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


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

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

@Sam - The main points are correct though, and not argued by the msm (ie that her brother Havers was the one who 'lost' the dickens dossier, and also covered up for known tory paedophile Peter Hayman, and supported PIE). As for this being the information age, all this stuff was known about when it was happening, and various attempts to spill it were made (eg scallywag magazine).

In some ways the investigative reporting of those days was much superior (they found this stuff without having to use twatter's mob-sourcing or david icke's forum).

And who knew that Butler-Sloss was Nigel Havers' Aunty (his dad was the dodgy attourney general in question).

...

Anyway: Leon Brittain, Leon Brittain, Leon Brittain... Is that enough for the lawyers? Chances are that they will allow a certain story about him to get out which can be 'proved' to be wrong (or maybe he's already 'cover' for someone even more famous) - and then sue the fuck out of some people, ignoring the stories/evidence that are out there already (as they did with lord mcalpine) (allegedly...;))
 
Last edited:
@Sam - The main points are correct though, and not argued by the msm (ie that her brother Havers was the one who 'lost' the dickens dossier, and also covered up for known tory paedophile Peter Hayman). As for this being the information age, all this stuff was known about when it was happening, and various attempts to spill it were made (eg scallywag magazine).

Certain points may well be 'correct', but do you consider it to be a reliable and unbiased source?

I'll assume the answer's a resounding 'no', which was the point of my post.

Doesn’t matter which source you align yourself with.
Mainstream press or a personal blog…all going to be sensationalist.

Personal blogs are not reliable sources, whether you consider the mainstream press to be 'sensationalist' or otherwise. Which (in this instance) would appear not to be the case anyway, relatively speaking.
 
Certain points may well be 'correct', but do you consider it to be a reliable and unbiased source?

That's irrelevant (don't shoot the messenger) - the facts i mentioned are on record and not disputed.

With the provable elite control of the mainstream media the blogs are about the only chance we've got, flaky or otherwise - it's up to us to separate wheat from chaff (and there's plenty of 'chaff') - same as always.
 
But my post wasn't contesting the entire content of the blog; only the fact it's a personal blog with a clear agenda, rather than a trusted news source, and appears to blur opinion and fact accordingly.

EDIT: And could well have been written by a six-year-old.
 
Last edited:
Trusted news source like who exactly? I'm not saying that blog isn't flaky, it is - but who are you saying isn't flaky for me to compare?

The source doesn't matter much if the information they give has its own source and is checkable from various angles
 
What we would normally consider 'news sources' - established print and online media. I use the word 'trusted' in the loosest sense obviously, but essentially people who have an obligation to produce at least a certain standard of 'objective' journalism.

Flaky? Come on, that blog is way beyond flaky. :D

And it gets worse! Baroness Butler-Sloss's husband is a paedophile, another of our great judiciary His Honour Joseph Butler-Sloss admits 'using' prostitutes in England and in Kenya. What even the News of the world did not print was that he did not care how old they were and many were child prostitutes Butler-Sloss said "It's not at all expensive. You pay 300 Kenyan shillings (£10) and they ask you for ten bob (30p) for the white man" He could not give a dam (sic) about exploiting poor black children.

Debatable typo aside, this just comes across as the work of an hysterical person. Or a child.
 
@Scotsman: Yeah there has been a big change with the internet, the positivity of it for us little people sometimes nearly outweighing the advantage the elite derive from it (but not quite). Hence this morning's 'emergency' legislation to make their control/use of it more overt.

@sam - i'm struggling to think of an established print/media source that isn't flaky itself - and flaky in much more sinister and substantial ways. Even without straightforward blackmail, control and power politics that kept this stuff out of said papers till now (so it had to go into scallywag etc), there's also the inherent pressure of the Propaganda Model so that even sources like the guardian become effective establishment mouthpieces (and pressure valves) regardless of the self-serving views its journalists have about themselves (if they didn't think a certain way and have approved blindspots, they wouldn't have got past intern stage) - (for evidence read the paper on Ukraine Syria etc ad nauseam)

Anyway, i take your point about how flaky that blog is, but often it's the only way to find stuff out; then when the tide has broken, all the 'proper' papers start wringing their hands about 'how could it have happened'; or they pull ranks and discredit the story (for the cycle to repeat in a decade).

Here's some telegraph anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...le-inquiry-judge-was-accused-of-cover-up.html
 
Last edited:
@sam - i'm struggling to think of an established print/media source that isn't flaky itself - and flaky in much more sinister and substantial ways. Even without straightforward blackmail, control and power politics that kept this stuff out of said papers till now (so it had to go into scallywag etc), there's also the inherent pressure of the Propaganda Model so that even sources like the guardian become effective establishment mouthpieces (and pressure valves) regardless of the self-serving views its journalists have about themselves (if they didn't think a certain way and have approved blindspots, they wouldn't have got past intern stage) - (for evidence read the paper on Ukraine Syria etc ad nauseam)

Yes, yes - I've tried to pre-empt all this by stating that I use the word 'reliable' loosely, but we really do have to draw a line somewhere, however arbitrary (or objectionable) that may seem.

The fact is that print media (and other mainstream sources) are at least partially accountable for what they publish, and tend to avoid getting sued wherever they can. You could argue that makes them tools of 'the Establishment', but it also discourages outright libel, like the example above.

Google 'Joseph-Butler-Sloss paedophile', and what's at the very top? This blog, with Icke not far down the list. The only two 'sources' who acknowledge the 'fact' that Butler-Sloss is a paedophile.
 
Read my edit - i found the telegraph (though i just googled Butler-sloss paedophile). (not saying butler-sloss is paedophile, just linking the two words)

Britain's famous libel laws are a playground for the wealthy to control information about themselves (and the envy of other western elites)

The print media are only really accountable to their owners in practice.

It's difficult to have any trust in established media when all this stuff was clearly known for decades. Multiple police and journalist investigations were halted from above and people let go. If the crime is by part of the establishment, any media that is also part of the establishment (all the msm) cannot be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Read my edit - i found the telegraph (though i just googled Butler-sloss paedophile)

Again, I'm not contesting every fact presented in the blog, many of which have been extensively covered by mainstream media. It's just when it's interspersed with outright lies such as the one about Baroness Butler-Sloss' husband being a confirmed paedophile.

Britain's famous libel laws are a playground for the wealthy to control information about themselves (and the envy of other western elites)

That's an issue for another thread, although I don't entirely agree. What matters is that anybody who doesn't carefully question the content of that blog is going to be quite grossly misled.

I'm sure if the Establishment really wanted, it'd be gone by now anyway.
 
Well i agree, and suspect that these blogs are often used to hide stuff in plain sight and discredit it (when they're not just written by people who don't understand evidence).

That claim in that blog was clearly speculation anyway: the actual 'evidence' they had from a newspaper report was just that Butler-Sloss apparently used prostitutes, and speculation that he didn't mind the age - reading it that was clear to me (i'd read the 'Cleveland judge Sex Scandal' newspaper article before).

Libel laws are quite relevant here (what with mcalpine) - they are clearly used the way i described, which is why americans use our courts for it. You don't get legal aid for libel (or much else either these days)
 
If it were speculation, why word it like this:

And it gets worse! Baroness Butler-Sloss's husband is a paedophile

Bold text from the original, and not my own.

What's easier to believe? That this blog is part of a disinformation campaign? Or that it's the work of somebody with a lot of time on their hands and (possible) mental health problems?
 
The facts are Icke has clearly stated for the past 10 years give or take that Saville was a Paedophile/Necrophiliac involved in a highly organised paedo ring.
He was also bang on with his Ted Heath information.

Shame about the reptilian elites and the whole 'son of god' business then.

Half of the entertainment business knew about Savile; there just wasn't sufficient evidence for anybody to make any real claims without falling foul of his lawyers.

Sometimes the media is 'silent' about things because they still need to be investigated thoroughly, whereas Icke can say what he wants (most of which is vague and nebulous anyhow) and only a tiny percentage of the population listens.
 
...Half of the entertainment business knew about Savile; there just wasn't sufficient evidence for anybody to make any real claims without falling foul of his lawyers...

His lawyers would have considerably more weight in the balance than any lawyers standing up for victims on legal aid (it's not like the evidence wasn't there all the way through). It's not about the threat of libel as much as the threat of important friends in positions of power. Victims were continuously fobbed off by 'authority' figures (as usual with this sort of abuse), and investigations that would have found even more evidence were abandoned (as we know happened - thanks Havers).

And also, when papers are part of the 'establishment' they may make a different judgement as to whether it's worth pursuing (eg "well it's terrible, but best kept secret as we don't want to lose all 'this', and risk the commies taking over" - this seems to have been the logic of the non-paedophile establishment figures involved (i'm sure there must be some).
 
Last edited:
I don't see how any of this makes the offending blog any more credible than it is(n't) though.

Like I said, however arbitrary and / or distasteful you might find it, the fact is that mainstream media is (at least in principle) accountable to some degree. The fact that they're part of the 'establishment' in themselves does not lend any extra credence to some wacko's blog.

I think that's enough about the scary blog now.

Please see “don’t let who’s delivering the message detract from the facts”

This has nothing to do with reptilians and everything to do with peado’s which seems at the current moment to be his area of expertise.
You yourself are using a 'trusted' mainstream media tactic of not facing up to the facts.

Arrrrggggghhhh! :D

Like I said, believe Icke all you want, but no amount of speculation from him or from anybody else amounts to hard evidence, and never will.
 
I'd moved on from that blog to your seemingly way too trusting view of the processes of the media - like the reason savile and other paedos weren't prosecuted becasue there was no evidence: that must be bollocks - there was evidence that got 'lost' on multiple occasions.
 
No :p ;)

When the 'fact-checking' libel-conscious media isn't cutting it, you have to go to the darkside and make your own judgements on what you find - that's just how the media works now i reckon, and it's better to have some flake to wade through than be at the mercy of the gatekeepers.

(and anyway, some of the best investigative reporting actually happens from independent 'blogs' these days (not icke or this google-law blog though (icke just read scallywag after all...))
 
Last edited:
So the Blog which could be potentially correct on every point is ‘wacko’ because you haven’t been spoon fed it by your trusted mainstream sources.

Evidence is evidence….I know you like yours to be hard ;)

The blog is 'wacko' because of the tone, the content and the manner in which it's presented. See my previous posts for evidence of such, as I really can't be bothered going over this again.

What are you not believing ??

The fact we're still discussing this, for starters. :|

Apologies to anybody who used to read this thread.
 
Personally, although I think there is a modicum of substance to the calls for Baroness Butler-Sloss to step down from the review, I don't think it's going to be another cover up.

She chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry in which she went against what the judges said. So in favour of the victims, even if it transpired that most weren't. Plus she is a former President of the Family Division of the High Court.

Choosing her on those grounds seems pretty sensible.
 
Top