearted View Post
If at first you don't succeed, try again. And again. A more competent campaigner would have cosied up to at least one person who would be in the courtroom.
Sadly, the only people allowed into the courtroom were RD and his supporters, and I don't think Belinda or anyone else wanted to 'cosy up' to him.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:33 AM   #16566
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
Sadly, the only people allowed into the courtroom were RD and his supporters, and I don't think Belinda or anyone else wanted to 'cosy up' to him.
That was nothing to do with the secretive nature of the courts, it's because the mother was too paranoid to turn up and fight to get her children back, preferring instead to hide out and make unconvincing videos with her partner in crime.

ps. Also, by "RD and his supporters," do you mean "and his legal adviser?" or are you saying he had his fan club in there too?

Last edited by alf hearted; 29-04-2015 at 10:37 AM.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:33 AM   #16567
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsharp View Post
I agree that it is a real scandal. But it does not mean that it invalidates the Hampstead story..though I think fantastical elements were thrown in to completely discredit it eventually.

I think that it is possible there can be even more of a connection between the two......
please elaborate b, because I've tried to find the connection. Could it be that a public official was hoping for the vote to go in favour of exonerating public official wistleblowers and releasing them from the Official Secrets Act, hoping that once that vote got through, then they could safely publicise the Hampstead sex abuse case?

But that official had knowledge about how the vote would go, so thought 'sod it' I'll upload them onto the internet anonymously and be damned, type thing?
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:38 AM   #16568
bsharp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 389
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
please elaborate b, because I've tried to find the connection. Could it be that a public official was hoping for the vote to go in favour of exonerating public official wistleblowers and releasing them from the Official Secrets Act, hoping that once that vote got through, then they could safely publicise the Hampstead sex abuse case?

But that official had knowledge about how the vote would go, so thought 'sod it' I'll upload them onto the internet anonymously and be damned, type thing?
I think it goes deeper than that frankanne. But try expanding on that thought. Though we are getting into speculative territory here and I like to deal with facts.
bsharp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:38 AM   #16569
ledingue
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
You misunderstand. The 'lead campaigner' was not allowed, neither was anyone else, other than those allowed in by the judge, throughout the weeks of the 'fact finding'.

The only time the court was open was the morning of the judgement. But this was not published and nobody advised those who had stood vigil outside the Royal Courts of Justice throughout the 'fact finding'.

So, if you try to get in one day, then another, then another and you are told it is 'closed', then how on earth is anyone supposed to know that on one particular morning it is open? We are not blessed with a sixth sense or the power to read minds, sadly.
Christie was asked by the court to attend, said he would and "gladly be arrested" and then concentrated on swanning around in front of Belinda's cameraman and did not enter the court.

The mother of the children did not attend. Obviously the fear of being required to answer questions on foot of complaints of harassment (even if she were arrested she would have been bailed) far, far outweighed the minor issue of risking never being allowed to see her children again.

All legitimate interested parties will have been fully informed of the time of court hearings. That doesn't include the likes of Neelu "law of Leviticus" Berry and other assorted oddities parading outside.

Belinda McKenzie had no legitimate business in the court as she was unconnected to anyone there. The mother had abandoned her children and took an age to instruct a solicitor. She wasn't there and neither was her recorded "McKenzie Friend" Sabine. And Christie chose, chose, not to attend inside even though he was specifically asked.
The judge published her findings, how "secret" is that?


To present this as some kind of conspiracy to cover-up is ridiculous, a joke.
Your strenuous appeals to emotive injustice and cover-up are transparently hopelessly misguided.
ledingue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:38 AM   #16570
baboshka1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,301
Likes: 2,964 (1,227 Posts)
Default

If I was a judge noway would I let the likes of Belinda and her bunch of lunatics near my court.
They have behaved disgraceful and do no research they just go by heresy.
Oh someone told me...
Is not good enough
baboshka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:41 AM   #16571
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsharp View Post
I think it goes deeper than that frankanne. But try expanding on that thought. Though we are getting into speculative territory here and I like to deal with facts.
Please 'speculate'. That's all any of us can do without all the facts. We can just say it as we see it, lay out all the facts that we do know and try to fit the pieces into the big picture which makes sense to us.

I love it when people speculate.

We can either dismiss it, or assimilate it.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:42 AM   #16572
baboshka1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,301
Likes: 2,964 (1,227 Posts)
Default

Quote:
susan Originally Posted by susan0207 View Post
Do we have a little mole?





'what for?!'

now i wonder why people might be trying to identify you, jacqui farmer, or whoever you are?

could it be because you are in contempt of court? naming the children, showing their faces.

are you repeatedly harassing people?

hurting people?

you are paradoxically providing links and material that paedophiles will become aroused by. do you know what the next step will be?

you are spreading materials for paedophiles to enjoy with wild abandon, with not a thought for the consequences.

you put child porn in your videos.

you stop the very children you profess to care about from having a chance to enjoy anonymity and freedom from ridicule, or getting targetted, for the rest of their lives.

give them a chance!



one day you may be remembered for all the wrong reasons. as having helped bring about the end of the very freedoms you are now abusing.

you hide behind your anonymity while calling out others with names, pictures and identifying information.

your ludicrous concoctions of so called 'evidence' or cleverly disguised 'questions' fall apart when when examined.

when this has been proven to you, you still continue to lie, and publish as if this never happened. and why i am writing this here, and not in a comment to you, which you would just delete.

is 'due diligence' a concept that is foreign to you?

come forward if you really believe in what you are doing. do a video, face on, with your own voice, show us where you live, give us your address.

feel the danger in doing something like that?

yet you put others in that very same position.

I imagine you think you are a 'good' person. 'Love and light!'

why do you hide?
These are valid and urgent questions for Sabine McNeill's close collaborator Jacqui Farmer, well said Susan.

Will she answer to her reckless (and criminally contemptuous) harassment of the people she publicises with such wild abandon?

You can't delete these questions here Jacqui Farmer, and people who are informed about the Hampstead Hoax and your and sabine's farcical propaganda, and alarmed by your criminal behaviour, will continue to ask them.

I'll ask one more: which government agency are you working on behalf of, Jacqui Farmer? Or does Sabine keep you in the dark about that...?
Thanks susan

Last edited by baboshka1; 29-04-2015 at 10:44 AM.
baboshka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:47 AM   #16573
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baboshka1 View Post
If I was a judge noway would I let the likes of Belinda and her bunch of lunatics near my court.
They have behaved disgraceful and do no research they just go by heresy.
Oh someone told me...
Is not good enough
You forget baboshka, the courts belong to 'the people', not 'the public servants' and a judge is a public servant.

The judge can eject someone for causing a disturbance or whatever, but a judge cannot stop the public from attending their own courts - unless, of course, it is a 'secret court'.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:50 AM   #16574
bsharp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 389
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
But as you keep saying, the 'truth movement'it is only a small minority of people.

When government want to 'bury' a story, they get the whole of the mainstream media machine to work. That didn't happen here.

But I agree that this is a scandal, that politicians will say they want to uncover child sex abuse, while their actions make sure it stays covered up.
This is a situation which was created and has more than one objective frankanne.
bsharp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:51 AM   #16575
baboshka1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,301
Likes: 2,964 (1,227 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
You forget baboshka, the courts belong to 'the people', not 'the public servants' and a judge is a public servant.

The judge can eject someone for causing a disturbance or whatever, but a judge cannot stop the public from attending their own courts - unless, of course, it is a 'secret court'.
I forget nothing, you been in a court regarding child abuse?
From your post you know nothing about child abuse.

Last edited by baboshka1; 29-04-2015 at 10:52 AM.
baboshka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:53 AM   #16576
alf hearted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13,152
Likes: 109 (86 Posts)
Default

@ frankanne - Do you honestly believe the general public should be able to just walk in on a court dealing with personal family issues that include allegations of abuse to the children involved?

Last edited by alf hearted; 29-04-2015 at 10:53 AM.
alf hearted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:55 AM   #16577
baboshka1
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,301
Likes: 2,964 (1,227 Posts)
Default

I do think there is a cover up...
The cover up is Westminster and all the other big names on the files.
Hoaxstead is a red herring and those two kids where the pawns.
Notice something, no names , big wigs here at all just little people.
Little people to be used as fodder to distract.

Last edited by baboshka1; 29-04-2015 at 10:58 AM.
baboshka1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 10:58 AM   #16578
ledingue
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankanne View Post
please elaborate b, because I've tried to find the connection. Could it be that a public official was hoping for the vote to go in favour of exonerating public official wistleblowers and releasing them from the Official Secrets Act, hoping that once that vote got through, then they could safely publicise the Hampstead sex abuse case?

But that official had knowledge about how the vote would go, so thought 'sod it' I'll upload them onto the internet anonymously and be damned, type thing?
Nice speculation Frankanne. But you're ignoring evidenced reality, again.

The videos were uploaded by Sabine McNeill to her googledrive and she emailed the link to her associate Henry Curteis (The Tap blog) and kept the privacy setting to "anyone with the link" for several weeks while she watched the videos go viral, which was her intention.

Why are you pretending you don't know this?
(apologies if you suffer from amnesia or some other disability that might explain your comment)
Why bother? Have you really, honestly, forgotten the detailed proofs provided here, including links to video of Sabine herself confirming the above? Or is something else going on, some other intention on your part to misleadingly influence uninformed readers?
ledingue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 11:00 AM   #16579
frankanne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baboshka1 View Post
I forget nothing, you been in a court regarding child abuse?
From your post you know nothing about child abuse.

i was speaking about courts in general, and pointing out to you that our courts belong to us, not our public servants.

You seem a bit put out by that and I cannot understand why. I mean, here on the David Icke forum, we like to think of ourselves as free thinkers, yet you seem quite happy with the idea that public servants can take ownership of the property that rightly belongs to 'the people'. that includes you and me.
frankanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2015, 11:02 AM   #16580
ledingue
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baboshka1 View Post
I do think there is a cover up...
The cover up is Westminster and all the other big names on the files.
Hoaxstead is a red herring and those two kids where the pawns.
Notice something, no names , big wigs here at all just little people.
Little people to be used as fodder to distract.
Bloody second that! Amen
ledingue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
polygraph, ultrascribe

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 09:06 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.