Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 70 comments are related to the topic:
Westminster 'paedophile ring' accuser charged

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 70
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 16:55
I base that on the fact that in Russia, and outside Russia Putin has had opponents murdered, that's just a little sign right there
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 16:56
Very good point . Of course , outside of the UK , the British have never had anyone executed ?
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 16:57
now Britain may be in the habit of murdering Russian agents, in Britain or in Russia or anywhere else
Any examples?
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 16:59
I never said anything different to you . You are basing your knowledge on what you hear on the news or read in the papers . Who controls the media ? Do you really expect them to tell us what our secret service is doing ?
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 16:59
Who have the  Russians murdered in the UK ?
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:00
So no examples then that you can mention?
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 17:01
None that I can mention , no .
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:03
well lets put it this way Reynard, there are two men in Russia right now, who Britain have named as murderers using radioactive agent , and who Britain have requested that should stand trial
but Putin wont extricate them, have you forgotten about that case only a few years ago in london
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:05
Does Litvinenko jog you memory , no?
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 17:14
So no convictions ? Would the UK refuse to extricate or even extradite a suspect without being given solid evidence to suggest they have a case to answer ?
I , personally believe that Alexander Litvinenko WAS murdered by an eastern european assassin , probably Russian , but this is yet to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (remember that - "reasonable doubt") .
I , and many others , have "reasonable doubt" as to the Skripal case , that is all I'm saying . I am very sceptical of 'facts' released by the government through the mainstream media .
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:24
I agree that we should be sceptical in what we believe

you see when I get a number 12 bus to Hammersmith I believe it will take me to hammersmith
I dont believe it will be driven by father Christmas

That's the basics, you see you asked had Russia ever murdered someone in London
I mentioned one such case

A british judge concluded that Litvinenko was poisoned by two Russian men,acting on the behest of russias security services , probably with the approval of Putin

Britain asked that they stand trial , Putin refused

Now you like to think it wasn't these two named men,
that's ok
but there are others of course, but I think you have made your mind up
no point going any further
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 17:30
lfc1979 - I will not insult you , or anyone else for that matter , by describing anything you post as 'rubbish' or 'nonsense' because I believe in the value of freedom of speech/expression , and I respect the opinions and theories expressed by others . I will however look critically at their posts and try and examine their opinions objectively and in order to do so I believe it is vitally important to establish where they glean their information .
Again , on what do you base your opinions regarding Skripal , for example ?

I have seen , on you tube , a London bus (not neccessarily the NO.12 to Hammersmith) being driven by someone dressed up as Santa Claus .

Secondly , I don't take the word of a british judge as gospel , given the high levels of corruption within the judiciary so I am naturally sceptical of his findings . However I do NOT rule out the possibility that it is the two named men .

I repeat , what are the sources of your information ?
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:37
Reynard it’s a question of judgement , you see there is no point you saying that you have seen Father Christmas
I don’t believe you
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 17:44
And I don't believe I claimed to have seen Father Christmas (Read again - slowly)
Thanks for your reply re: source of information . Unfortunately you have neglected to state the sources on which you base your judgement !
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 17:46
It’s ok I noticed that , I didn’t want to point it out as the usual devious ways of avoiding the underlying truth
So I suggest you read what I said and try and understand it had nothing to do with clothes
It’s about what it is reasonable to believe and why isn’t

Now if we can’t be honest and stop throwing up dust we won’t get very far will we
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 17:55
I don't recall a conversation involving fashion Confused
Source/sources please ?
By:
Injera
When: 04 Jul 18 17:59
lfc - which major establishment announcements have you NOT agreed with?

For example: did you believe in Blair's 'Uk interests are 45 minutes from an attack' re Saddam Hussein?
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 18:00
There he goes again , it’s like this I listen to news here and there , I only listen if it interests me
This case did , you may have listened to the same news or perhaps different or more news , although I notice that litvinenki seemed to have slipped your mind
If was only one example of Russians murdered in London or the UK
There are others , feel free to come to your own conclusions on them as well
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 18:04
So I conclude , through your reluctance to respond directly , that you watch national TV news programmes (BBC ITV etc.) and read national newspapers (Sun , Guardian , Independant etc.) .
Thanks for that , it helps me greatly in understanding what angle you're coming from and why you hold the views that you hold .
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 18:07
..... and no , Alexander Litvinenko hadn't slipped my mind . Nor had Georgi Markov (although that was possibly a Hungarian state ordered assassination).
Unfortunately in these cases all I have to go on is what is in the public domain due to the sensitivity of such cases at the time .
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 18:13
sorry Reynard I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that Litvinenko
had slipped your mind , he hadn’t ?

That’s worse
By:
lfc1971
When: 04 Jul 18 18:24
You see when you asked did I know of any Russians murdered in London , by Russians and possibly Putin

And I asked you does no one come to mind , well litvinenko was on my mind
But you didn’t even think to mention him when asked , not even as a possibility

Well I’m sorry that makes me a little suspicious of anything else you might say
I don’t know why
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 18:36
Unfortunately modern history is littered with high-level covers ups . Hillsborough (Lord Justice Taylor) , Iraq War (Chilcott report) soon to be added Grenfell Tower (Sir Martin Moore-Bick presiding judge) which will possibly result in a large proportion of the blame being put upon the responding fire officers . The enquiry into the corruption and cover up by the Met , of serious child abuse claims within the care system , is being overseen by the very police officer (name withheld) that silenced the original investigations of John Wedger . How is this going to uncover the truth when the panel chairman has a vested interest in suppressing the facts ?
All of these enquiries have and will have one thing in common . Their finding will be publicised through the national media who are no longer independant .
If you wish to form use judgement to form your opinions based on what you are told by government controlled media outlets then so be it . Your opinion will still be respected by myself , as it is your right to have an opinion , but I will maintain my right to question the validity of such opinions .

I still do not know of any individuals that have , beyond all reasonable doubt (remember that bit?) , been murdered in the UK by Russian operatives - with or without Putin's approval - simply because there have been no convictions that I am aware of . Incidentally , you never asked me for examples of people murdered within the UK by Russians , that is whyn I never gave you any examples .
By:
DIE LINKE
When: 04 Jul 18 18:38
It was removed because the "list of 100 paedophile councillors or uk political party affiliated members" was nothing of the sort and therefore libellous.
By:
Injera
When: 04 Jul 18 18:42
How many were convicted Die Linke?

Care to do a spread?
By:
Reynard
When: 04 Jul 18 18:44
A vast majority , I would imagine , and they're just the ones that we know about
By:
Injera
When: 04 Jul 18 18:51
I guess you don't know about Proctor, Tallboys and Powell?

Or maybe Green? Bryant? Harding?

All convicted. All MPs and councillors.

Oh and this piece of work....

Labour Councillor (Northampton/Northamptonshire), and former School Governor, Alec Dyer-Atkins – Convicted and jailed for 2 years in 2003 for downloading more than 42,000 pictures and films described in court as “Horrifying images of child abuse”. Dyer-Atkins was a member of an international paedophile ring called `The Shadows Brotherhood` which was successfully penetrated following sterling work by Britain’s National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU). Commenting on the conviction of the depraved Labour Party beast, NHTCU Deputy Head, Mick Deats said: “This man had some of the worst images on his computers that officers from this unit have ever viewed”.
By:
terry mccann
When: 04 Jul 18 18:58
Then there"s the untouchables who know they will get away with it
By:
DIE LINKE
When: 04 Jul 18 19:48
No idea, Injera. I notice Will Straw was on there though! Laugh Nobody would be going for some potless nutcase running a madcap Wordpress blog, but having Harvey Proctor on a list of "list of 100 paedophile councillors or uk political party affiliated members" is libel plain and simple. Not sure how many others were libelled, I'd guess a few more.
By:
Injera
When: 04 Jul 18 21:35
Proctor pleaded guilty to gross indecency in 1987.

The age of consent for gays then was 21 and he was with underage boys.
By:
Reynard
When: 05 Jul 18 10:51
FAO lfc1979

leazes67 • July 5, 2018 10:34 AM BST
The Amesbury Mystery 110
5 Jul, 2018  in Uncategorized by craig
We are continually presented with experts by the mainstream media who will validate whatever miraculous property of “novichok” is needed to fit in with the government’s latest wild anti-Russian story. Tonight Newsnight wheeled out a chemical weapons expert to tell us that “novichok” is “extremely persistent” and therefore that used to attack the Skripals could still be lurking potent on a bush in a park.

Yet only three months ago we had this example of scores from the MSM giving the same message which was the government line at that time:
“Professor Robert Stockman, of the University of Nottingham, said traces of nerve agents did not linger. He added: ‘These agents react with water to degrade, including moisture in the air, and so in the UK they would have a very limited lifetime. This is presumably why the street in Salisbury was being hosed down as a precaution – it would effectively destroy the agent.'”

In fact, rain affecting the “novichok” on the door handle was given as the reason that the Skripals were not killed. But now the properties of the agent have to fit a new narrative, so they transmute again.

It keeps happening. Do you remember when Novichok was the most deadly of substances, many times more powerful than VX or Sarin, and causing death in seconds? But then, when that needed to be altered to fit the government’s Skripal story, they found scientists to explain that actually no, it was pretty slow acting, absorbed gradually through the skin, and not all that deadly.

Scientists are an interesting bunch. More than willing to ascribe whatever properties fit the government’s ever more implausible stories, in exchange for an MSM appearance fee, 5 minutes of fame and the fond hope of a research grant.

According to the Daily Telegraph today, the unfortunate Charlie Rowley is a registered heroin addict, and if true Occam’s Razor would indicate that is a rather more likely reason for his present state than an inexplicably persistent weaponised nerve agent.

If it is however true that two separate attacks have been carried out with “novichok” a few miles either side of Porton Down, where “novichok” is synthesised and stored for “testing purposes”, what does Occam’s razor suggest is the source of the nerve agent? A question not one MSM journalist seems to have asked themselves tonight.

I am slightly puzzled by the picture the media are trying to paint of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess as homeless, unemployed addicts. The Guardian and Sky News both state that they were unemployed, yet Charlie was living in a very new house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury, which is pretty expensive. According to Zoopla homes range up to £430,000 and the cheapest ones are £270,000. They are all new build, on a new estate, which is still under construction.

Both Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess still have active facebook pages and one of Charlie’s handful of “Likes” is a mortgage broker, which is consistent with his brand new house. They don’t give mortgages to unemployed heroin addicts, and not many of those live in smart new “executive housing” estates. Both Charlie and Dawn appear from their facebook pages to be very well socialised, with Dawn having many friends in the teaching profession. Even if she has been homeless for a period as reported, she is plainly very much part of the community.

Naturally, there is no mention in all the reports today of MI6’s Pablo Miller, who remains the subject of a D notice. I wonder if he knows Rowley and Sturgess, living in the same community? It should be recalled that Salisbury may be a city, but its population is only 45,000.

The most important thing is of course that Charlie and Dawn recover. But tonight, even at this early stage, as with the entire Skripal saga, the message the security services are seeking to give out does not add up. Mark Urban’s piece for Newsnight tonight was simply disgusting; it did not even pretend to be more than a propaganda piece on behalf of the security services, who had told Urban (as he said) that Yulia Skripal’s phone “could have been” tapped by the Russians and they “might even” have listened to her conversations through the microphone in her telephone. That was the “new evidence” that the Russians were behind everything.

As a former British Ambassador I can tell you with certainty that indeed the Russians might have tapped Yulia, but GCHQ most definitely would have. It is, after all, their job, and billions of our taxes go into it. If tapping of phones is seriously presented as evidence of intent to murder, the British government must be very murderous indeed.
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com