Ted Heath

[m4rkb]

I think the words 'satanic ritual' undermines any seriousness to these allegations.

Heath may well have enjoyed shagging underage boys but I'd draw a line at anything else. Did they drink the blood of a freshly slaughtered goat or something afterwards.

Besides there is a popular poster in here who's witnesses these things with his own eyes and was told "This goes no further". I've had a first hand account too from someone 'in the scene' who confirms the level of authority figures at these gay debauched evenings.

I was made to feel so naive by him, I'd have felt like Hillman - if I'd known who he was at that time.

So for me. I err on the side of belief when I hear these stories provising they seem remotely credible... just as I err towards 'gold digger' when I hear a stories about potential wags being 'raped' by megarich footballers when normally they don't mind a night on their back with twenty unknown blokes going through them but as soon as it's a footballer they suddenly do.

There is far too much sex involved with power. The two go hand in hand as we know but it does seem a disporportionate amount of perverts are attracted to parliament and other positions of power.

As for your indy link. Agreed. Utter garbage.

[paolo]

satanic rituals
secret societies
hazing
spirit cooking

global

some of the shite talk as if it doesn't go on

mi6, mossad, et al, identify people early doors, get em taking bribes, taking drugs, homming, prozzing or kidding....then roll it out years later for obvious reasons, or the threat of it

off to read the scallywag

[Hillman avenger]

I think the words 'satanic ritual' undermines any seriousness to these allegations.
That is what was alleged, and even included eating the limbs of babies.

Heath may well have enjoyed shagging underage boys but I'd draw a line at anything else. Did they drink the blood of a freshly slaughtered goat or something afterwards.
He was a strange man, but right now there's no evidence of him as a paedophile that I know of.

Besides there is a popular poster in here who's witnesses these things with his own eyes and was told "This goes no further".
"Popular"? Anyway, why do you think that even now he will not give any detail of what he alleges?

I've had a first hand account too from someone 'in the scene' who confirms the level of authority figures at these gay debauched evenings.
Is it "gay" that bothers you? That seems mixed in here. There is no concern expressed here about the abuse of young girls ( which is by far the majority, and done by family members)..unless of course the offenders prove to be asian, and then of course, we hear about it endlessly..
I was made to feel so naive by him, I'd have felt like Hillman - if I'd known who he was at that time.
What does that mean?

So for me. I err on the side of belief when I hear these stories provising they seem remotely credible... just as I err towards 'gold digger' when I hear a stories about potential wags being 'raped' by megarich footballers when normally they don't mind a night on their back with twenty unknown blokes going through them but as soon as it's a footballer they suddenly do.
What a characteristic remark. What exactly would a woman have to prove for you to agree it is rape- and btw if you look back at footballers guilty of rape, there have been quite a few...David Goodwillie, Adam Johnson, Graham Rix, Brendan Rodgers son../b]
There is far too much sex involved with power. The two go hand in hand as we know but it does seem a disporportionate amount of perverts are attracted to parliament and other positions of power.
What would be a"proportionate" number?
As for your indy link. Agreed. Utter garbage.

[m4rkb]

I think the words 'satanic ritual' undermines any seriousness to these allegations.
That is what was alleged, and even included eating the limbs of babies.

Glad we can agree it's generally bollocks

Heath may well have enjoyed shagging underage boys but I'd draw a line at anything else. Did they drink the blood of a freshly slaughtered goat or something afterwards.
He was a strange man, but right now there's no evidence of him as a paedophile that I know of.

Why then has one top cop privvy to it said he's convinced Heath was a paedophile?
And what do you mean that YOU KNOW OF? No one has been made aware of the evidence, that's the whole point. It's just beig sat on.

What's your opinion on the death of Dr David Kelly where the details are to be kept secret for 70 years ? No don't tell me. There's no evidence of any impropriety. Of course not

Besides there is a popular poster in here who's witnesses these things with his own eyes and was told "This goes no further".
"Popular"? Anyway, why do you think that even now he will not give any detail of what he alleges?

Yes. A VERY popular poster. [skips part about evidence] Maybe he's been selective in who he tells. If it were me in his position, you're one person I'm fucked if I'd tell.

I've had a first hand account too from someone 'in the scene' who confirms the level of authority figures at these gay debauched evenings.
Is it "gay" that bothers you? That seems mixed in here. There is no concern expressed here about the abuse of young girls ( which is by far the majority, and done by family members)..unless of course the offenders prove to be asian, and then of course, we hear about it endlessly..

Gay people do not bother me unless they are the activist type who try to turn everything into a gay rights issue. I think I may have mentioned this before about a thousand times. Maybe the evidence you are never able see has only shown up a thousand times too and you missed it.

And the gender of those being abused isn't of any importance either. It just happens I don't know any females who offer their arseholes for judges and top cops to fuck in piss stained public toilets for thrills. If I did you'd hear it here first.

For the record this person I know is well over age. Like about 2 and a half times the age of consent in fact - not some young boy. But such is the nature of this scene that he confirmed it's a regualr occurrence. Don't ask me if he's ever indulged in it himself I don't know, and frankly don't want to know. All I'm repeating is someone's account of the rent boy scene who knows not some old fool like you working on what he's read in The Socialist Worker.

I was made to feel so naive by him, I'd have felt like Hillman - if I'd known who he was at that time.
What does that mean?

It means. I was totally shocked. I could well imagine what went on but not to the extent he said it did or with the amount of powerful people who indulged in it. Even I felt naive.
The reference to you is down to your predictable and worn out mantra that you see no evidence. You see nothing.Permanently. You are blind to absolutely everything.

So for me. I err on the side of belief when I hear these stories provising they seem remotely credible... just as I err towards 'gold digger' when I hear a stories about potential wags being 'raped' by megarich footballers when normally they don't mind a night on their back with twenty unknown blokes going through them but as soon as it's a footballer they suddenly do.
What a characteristic remark. What exactly would a woman have to prove for you to agree it is rape- and btw if you look back at footballers guilty of rape, there have been quite a few...David Goodwillie, Adam Johnson, Graham Rix, Brendan Rodgers son..

All of the above are rape cases. I have never argued they aren't apart from Rodgers son as I don't know anything about it.

But the Ched Evans case for me had all the hallmarks of a failed attempt at being a wag being converted after the even into rape. He acted an arrogant cunt but it took her about ten minutes before she was lying on her back getting fucked by some bloke she's only just met. She claimed to be deleriously pissed at around twice the DD limit, which is the kind of bollocks they let through in court these days. People like her devalue proper cases of rape and these cheap tarts throw themselves at footballers anyway. When they don't become their next girlfriend with their own credit card, they revaluate what went on at the time so it now becomes RAPE.


There is far too much sex involved with power. The two go hand in hand as we know but it does seem a disporportionate amount of perverts are attracted to parliament and other positions of power.
What would be a"proportionate" number?

About what it is now

As for your indy link. Agreed. Utter garbage.

[m4rkb]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

[paolo]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

dave moved himself once he'd taken his own life

rumour has it robin cooke moved him

[m4rkb]

Good theory Paolo but Hillman is the real font of all knowledge on here so I can only accept his answer as they are the most researched.

[Hillman avenger]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.

As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

[m4rkb]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.

As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

I do apologise. You are correct , I did add it unintentionally after the fact.

The case has a 70 year secrecy order placed over it but not a hint from you that one of the possible reasons could perhaps be..... a cover up.

No everything must be above board.

You really are a naive fool to swallow just about everything they tell you and not demand a better explanation.

[Rossco]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.

As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

If paying with cash pretty sure it is. Same with a bird no less. Ask Wee Davy Pleat.

[m4rkb]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.


As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

Yes. It's like using health and safety as the catch-all excuse with no further explanation.

[m4rkb]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.


As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

Yes. It's like using health and safety as the catch-all excuse with no further explanation.

[mark]

heath was corrupt
a paedo
a homo
a satanist
a murderer

glad this is all emerging.....

You simply will not accept reality will you.
Heath may well have been asexual or gay but there has been NO credible evidence of him being a paedophile, a satanist or a murderer yet.
In your demented world gay and paedo get conflated.
BTW there are many more heterosexual paedophiles than gay ones.

To an open mind there is enough evidence of sorts to suggest that Ted Heath can be suspected of some quite awful acts. Just how far he went in terms of satanic behaviours or murder is not yet clear enough but he is certainly connected to enough people and locations to be viewed with strong suspicion.

[m4rkb]

In the old days that amount of suspicion used to result in an in depth investigation to find out if there was any proof or hard evidence. It certainly would if the accused were you , I or anyone not associated with the establishment.

In Hillman's ridiculous world, we could have 40 days of torrential rain and the whole country under flood. Until the met office confirmed this there would be no evidence.

His stance is making him look a fool in they eyes of those who were not convinced already.

[Hillman avenger]

Oh BTW , you seems to have glossed over the Dr David Kelly question. Any chance you can go back and give us your views on that.

Do you think there might be any foul play involved or don't you have any evidence so can't possibly comment?

You added David Kelly in your last post. I haven't ignored it because it wasn't there.
I don't know enough about it to comment.

Funny though that the dossier business is repeated a lot on here minus one detail- that it was the BBC who embarrassed the government about it.

There can be good reasons why stuff is put way for decades.One of them is that for it to be public would mean that it becomes obvious where intelligence came from, and put the informant in danger. That comes into court cases too, more often than people realise.

As for Royal's reluctance to tell us anything, your comment not worth taking seriously.

And all the lurid gay stuff- tells us a lot more about you than the subject. Using over age rent boys as far as I know is not an offence.

I do apologise. You are correct , I did add it unintentionally after the fact.

The case has a 70 year secrecy order placed over it but not a hint from you that one of the possible reasons could perhaps be..... a cover up.
Of course that's a POSSIBLE reason. But it's not the only one, or even the most likely one. Do you EVER, in your rush to post, read anyone else's posts? The most likely reason is that it would compromise a source of intelligence.

No everything must be above board.
I never said that or thought it.
You really are a naive fool to swallow just about everything they tell you and not demand a better explanation.
Don't lecture me about naivety. You are the specialist in jumping to conclusions.