• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Queen "disappears" Canadian Mohawk children, Maloney outs Prince Charles, Dunblane

A quick update of latest news re the investigations into organised abuse.

First, Home Secretary Theresa May is considering disbanding the investigative inquiry because the public & those abused in the past have no confidence in it.

The independent panel set up to support the planned public inquiry into historical child abuse could be disbanded, the BBC understands.

Home Secretary Theresa May has written to panel members saying three options to give the inquiry full statutory powers are being considered.

Only one option does not require the panel to be disbanded.

A Home Office spokesman said Mrs May wanted to balance making progress "with the need to get this right".

The panel, which has started work, still has nobody to chair it after the first two nominations stood down.

An inquiry source told the BBC panel members have been told their jobs will go in the new year and that they will be invited to apply for positions on the new panel.
Click to expand...

more here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30568645http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30568645

... & the other day, Exaro produced an article quoting ex-Police members of a Police Discussion Forum who claimed on the boards that they had their investigations curtailed by their superiors.

Former Police officers who revealed on a private online forum a cover-up for VIP paedophiles are to submit a dossier of statements to Scotland Yard
Click to expand...

more here - http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5...ions-ex-police-to-submit-dossier-to-met-chief
 
BecomingJulie said:
The Freemasons is nothing more than a drinking club for rich people who like to play elaborate games of pretence and pretentiousness. It doesn't need to be corrupt as an institution. It has corrupt individuals as members.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ but this is not about the Freemasons. This about me citing precedent & finding circumstantial evidence in the public domain that suggest that Prince Charles (our future fucking KING!) & the Royal family have links to a paedophile ring.

I've been away from phones & the internet, hiking in some mountains, so I missed the breaking news, apart from a glance at a newspaper on Saturday in a quiet rural pub. Having a piss break on the way back at the services on Sunday I saw the subtitles of the news saying something about the Palace having released a statement denying Randy Andys involvement with his accuser & someone saying on the news that Prince Andrew was not in hiding & would be returning to the UK to face the "allegations" against him.

Oddly, a couple hours later, after getting in & having a shower, I turned on the news &, despite an intensive effort could not find a word about the story on TV, apart from a ticker running under the BBC saying the Palace denys blah blah blah... one little line in a ticker. Sky had completely dropped the story (I have no idea if they even ran it because I was completely free of internet, TV & phone signal from early Fri til midday Sunday) & the beeb was almost as silent. I havent seen a word spoken about this story on TV news yet, & I've been home near enough 24 hours.

Smells like Palace pressure, smells like cover up. This is a link to Sky Showbiz for fucks sake? - http://news.sky.com/story/1402201/prince-andrew-back-in-uk-amid-sex-claims

From which I wanted to quote this bit -

Scotland Yard has confirmed it has not received a complaint relating to the case, but added it would investigate if an allegation was made.
Click to expand...

& respond with... "Really? Like how you investigated after the Jimmy Savile allegations, yeah?" Those allegations were obviously so ridiculous as to not warrant further investigation, but it turns out they were true.

also this -
Andrew was photographed with Epstein in New York two years after his release from prison in 2009, and has faced criticism over their friendship.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Andrew was photographed with Jeffrey Epstein only a couple of weeks after he was released from prison, not two years later.

images
 
A considered & detailed response, good job. You don't look at all dense.
 
I've seen it on several telly news stories over a few days - not much they can do to cover it up really as it's all over the american press (except the usual 'tra-la-la, look at some cats instead' mixed with 'ooh she's a bit dodgy aint she' insinuations).

The bbc were being a bit more royal friendly as you'd expect (leading with 'the palace denies...'). I did notice a shocking slip by Sophie 'jolly hockey sticks' Rayworth on one bulletin - she said something like '...allegation that the woman was forced to have sex when she was 17, which isn't an offence in this country' - forcing someone to have sex isn't an offence?

I'm sure plenty will want to distinguish this from 'proper' paedophilia, but i'd say 'sex-slave' (17 or otherwise) is in the same ballpark of evil.
 
IT sounds more like she was a slave to the life style than anything else. She even gushed to her father about travelling around the world in private jets and meeting the queen. She was groomed sure, but at 17 she should be old enough to do something about it if she felt uncomfortable. As dave Chapelle once argued, how old is 15 really?

http://youtu.be/ZjsufO9hZwo
 
Well if that's true - i was just going by the word 'sex-slave' i'd heard repeated - didn't actually bother to read the story. I'd be wary of the inevitable smearing of her though.

I didn't care about the details as i already know much worse ways which prince andrew is a bit evil (like being an arms dealer to dictators)
 
The grey area is the fact that as an American, 17 is considered underage in some states, so still considered pedophillia.

It's not like she was chained to a dungeon floor and used as a sock puppet. She was his private " masseuse" who entertain his wealthy friends.

I might be naive but it is not that far removed from a lot of sugar daddy relationships I know of
 
Well, closer to pimp-style grooming/CSE than sugar daddy i'd have thought (sugar daddy doesn't usually involve fucking the sugar daddy's mates as far as i know) (i mean the CSE gangs like we've apparently had a rash of in the uk recently (though most people don't realise the vast majority is done by white gangs, thanks to the media ("white paedo gangs? that's not news!"))
 
I appreciate the arguments but the actual age of this girl & whether or not she was a willing "slave" is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that we now have a guilt by association relationship between Prince Charles brother Andrew with a known sex offender & paedophile whose lawyers got him a very, very lenient sentence & broke US law in the process. We also have Prince Charles guilty by association with Jimmy fucking Savile, & we have the queen & her vile husband Philip guilty by association with the Canadian Genocide. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

The fact that this girl was 17 is irrelevent. If Andrew has a penchant for this sort of thing, who's to say how many women out there have been intimidated into silence or are simply too embarassed to come forward? Who's to say how many of them were underage & how underage they were..? I cannot see this as a one-off for Randy Andy. I reckon, like the rest of his fucked up family, he gets a sexual power kick out of abusing young people & this is likely far from an islolated event...

Those who did not cooperate were apparently harassed or warned ‘bad things’ would happen to them if they helped federal investigators.
Click to expand...

from - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...leaps-defend-Duke-new-shock-court-papers.html

The simple fact is, the evidence against our royal family is mounting.

The story made the late evening newspaper review yesterday on Sky. It was the first topic discussed & got all of 2 minutes. BBC ignored the story last night. Newsnight on BBC 2 was 100% politics, the election campaign. Not a word on Andrew.
 
Last edited:
Si Ingwe said:
What IS relevant is that we now have a guilt by association relationship between Prince Charles brother Andrew with a known sex offender & paedophile whose lawyers got him a very, very lenient sentence & broke US law in the process. We also have Prince Charles guilty by association with Jimmy fucking Savile, & we have the queen & her vile husband Philip guilty by association with the Canadian Genocide. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Click to expand...

And what's more, I hear we now have two, guilty by association with another two, conspiring to fashion a very tenuous five.
 
where there's smoke, there's fire, remember? The smokes getting thicker.
 
The 'elite' have always and continue to subjugate the weak and powerless. When you have so much money you could never spend it all, you get your kicks form other means ......someone is letting cats out of bags and the PTB are getting a bit of a kicking - thats where my interest lays, who is in controll? after all we get our 'news' from 5-6 giant corporations owned by a handful of men (always men) who are extemely rich and powerful - if they are the messangers who is giving them the message? or is the house of cards begining to waver in the hot breath of evil that has been whipped up the debauched, immoral and wickedness that has finally leaked from Pandoras box (her 17 year old box).
Letters on a post card............
 
Whether it's smoke or not, it all just smells a bit odd to me. I knew of Andrews relationship with Epstein, but I did not know about this girl, Epsteins other activties nor anything about how Epstein had gotten off so lightly despite the evidence against him. It's clear if you're smart enough to read between the lines that Epstein isn't far off Saviles league, yet he does less than 15 months inside for it. The closeness of the relationship between Andy & this Epstein scumbag mirrors that between Charles & Savile. Y'all go ahead & chalk that up to another coincidence if you like. I'm seeing a pattern.

How come the Palace named this girl who only a few days ago was being reported as Jane Doe #3 & is now known as Virginia Roberts? Because, according to the Sunday Telegraph that I found in a bin today, it was the Palace that named her. Why? It strikes me as kinda underhanded.

The initial statement read: “Any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors is categorically untrue.”

But Palace officials last night decided to go further still and meet the scandal head with a statement that not only addressed the issue of sex, but also named the complainant.
Click to expand...

from - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ies-having-relations-with-sex-slave-girl.html

This article goes on the remind us of all the wonderful things this Andrew cock has done for our country in his lifetime. Perhaps we should stick Saviles monument back up coz of all the good things he did in his...

Incidentally, I have found more than one source that reports that Andrew was photograghed meeting with Epstein in New York a year or so after Epstein was released, one that claims it was two years later & one that claims it was only a few weeks after he was released. Cover-up & mis-information campaigns always release differing versions to differing media outlets to "muddy the waters" & confuse the theorists & watchers. I'm not trying to convince anyone of this so I can't be arsed to post a bunch of links. My point is that I have no idea now, when Andrew actually met with Epstein in New York & how soon that was after Epstein was released from prison.

All I'm doing here is looking for links between the royal family & paedophilia/child abuse/sexual abuse, & anyone who doubts that this is one of those links is deluded & naive, in my opinion. Toodle pip.
 
I'm certain these people are guilty of all sorts - the stuff we defnitiely know about andrew should be enough for starters (ie mate of dictators and being a nasty arms dealer for the empire (not to mention being a part of inherently unjust feudal power structures that 'own' so much of the people's land)).

'Guilt by association' generally is used in the negative i thought, like "that's only guilt by association" ie not actually real guilt - guilt by association and not much else is also the stuff baroque conspiracies are made of; the type that ensure the true info can easily be ignored by most people - like david icke was waffling on about saville and co years ago, but most people would dismiss it because it would be followed up by lizards (or some other turquoise nonsense) - that's guilt by association right there. Is it really an accident that the cover up is served so well by people like him? (and could say the same about many 9/11 and 7/7 twoofers)

You know me si - i fully agree these things should be investigated and suspect lots of the guesses are true, but it requires extra vigilance to not be sucked down the rabbit hole into the over-wacky stuff (still read it, cos it's entertaining, but keep your sense filters up and check the references) - it's difficult because the wacky stuff is much more satisfying and explanatory (being largely fiction) than the actual hard-to-find snippets of reality. This subject deserves the more careful approach so that the more wacky version doesn't get used to dismiss the real stuff (sorry, i've probably given this patronising speech multiple times now :))
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top