[Closed] Cliff!

The allegations against Cliff aren't new either... who was 1st to mention them on the forum, before the story broke in the news?

The whole Jimmy Saville thing did open my eyes to the scale of cover-up and willful ignorance that can go on. Someone on STW made allegations several years ago and I, amongst many others, called them out for making up stories. That has, inevitably, made me a bit more open-minded about similar accusations that, at the start, seem ridiculous and far-fetched.

"When a prominent national celebrity is killed in broad daylight by a hitman and the killer never found, it might discourage anyone being too forthright with what they know."

Yet you can post it on forums in total safety. Makes you think.

Makes me think that years of the internet has led to prolific sharing of information, which brings a whole new level of safety in numbers...

Of course, when Jill Dando was murdered, the internet, forums and blogging were in their infancy, youtube, twitter and facebook didn't exist and if anyone had suggested a VIP paedophile ring involving Jimmy Savile, Edward Heath Cliff Richard and the Kray twins, people would've roasted em something rotten, or just thought they were nuts.

At least the internet has progressed beyond it's infancy...

The evidence being that you are STW secong biggest conspiracist ?
This is not new

Yeah, show me the evidence for that would you.

Isn't any? OK. Just getting caught up in the frenzy of JHJ haters circlejerk aren't you.

I dont think I have even engaged with JHJ on this thread and If I have it has not been hate filled- still you get straight in there wiht the ad homs and the straw men eh
Provide the evidence - yes that s an effective technique when dealing with conspiracists

Provide the evidence - yes that s an effective technique

Will you be providing the evidence Junky?

Bit worried I might have some competition in the 'doing your own research' stakes...

You seem to have forgotten your comments about Jive's contributions on page 2, Junkyard.

Basically if you spout utter BS you will be called out for it

You have agreed with some of his outlandish musings on here hence you think his strike rate is something worthy of praise

Whatever Jives posts are, they are most definitely not "outlandish musings". They are well researched and backed up with links for you to read and form your own opinion of. As for accusing others of spouting "utter bullshit", it would be nice if you quoted what you are referring to so we can decide if it is indeed bullshit or you being gratuitously insulting.

[i]As for accusing others of spouting "utter bullshit", it would be nice if you quoted what you are referring to so we can decide if it is indeed bullshit or you being gratuitously insulting.[/i]

LOL 8) Its all gone quiet!

Have you heard of bikes and seen the weather? DO you want a link to my STrava page as proof I did genuinely go for a bike ride.

Whatever Jives posts are, they are most definitely not "outlandish musings"

Honestly all I can do is laugh as playing the evidence game with conspiracist is the perfect definition of folly

I was unaware there were so many and i am wavering on scostroute now 😉

FWIW he types so much he must eventually get something correct.

I did genuinely just laugh at that. Have you seen his queen and the armies thread or his thread asking if its the third world war is imminent David Icke, Lizards etc You are trolling now aren't you

I am with you here, unreservedly, Junkyard.

I had forgotten about JHJ's conspiratorial tendencies until this thread, but then remembered how impossible to deal with such theorists are. All the 'evidence' they offer is self-scripted, self-perpetuating nonsense.

They are well researched and backed up with links for you to read and form your own opinion of.

The thing with conspiracy theories if you repeat enough of them you'll be right sooner or later. JHJ is just playing the numbers game. It's all very amusing and occasionally some of it will be true.

The thing with conspiracy theories if you repeat enough of them you'll be right sooner or later. JHJ is just playing the numbers game. It's all very amusing and occasionally some of it will be true.

Exactly this. A stopped clock is right twice a day, does that make it a reliable, accurate timepiece?

If I said "think of a number between 1 and 10" and then went "the number you're thinking of is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10," then when told you're thinking of 6 claim a successful hit, you'd think I was a stone bonker.

So who murdered Jill Dando anyway?

And why?

we don't know, why don't you tell us?

I really don't understand your logic, JHJ. You spend your entire life desperately looking for conspiracies, paedophiles and christ knows what else. And then when we actually find one, something you should be all over like a rash because you might actually have been right for once (albeit possibly via blind luck), you pap on with non sequiturs about Jill Dando's murder. You're actually derailing yourself now.

[i]I really don't understand your logic, JHJ. You spend your entire life desperately looking for conspiracies, paedophiles and christ knows what else....[/i]

I don't think logic comes into it, I think he just enjoys it!

I have formed my own opinion and welcome others to do the same.

This thread is about Cliff, Cougar. Type Jill Dando into the Google search bar and as you get to "d" one of the automatic propositions adds Jimmy Saville and Cliff Richard. Click on that and nearly all of the propositions are about Jill's murder and possible killers. The first one is in the Express so fairly mainstream. The stuff that JHJ has been posting shows that what Jill knew about Cliff, Jimmy and their cohorts was a pretty good motive for murder. But at the time of the court case it wasn't widely known that Saville, the Krays, Edward Heath (and the rest of the bunch JHJ has demonstrated were "friends") were visiting the same places for the same reasons.

Pity we don't have a time machine because it's clear that the wrong people (a police force engaged in covering up for the influential) were investigating a crime against somebody working for the wrong people (the BBC who were covering up for their stars) and Jill was most definitely a threat to the established order at the BBC, in the police, and in parliament.

I don't know who killed Jill but JHJ has succeeded in convincing me that some possible culprits were never seriously considered at the time.

Is Cliff still pretending to be gay for Jesus or did he admit to be gay for cock too?

I don't think logic comes into it, I think he just enjoys it!

I think there's a bit more to it than that. This is quite interesting :

[url= http://www.psychmechanics.com/2016/03/inside-mind-of-conspiracy-theorist.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Psych-Mechanics+%28Psych-Mechanics%29 ]Inside the mind of a conspiracy theorist[/url]

Interesting bits :

[i] Not understanding the major events of the world makes us feel powerless and without control. When we explain things, we restore power and control.

This is why many conspiracy theories revolve around events for which there are no clear explanations. The human mind cannot tolerate leaving things unexplained. Explaining things, no matter how ludicrous the explanations, helps us restore control and psychological balance.

It always feels good to be the old wise goat in a flock of sheep. Many conspiracy theorists often accuse others who don’t believe in their theories as being deluded and brain-washed. In a way, they see themselves as heroes who’re on a mission to pull out mankind from their depths of ignorance into the light of truth.

Also, convincing you that 'they’re watching us' or 'we have been fooled' makes them feel like
saviours on a rescue mission.

As you can probably see, this gives them a major ego boost.[/i]

An ex gf of mine, with whom I've remained friends, has in recent years become a conspiracy theorist very similar to JHJ. Pretty much every thing that JHJ posts on STW I've already heard from her.

What's really sad is how it's come to totally dominate her life - she must devote a huge chunk of every day "researching" and posting on internet forums dedicated to conspiracy theories. This leaves her with very little time to take care of herself, something which she now really struggles to do.

I feel really powerless and it's frankly tragic to watch someone so utterly consumed with conspiracy theories **** up their life.

Explaining things, no matter how ludicrous the explanations, helps us restore control and psychological balance.

that explains religion then...

and there's likely to be more truth in JHJ's theories than in the various religious texts...

that explains religion then...

Yeah she sees it very much that way. She tells me "I know you think I'm mad but it's no different to religion" (she knows that I respect other people's religion).

The problem is that something like 96% of people in the world have some sort of religious/spiritualist beliefs (ie aren't atheists) but 96% aren't conspiracy theorists.

Having religious views might be "normal" but being a conspiracy theorists isn't. Most people don't think that other humans are plotting against them.

but 96% aren't conspiracy theorists.

Most people don't think that other humans are plotting against them.

no, they think things like the devil are plotting against them, or earthquakes result from tourists disrobing on the top of a mountain, or aids is retribution from god, etc. obviously these people are much saner...

[quote=Junkyard ]Have you seen his queen and the armies thread or his thread asking if its the third world war is imminent David Icke, Lizards etc

I'm pretty sure JHJ has never subscribed to, or posted links to, anything about the Lizard conspiracy. I know that other have, on his threads, as a straw man.

no, they think things like the devil are plotting against them, or earthquakes result from tourists disrobing on the top of a mountain, or aids is retribution from god, etc. obviously these people are much saner...

You are of course entitled to believe that over 90% of the world's population is mad.

But I wouldn't necessarily agree, based on the accepted definition of "sanity".

But do you respect the parts of those religions that are misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, violent, intimidating, expansionist ... , Ernie? I don't and view organised religion as a conspiracy against the humanist secular world I'd like to live in. Feel free to enjoy your personal faith though.

misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, violent, intimidating, expansionist

That can quite easily describe plenty of secular governments as well.

No need for religion for people to be shit to each other.

I'm sorry Edukator I thought we were talking about whether people with religious views could be "sane".

Apparently 99.8% of people living in India claim to have religious beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

I'm fairly sure that 99.8% of Indians aren't insane. But feel free to disagree. If you want.

I was responding to

(she knows that I respect other people's religion

Which I disagree with, Ernie, but you clearly meant " personal religious beliefs" which is very different.

People's personal faiths and beliefs are just that, personal. It's when they become a religion imposed on others that I lose my respect.

Most people don't think that other humans are plotting against them.

For the most part, I don't think people are plotting against me... though of course they have reason to, given the avenues of inquiry I pursue.

I am however damned sure there is a shiteload of bad things going on in the world, which are for the most part instigated by a relatively small number of people with huge amounts of money; unfortunately, all too often, they are deeply involved with the governments of the world.

For example, don't forget that Tony Blair is also mentioned with regard to Cliff Richard; apart from the obvious such as dodgy dossiers on weapons of Mass Destruction, he also has financial ties to Prince Andrew's mate Jeffrey Epstein.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Then of course there's the question of Blair's involvement with Margaret Hodge and Jack Straw, both of whom have questions to answer regarding abuse in Islington Care Homes and Children being trafficked to Jersey.

On top of that, we have Greville Janner and Paul Boateng, who has strong ties to the Lambeth abuse Scandal, which also has several ties to Islington and North Wales:

[img] [/img]

Also worth noting Paul Boateng is a board member of Aegis Defence, which aside from profitting immensely from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is also under the directorship of one Prince Charles' closest chums, Nicholas Soames:

[img] [/img]

Yep, that Nicholas Soames, who got a bit uppity about the Leon Brittan affair:

Nicholas Soames was of course Prince Charles' equerry around the time Lord Mountbatten 1st introduced him to Jimmy Savile...

[img] [/img]

Here's a picture of Jimmy Savile on Jersey:

[img] [/img]

Anyhoo, wouldn't want to be accused of going off topic:

[img] [/img]

you clearly meant

Well I know what I meant but thanks anyway 🙂

As far as I can work out JHJ's theory is that anyone who has been photographed next to Jimmy Saville who is famous or rich must be a paedo,or part of a grand conspiracy to protect them and anyone photographed next to that other person who is famous or rich must be a paedo,or part of a grand conspiracy to protect them, ad nauseum. Anyone who has ever said anything nice about jimmy saville or any of the above, must be a paedo or part of a grand conspiracy to protect them. I think i've got that right. In fact is there anyone who is rich and or famous who is not a paedo or part of this grand conspiracy ? However I don't understand where the lizards come into it ? I'd thought they'd be more likely to eat children rather have a sexual interest in them ? I'm confused now.

who's that old dear in the middle? she looks suspicious.

she's one of our lizard overlords

scotroutes - Member
The whole Jimmy Saville thing did open my eyes to the scale of cover-up and willful ignorance that can go on. Someone on STW made allegations several years ago and I, amongst many others, called them out for making up stories. That has, inevitably, made me a bit more open-minded about similar accusations that, at the start, seem ridiculous and far-fetched.

I remember in Australia a mad woman who used to rant on about a high level paedophile conspiracy.

It supposedly involved top politicians, judges, police officers, bishops, priests, cardinals, television celebrities, and civil servants.

All of whom were claimed to be working in collusion to protect each other and suppress anyone who raised their head above the parapet.

Obviously a totally looney tunes conspiracy theorist.

Trouble was, she was right. It was massive, and just as she said. And just like here there were some very convenient deaths.

So now, I don't automatically dismiss such claims, and I've learned to be suspicious of the motives of anyone who uses the tactics of scorn and suppression on those who raise those claims.

What happened there can happen here, and the information that's piling up certainly suggests so.

Not seeing much information here to be honest - a lot of speculation, innuendo, guilt by association. Yes there are and have been paedos in public office and positions of fame but there have been lots of accusations about others - such as Leon Brittan which have been found to be total fabrications. Jimmy Saville seems never to have been called out in his lifetime, not because he was surrounded by paedos but that his accusers were not believed because of his fame, or it could have impacted on their careers. Likewise Cyril smith - it was not electorally advantageous for the Libs to out him.

such as Leon Brittan which have been found to be total fabrications

I have to correct you there... not only was the rape investigation around which the whole smear campaign to swing public opinion and discredit Tom Watson found to be fully justified:

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/07/lord-brittan-investigation-fully-justified-say-police ]
Leon Brittan rape investigation 'fully justified', say police

Inquiry decides Met was right to examine ‘far from fanciful’ allegations against late peer, but admits mistakes were made[/url]

but also, there were [url= http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/police-investigating-claims-multiple-sexual-10257093 ]multiple allegations of child abuse from victims[/url] and [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vip-paedophile-files-leon-brittan-5379229 ]Police Officers who were investigating organized networks of VIP abuse in the 80s
[/url]

Perhaps the police investigations of the 1980s bear some relation to the files found shortly after Leon Brittan's death:

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/22/leon-brittan-westminster-child-abuse-files ]Leon Brittan among senior Westminster figures named in new child abuse files [/url]

Also worth bearing in mind the [url= http://www.thenational.scot/news/file-linked-to-child-abuse-surfaced-the-day-after-leon-brittan-died.5589 ]mention of Kincora in relation to the files discovered[/url]:

A SECRET document relating to Westminster child abuse allegations and marked for destruction surfaced the day after Sir Leon Brittan died, The National can reveal.

The file came to light in the Cabinet Office archives on January 22 this year – 24 hours after the former Home Secretary passed away.

Its contents continue to be withheld but a newly published letter said the document related to Sir William van Straubenzee, a late Tory minister, and referred to the Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast – a notorious orphanage at the centre of abuse investigations.

Two other sets of papers – one which explicitly related to Brittan – also suddenly surfaced in the Cabinet Office in the weeks after he died.

Straubenzee, right, a former Northern Ireland minister, was a parliamentary colleague of Brittan, and both men, along with Margaret Thatcher aide Sir Peter Morrison and the diplomat Peter Hayman were named in the two files which emerged soon after Brittan’s death.

The question still remains as to [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29839175 ]why the Home Office felt it necessary to edit Fiona Woolf's letters regarding her relationship with Leon Brittan[/url], when the Home Secretary (who oversees the intelligence services and police, who are themselves implicated in the cover up) chose her as 2nd head of the inquiry.

[img] [/img]

Photo taken on the morning of the day Woolf appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee and chair Keith Vaz (who was involved in both Richmond (Elm Guest House, children sourced from Grafton Close childrens home) and Islington (Abuse in homes+Trafficking kids to Jersey) Councils, whilst large scale organized abuse was occuring in council managed properties)

Not forgetting the 1st head of the inquiry, [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10963332/Baroness-Butler-Sloss-hid-claims-of-bishops-sex-abuse.html ]Baroness Butler Sloss, had covered up abuse by a bishop[/url]...

The bishop in question was a close friend of Prince Charles:

[img] [/img]

No fabrications were made in the writing of this post

Perhaps you should read the article in the Guardian before smearing everyone in sight.

Brittan died in January 2015, aged 75, not knowing that police had four months previously concluded he had no case to answer. His widow, Diana, was only informed in October 2015.

You really need to get out more - you continue to cast your nasty smears and innuendo against all and sundry. An allegation is not the same as truth or proof of wrongdoing. You really are a fruitcake.

such as Leon Brittan which have been found to be total fabrications

That is a false statement and goes against substantial evidence to the contrary...

On the plus side, I just ate some fruitcake, and it was darned tasty

SHit he is into cannibalism now 😉

I doubt it, he's been dead for a while

Stick to your delusions then - the bit that says "Brittan died in January 2015, aged 75, not knowing that police had four months previously concluded he had no case to answer. His widow, Diana, was only informed in October 2015" and

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, is to meet Lord Brittan’s widow later this month to apologise for his force’s handling of a false rape allegation

So what about the people whose entire lives were damaged by abuse when they were children?

Your addiction appears to be ignoring anything other than tiny passages which suit your deluded argument.

My addiction happens to be riding bikes...

Right, so all these people are 'in on it'.
I see lots of pictures of the Queen from you, so surely she's in it on too?
What has she been up to?

Don't start him!

For me the profiting out of war thing is bad enough and doesn't need the ring bolted on.

This kind of ties in with the recent trend to start new articles with something like...

"The Prime Minister will announce, later today, that he's increasing VAT to 25%..."

You're reporting it, so he's already announced it, you Muppets!

It seems like the authorities/media are trying to prejudice cases/opinions before they've even got started.

Another step in the decline of society, driven by the mutual obsession of the media and politicians
🙁

"Jimmy Saville seems never to have been called out in his lifetime, not because he was surrounded by paedos but that his accusers were not believed because of his fame"

Not so. There was at least one big in vestigation and the police spent a fortune checking it out.

A woman said as a girl she'd given him a BJ in his car at a school in front of a largeish number of witnesses. The police went to massive lengths to track most of the witnesses down but none had any memory of it. (IIRC)

Anna Racoon's blog is worth a read for the inside story from the school.

I just ate some fruitcake

SHit he is into cannibalism now

I doubt it, he's been dead for a while

FROWNS

I have no idea why I doubt your ability to process complicated information and reach sound conclusions when you are so good with the simple stuff.....go on play the edinburgh card just for me

I see lots of pictures of the Queen from you, so surely she's in it on too?
What has she been up to?

She is the head of an establishment paedophile ring which is vital to the control structures of the political and religious elite.

If she wasn't she wouldn't have allowed herself to be photographed with all those paedophiles.

What's the Edinburgh Card? Google doesn't seem to know.

Saying you did not mean it and it was just a joke- used by folk to have a go at TJ.

Thanks.

That Anna raccoon blog is indeed a good, Tx

Though of course I don't agree with Anna Racoon, it's better that there is critical thinkers on both sides of the debate, however, siding with the powerful, who have extensive influence in the media, government and police (which is in many respects how Jimmy Savile and others got away with it in the 1st place) is a strange angle to take and some might say, a touch cowardly.

As for what role the Queen has in all of this, aside from the allegations of involvement of a member of the Royal Family, there doesn't seem to be many (if any) other people who'd be in a position to have authority over both Jersey and the UK Home Office (which is responsible for Borders and Customs).

For some indisputable photographic evidence here is the Queen with her nurse

[img] [/img]

Notice the buckle on the nurse's belt, it clearly shows the compass and square and pentagram of the masonic order

[img] [/img]

I don't agree with Anna Racoon

Even the facts?

Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?

jivehoneyjive - Member
Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?

so just why are these muppets spending huge amounts of money and squandering valuable resources chasing people who can never, ever be prosecuted?

Because the victims have the right for it to be legally established that the allegations they made were true, if indeed they were.

In too many cases the claims made by victims of child abuse were falsely dismissed as unreliable. Establishing that they told the truth, whilst obviously denying them full justice, could perhaps help to bring some sort of closure for them.

Furthermore it can highlight institutional failures and reduce to possibility of institutional failures in the future.

Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators.

Fair point ernie

Also perhaps a means of piecing together the wider network, to prevent continuing abuse to children right now and in the future?

Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that when it comes to the amount of money and resources (and lives) squandered, it'll pale in comparison to the [s]defence industry[/s] arms trade and wars started under false pretences.

At least Cliff is a good Christian:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Tony Blair is a nonce ?

When the person who has been accused, is unable to defend themself, due to being dead, then the justice being s dished out is somewhat flawed.

The accused cannot answer charges and therefore we have a somewhat one sided investigation here. The accused always is assumed innocent and always has the right to a fair trail. This cannot happen with a corpse.
You both have a point as we do need to expose cases where agencies turned a blind eye or were remiss as we need to learn the lessons to prevent it happening again

Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?

Staire is dead

It was beaten to death by the limp flaccid body of self awareness 😯

Catch 22, as the cases of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan, Greville Janner and many others show...

On the one hand, the accused is no longer around to defend themselves... on the other, there is a significant body of evidence to show they were protected on multiple occasions, under several different governments, by several departments and agencies, whilst alive.

All very odd...

The accused always is assumed innocent and always has the right to a fair trail. This cannot happen with a corpse.

Why not? Today Matthew Daley was found guilty of manslaughter over a 'road rage' killing, he did not give any evidence in court, does that mean that he didn't receive a fair trial?

It is perfectly possible imo to have a fair trial even if the defendant can't defend themselves.

EDIT : This a bit of a side issue which isn't really relevant to the historic child abuse cases. If Lord Janner were still alive there would be, due to his dementia, be a "trial of the facts", as he is now dead there will instead be an investigation into the allegations against him. This both fair and money well spent imo.

In some circumstance their best defence may be to not give evidence
However they will still talk to and instruct a solicitor thereby defending themself. Clearly, clairvoyance aside, a corpse cannot do this

Your broad point about learning the lesson is a fair.

Out of interest what punishments were you thinking of dishing out to the corpse? Community service? Hard labour. I reckon solitary confinement 6 foot under in a wooden box is a good one.

Out of interest what punishments were you thinking of dishing out to the corpse? Community service? Hard labour. I reckon solitary confinement 6 foot under in a wooden box is a good one.

I thought I had dealt with that point with my previous comment :

[i]"Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators."[/i]

I don't think I can expand on that really.

Perhaps it's more about relief for someone who has spent a lifetime trying to come to terms with what happened to them and not being believed...

and:

a means of piecing together the wider network, to prevent continuing abuse to children right now and in the future

For Ernie, in true JHJ style.

I remembered that Blair had been prosecuted for sex in the toilets but all trace seemed to have vanished from the web. Some references still remain on blogs if you use duckduckgo. Anyhow: [url= https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/tony-blairs-dirty-little-secrets/ ]Blair[/url]

I can no longer find any reference to his victims being younger boys.

@ ernie and JHJ
Both of which laudable aims can be achieved without a "trial " of a corpse.

I don't know why you keep wanting to drag "a corpse" onto the thread.

The following question was asked :

[i] "so just why are these muppets spending huge amounts of money and squandering valuable resources chasing people who can never, ever be prosecuted?"[/i]

To which I pointed out : Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators.

No where have I suggested taking a corpse to court. I find your apparent obsession with cadavers a little bizarre.

Nice try ernie at a dig but nowhere near as funny as usual but possibly more caustic than usual.
Anyway we agree we should not take the dead to court so lets all move on to something a little more rational.

nowhere near as funny as usual but possibly more caustic than usual.

Thank you for your critique. I'll bear in mind your comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038

I will just leave that there.

I've just spent five minutes hunting for this thread when rt60 had already bumped it.

I'll still add my link: [url= https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/16/cliff-richard-will-not-face-charges-over-sexual-abuse-claims ]Cliff goes free.[/url]