IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Well placed sources
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jo |
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, pete.
"and Kris Kristofferson" 
That's an excellent blog. |
|
pete |
Jo wrote:
… I was wondering where your knowledge came from: studying or reading about it, practising it or undergoing it?
All four, alas, Jo, which is perhaps why I’ve become prone in my retirement dotage to indulge in various Freudian lucubrations.
BarristerBlogger has an excellent new post today on Wiltshire Police’s trashing of Sir Edward Heath’s reputation, describing them as acting like David Icke’s public relations agency.
He demolishes the notion that simply because the accusers are apparently not known to one another they must therefore being giving credible testimonies. Not only have a group of women – all known to one another – alleged Heath participated in Satanic Ritual Abuse (including serial murder of children), but the number of websites – including Icke’s own absurdly popular one – trashing heath with no evidence is vast.
Icke, needless to say, is eagerly fanning the “Heath was a paedophile” psychosis:
Icke is not just an internet bore and fantasist. His behaviour is thoroughly nasty. He has accused innumerable people of being involved, like Ted Heath, in reptilian blood-drinking ceremonies, including Queen Elizabeth, Al Gore, Brian Mulrooney, Bob Hope, both George and George W. Bush, the Rothschild family and Kris Kristofferson These people may be famous, but they are still real people: you do not make such claims about real people unless either you have utterly cast iron, unimpeachable evidence or you are indifferent to the hurt you cause to others.
Mr Icke clearly does not have such evidence. Nor could he, because what he is suggesting is plausible only to the idiotic and the brain dead. What is more, if he had had evidence he would have been morally obliged to take it straight to the police. But Mr Icke’s coinage is not evidence: it is anonymous unverifiable allegation and innuendo distilled into the most scurrilous lies, which he then deploys without scruple. He delights in goading his victims, knowing that even if they sue him the resultant publicity will mean he rakes in yet more money from his repellent publications. What matters to him is that there is an audience of gullible dolts who pay to lap up his toxic emissions.
…
[It is unclear] how many of those claiming to have been abused by Heath have heard about his activities on Mr Icke’s You Tube channel, read about them on his website, or on the thousands and thousands of posts on his forum, or indeed any of the myriad other public and private places on the internet where Mr Heath’s murderous and paedophile tendencies are taken as established beyond question. Given the importance ascribed to the fact that the witnesses have given “strikingly similar accounts,” it is of considerable relevance.
…
[Mr Veale] has promised:
“at the conclusion of this investigation a confidential closing report will be written. Our approach is to be as open and transparent as possible and at that time I will take advice as to what information I can properly put into the public domain. This investigation may contribute to the wider picture of truth seeking and reconciliation ….”
What is the purpose of a “confidential closing report?” One notable advantage of confidentiality is actually set out in Mr Veale’s statement itself: the police can decide – on advice – what information they can properly “put into the public domain.” We can be sure that no names, or information capable of identifying any of the complainants will be made public, because to do so where sexual allegations are concerned would be a criminal offence. Any Icke or Shrimpton-influenced chancer or fantasist is thereby emboldened to say what they like about a man who cannot respond.
The coppers are only human, and it would hardly be surprising if they do their best to ensure that whatever information is eventually made public, it does not make them look like gullible boobies who have wasted the best part of two years and a million pounds preparing a case that can not only never be tried in court but can never even be made public except in an anonymised, bowdlerised and – to use a word police officers love – heavily redacted form. Even if it were the job of the police to draw conclusions about Mr Heath’s guilt or innocence (and it is not), any conclusions they do choose to make public will be untested, largely untestable and possibly self-serving. Mr Icke will have another field day, the rest of us will be none the wiser.
barristerblogger.com/2017/02/23/wilthsir...ons-tool-david-icke/ |
|
md |
Thank you, pete, for your reply to my question. Reading your posts has caused me to wonder more about how much current crises such as the witch hunts and powder-keg situation in the prisons, are reflecting and revealing the inner states of those in authority. I guess inattention to their own emotional health and well-being is to be expected when our culture generally hasn't supported this sort of thing and it's easier to see the problem reflected from the outside than originating from within - the only qualities considered necessary for survival in high office and politics after all, seem to be a thick skin and ability to debate. Who cares about personal emotional awareness, traditionally denigrated as a weakness but which I think, could lead to their being more responsive to warning signs and open to advice from others who have first-hand knowledge and experience? Perhaps a tragedy such as the murder of a prison officer would be convenient for them as they could then firmly point the finger of blame for the crisis to the prisoners themselves. It seems less scary to wait for a scapegoat to appear from within a community vulnerable to acting out the unconscious emotions of the collective, than to identify and face realities within themselves.
btw, I was curious to find out where JK's reference to 'spinsters looking under beds' originated - I think the source could be a 1920s postcard:
www.ebay.ie/itm/Damaged-Bamforth-comic-W...7:g:-2cAAOSwax5YpoQ6 |
|
Jo |
pete, this is a rather forward question and of course no need to answer if you don't want to, but you seem to know a lot about psychoanalysis and I was wondering where your knowledge came from: studying or reading about it, practising it or undergoing it? |
|
Randall |
pete wrote:
Mr Veale appeared to snaffle his words when he was claiming that he and his massively costly investigation were above reproach. I wonder what the competing thought might have been?
Above the law? |
|
|
|
|
