politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open
Options
Comments
-
We'll see.Richard_Nabavi said:Con Maj at 3.85 is much better value than Lab Maj at 3.35, IMO. I can see a path to the former, albeit a difficult one, but the latter looks, though not out of reach, dependent on some major opinion-changing shifts.
0 -
People voting the way they say they'll vote when any of various different polling companies ask them how they'll vote doesn't seem like a major opinion-changing shift.Richard_Nabavi said:Con Maj at 3.85 is much better value than Lab Maj at 3.35, IMO. I can see a path to the former, albeit a difficult one, but the latter looks, though not out of reach, dependent on some major opinion-changing shifts.
0 -
True, but superficial.edmundintokyo said:People voting the way they say they'll vote when any of various different polling companies ask them how they'll vote doesn't seem like a major opinion-changing shift.
[I did advise y'all to back Labour when the odds were super, back in 2011/12. In this game it's best to be ahead of the curve]0 -
reproductive hormones ftwSeanT said:I have no idea why the polls are all over the shop.
And what's even better is that I DON'T GIVE A TROPOSPHERICAL F*CK
Love. Love is all you need.
LOVE.
LURRRRRRRVE.
I hereby announce my retirement from pb until I have come a less sentimental, oversexed old fool0 -
i had a headline for if it ended 5-0 "ein, zwei, drei, zwier, ****ed"0
-
Don't like to see all the sobbing at the end of the football. Shedding an emotional tear if you win is acceptable and shedding a (and I mean the odd one) tear if you lose in a unlucky and plucky way is not acceptable but can be passed over but if you are thrashed you should not have self pity like that -its pathetic. Its a game and you should shake hands and man up
And public (look at me!)praying at the end of a game annoys me when teams win but when they lose 7-1 it made me want to puke0 -
Twitter
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 3m
Earlier in this World Cup I compared Brazil to Wigan. I'd like to apologise to all Wigan fans.
Daniel Furr @DanielFurrUK · 57m
Ed Miliband to call for a public inquiry into Brazilian defending
And here is a prediction from way back in June.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan Jun 12
Brazil are going to win this World Cup at a canter. They've got the talent, the passion, the fans. #WorldCup20140 -
Perhaps Dame Mary Hogg might have been a better choice, Charles?Charles said:
Who else would you suggest:DecrepitJohnL said:
That is why it is so stupid to appoint the one judge whose brother was not just in the Cabinet but was Attorney General. It looks like a cover-up already, even before anyone has been cleared.foxinsoxuk said:
It may well be that there was no paedo ring in Westminster 30 years ago. I expect those tinfoil hats to remain on though. What contrary evidence is ever believed by the convinced conspiracy true believer?Luckyguy1983 said:
I take it that's the same tinfoil community that has been alleging a paedophile conspiracy in Westminster (often at great personal cost) for the past 30 years, and been generally ignored.Charles said:
Only in the tin foil community. Butler-Sloss was head (I think) of the Family Bench and simply the best and most experienced judge that the country has in these matters. Michael Havers died 25 years ago (appointing him Lord Chancellor knowing he had terminal cancer was a great kindness that Thatcher did him). There is no conflict, and Butler-Sloss is far too good and experienced a judge to allow it to colour her judgement.DecrepitJohnL said:
You may be right, and the government may have scored another own goal in choosing Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to head the enquiry, given her brother was Attorney General at the time of some of these events.TheScreamingEagles said:
Unwind from the Juncker stuff, and I'm going to say the paedophile story and headlines aren't helping the government.Charles said:
So may be there is something real going on - that's 3 now in that zone.TheScreamingEagles said:Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 5s
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps four points to seven: CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
But what?
But I've always had a soft spot for her - ever since when I was at school, I heard her, completely straight-faced, give the most explicit lecture on sexual etiquette to a room full of teenage boys that you can possible imagine!
- Probably needs to be a judge
- Needs to have Family Division experience, and arguably needs to be the most senior member of that Division
- James Munby doesn't have time. Nick Wall is sick. Mark Potter is possible, but is now back in private practice, so might not want to spend 2 years at government rates (plus he also gave a major judgement *against* same sex marriage a while ago). Stephen Brown is 90
Essentially, if you want to go for a former President of the Family Division there isn't any choice.
Just asking.
0 -
@Richard_Nabavi Personally I think Conservative Majority @ 3.9 is the lay of the decade still, but different opinions make for good betting markets ^^;0
-
I think Luiz was praying that he could get out of the ground alive!state_go_away said:Don't like to see all the sobbing at the end of the football. Shedding an emotional tear if you win is acceptable and shedding a (and I mean the odd one) tear if you lose in a unlucky and plucky way is not acceptable but can be passed over but if you are thrashed you should not have self pity like that -its pathetic. Its a game and you should shake hands and man up
And public (look at me!)praying at the end of a game annoys me when teams win but when they lose 7-1 it made me want to puke
0 -
Out with the fairies? Until this week the only people claiming there was a paedophile ring in Westminster and Whitehall also said the royal family were lizards from Mars, or wherever it was. And the latter seemed more credible.Richard_Nabavi said:
They've got the vote anyway. If they are so utterly out with the fairies as to think even Dame Elizabeth is part of some conspiracy, and to allow that to influence their vote, then there is nothing that can be done for them. We'll just have to write it off as one of those things.DecrepitJohnL said:Beyond redemption maybe but they've all got the vote.
However, I very much doubt that this will be the case.
People are angry and they are going to get angrier. The government needs to not look as if it is orchestrating a cover-up because this is going to make the expenses scandal look like a fuss over moats and duck-houses. And for that reason, I expect Dame EBS to stand down.0 -
you could see how important Silva is/was by him doing all the daddy stuff after the game0
-
No doubt the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile fan club message boards called people crazy that said they might be paedophiles at firstDecrepitJohnL said:
Out with the fairies? Until this week the only people claiming there was a paedophile ring in Westminster and Whitehall also said the royal family were lizards from Mars, or wherever it was. And the latter seemed more credible.Richard_Nabavi said:
They've got the vote anyway. If they are so utterly out with the fairies as to think even Dame Elizabeth is part of some conspiracy, and to allow that to influence their vote, then there is nothing that can be done for them. We'll just have to write it off as one of those things.DecrepitJohnL said:Beyond redemption maybe but they've all got the vote.
However, I very much doubt that this will be the case.
People are angry and they are going to get angrier. The government needs to not look as if it is orchestrating a cover-up because this is going to make the expenses scandal look like a fuss over moats and duck-houses. And for that reason, I expect Dame EBS to stand down.0 -
I think we're past that point with what's already established fact and in the public domain. But I agree, if the noble Baroness fingers a few dead politicos but finds on the whole everything was tickety boo, questions will continue to be asked.foxinsoxuk said:
It may well be that there was no paedo ring in Westminster 30 years ago. I expect those tinfoil hats to remain on though. What contrary evidence is ever believed by the convinced conspiracy true believer?Luckyguy1983 said:
I take it that's the same tinfoil community that has been alleging a paedophile conspiracy in Westminster (often at great personal cost) for the past 30 years, and been generally ignored.Charles said:
Only in the tin foil community. Butler-Sloss was head (I think) of the Family Bench and simply the best and most experienced judge that the country has in these matters. Michael Havers died 25 years ago (appointing him Lord Chancellor knowing he had terminal cancer was a great kindness that Thatcher did him). There is no conflict, and Butler-Sloss is far too good and experienced a judge to allow it to colour her judgement.DecrepitJohnL said:
You may be right, and the government may have scored another own goal in choosing Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to head the enquiry, given her brother was Attorney General at the time of some of these events.TheScreamingEagles said:
Unwind from the Juncker stuff, and I'm going to say the paedophile story and headlines aren't helping the government.Charles said:
So may be there is something real going on - that's 3 now in that zone.TheScreamingEagles said:Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 5s
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps four points to seven: CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
But what?
But I've always had a soft spot for her - ever since when I was at school, I heard her, completely straight-faced, give the most explicit lecture on sexual etiquette to a room full of teenage boys that you can possible imagine!
I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth. Perhaps being of an anti-establishment frame of mind I am primed for it, and others would pick more holes.0 -
on point 20 in the thread header, if the Russian priest had just said that coloured football boots were an abomination I would agree wholeheartedly, Point 11 made me laugh and I don't understand 13 despite reading it a few times and 6 is just snobbery at its brilliant best!!0
-
if there's anything to the gap growing other than UNS breaking down and the polling companies not yet geared up for it then my guesses would be
1) some polling the other week saying something like 1/5 of people thinking the economy was getting better for them and a larger fraction saying the economy was getting better but not for them. I assume the second group came to that view via the media saying the economy was improving or seeing other people doing well.
Say in the real world "economy" is taken to mean "prosperity" but the political class define economy as "GDP" then in politics GDP growth = economy improving = increased prosperity but it's not. In terms of votes "prosperity" would be measured with something like median GDP per capita (or something along those sort of lines) maybe broken down further into bands.
So that gives you an obvious reason.
2) could be the paedophile thing. It's been brewing a while but not sure why it would effect Con more rather than be a blanket effect apart from Con having that long stretch of governments during the 80s and 90s giving more time for stuff that happened during that time to fester.
0 -
An excellent piece on immigration:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/382185/immigration-policy-not-binary-reihan-salam
Immigration advocates have a frustrating tendency to insist that the immigration debate is binary. You are either for immigration or against it. They neglect the possibility that one might be for certain kinds of immigration and against others, and they routinely deploy data that fails to differentiate among immigrants by skill level or language proficiency.0 -
"I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth."Luckyguy1983 said:
I think we're past that point with what's already established fact and in the public domain. But I agree, if the noble Baroness fingers a few dead politicos but finds on the whole everything was tickety boo, questions will continue to be asked.foxinsoxuk said:
It may well be that there was no paedo ring in Westminster 30 years ago. I expect those tinfoil hats to remain on though. What contrary evidence is ever believed by the convinced conspiracy true believer?Luckyguy1983 said:
I take it that's the same tinfoil community that has been alleging a paedophile conspiracy in Westminster (often at great personal cost) for the past 30 years, and been generally ignored.Charles said:
Only in the tin foil community. Butler-Sloss was head (I think) of the Family Bench and simply the best and most experienced judge that the country has in these matters. Michael Havers died 25 years ago (appointing him Lord Chancellor knowing he had terminal cancer was a great kindness that Thatcher did him). There is no conflict, and Butler-Sloss is far too good and experienced a judge to allow it to colour her judgement.DecrepitJohnL said:
You may be right, and the government may have scored another own goal in choosing Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to head the enquiry, given her brother was Attorney General at the time of some of these events.TheScreamingEagles said:
Unwind from the Juncker stuff, and I'm going to say the paedophile story and headlines aren't helping the government.Charles said:
So may be there is something real going on - that's 3 now in that zone.TheScreamingEagles said:Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 5s
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead jumps four points to seven: CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
But what?
But I've always had a soft spot for her - ever since when I was at school, I heard her, completely straight-faced, give the most explicit lecture on sexual etiquette to a room full of teenage boys that you can possible imagine!
I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth. Perhaps being of an anti-establishment frame of mind I am primed for it, and others would pick more holes.
alpha witness
0 -
Don't forget, both Ireland and Scotland face Germany in that tough Euro 2016 qualifying group.TheScreamingEagles said:
PB's Neil is Germany at the moment.
I do worry he will get caught up in the moment and drink lots.0 -
If during the Papal Visit in 2010 someone had told me that BBC within three years it would be engulfed by a paedophilia scandal and at least three ex-BBC employees would be in jail, I would have dismissed them out of hand because:isam said:No doubt the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile fan club message boards called people crazy that said they might be paedophiles at first
a. The BBC doesn't run any schools or children's homes and
b. BBC News and Current Affairs would have to be closed down due to the most incredible, sustained act of hypocrisy in British media history.
Something that has puzzled me about the BBC is their cocksure attitude to their paedophilia scandal, as if they weren't in any existential danger.
Well, the last week has given the reason why they are so sure of themselves. It is not as if they haven't had experience of suppressing paedophile scandals before.
Political question: does Nigel Farage have the ball(s) to lead UKIP's GE campaign on an anti-paedophilia platform? UKIP certainly had some courage to go all out on immigration during the Euros with some success;they dominated the campaign with it.
Gosh, those stupid tweets have certainly been put into perspective; Tory whip admitting he would help an MP in trouble with "little boys".0 -
The analysis suggests that Lib Dem support is weakening among the young, old, urban, rural, poor, middle class and wealthy"0
-
One of the great reports of our time.Pulpstar said:The analysis suggests that Lib Dem support is weakening among the young, old, urban, rural, poor, middle class and wealthy"
0 -
The interview with Tim Fortescue is truly astonishing - did it really pass without so much as a murmur in 1995 ? "it might be a scandal involving small boys"Ninoinoz said:
If during the Papal Visit in 2010 someone had told me that BBC within three years it would be engulfed by a paedophilia scandal and at least three ex-BBC employees would be in jail, I would have dismissed them out of hand because:isam said:No doubt the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile fan club message boards called people crazy that said they might be paedophiles at first
a. The BBC doesn't run any schools or children's homes and
b. BBC News and Current Affairs would have to be closed down due to the most incredible, sustained act of hypocrisy in British media history.
Something that has puzzled me about the BBC is their cocksure attitude to their paedophilia scandal, as if they weren't in any existential danger.
Well, the last week has given the reason why they are so sure of themselves. It is not as if they haven't had experience of suppressing paedophile scandals before.
Political question: does Nigel Farage have the ball(s) to lead UKIP's GE campaign on an anti-paedophilia platform? UKIP certainly had some courage to go all out on immigration during the Euros with some success;they dominated the campaign with it.
Gosh, those stupid tweets have certainly been put into perspective; Tory whip admitting he would help an MP in trouble with "little boys".
"Make sure you don't end up with your knob in some eight year old again for God's sake, or you'll be deselected" - Was that really the conversation that was had back in the day ?0 -
Astonishing is the word... Some people on here are still at the non story stagePulpstar said:
The interview with Tim Fortescue is truly astonishing - did it really pass without so much as a murmur in 1995 ? "it might be a scandal involving small boys"Ninoinoz said:
If during the Papal Visit in 2010 someone had told me that BBC within three years it would be engulfed by a paedophilia scandal and at least three ex-BBC employees would be in jail, I would have dismissed them out of hand because:isam said:No doubt the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile fan club message boards called people crazy that said they might be paedophiles at first
a. The BBC doesn't run any schools or children's homes and
b. BBC News and Current Affairs would have to be closed down due to the most incredible, sustained act of hypocrisy in British media history.
Something that has puzzled me about the BBC is their cocksure attitude to their paedophilia scandal, as if they weren't in any existential danger.
Well, the last week has given the reason why they are so sure of themselves. It is not as if they haven't had experience of suppressing paedophile scandals before.
Political question: does Nigel Farage have the ball(s) to lead UKIP's GE campaign on an anti-paedophilia platform? UKIP certainly had some courage to go all out on immigration during the Euros with some success;they dominated the campaign with it.
Gosh, those stupid tweets have certainly been put into perspective; Tory whip admitting he would help an MP in trouble with "little boys".
"Make sure you don't end up with your knob in some eight year old again for God's sake, or you'll be deselected" - Was that really the conversation that was had back in the day ?
Imagine it was a ukip councillor who had tweeted something politically incorrect
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10952138/Member-of-Edward-Heaths-government-boasted-he-could-cover-up-a-scandal-involving-small-boys.html0 -
"It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me."Pulpstar said:
The interview with Tim Fortescue is truly astonishing - did it really pass without so much as a murmur in 1995 ? "it might be a scandal involving small boys"Ninoinoz said:
If during the Papal Visit in 2010 someone had told me that BBC within three years it would be engulfed by a paedophilia scandal and at least three ex-BBC employees would be in jail, I would have dismissed them out of hand because:isam said:No doubt the Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile fan club message boards called people crazy that said they might be paedophiles at first
a. The BBC doesn't run any schools or children's homes and
b. BBC News and Current Affairs would have to be closed down due to the most incredible, sustained act of hypocrisy in British media history.
Something that has puzzled me about the BBC is their cocksure attitude to their paedophilia scandal, as if they weren't in any existential danger.
Well, the last week has given the reason why they are so sure of themselves. It is not as if they haven't had experience of suppressing paedophile scandals before.
Political question: does Nigel Farage have the ball(s) to lead UKIP's GE campaign on an anti-paedophilia platform? UKIP certainly had some courage to go all out on immigration during the Euros with some success;they dominated the campaign with it.
Gosh, those stupid tweets have certainly been put into perspective; Tory whip admitting he would help an MP in trouble with "little boys".
"Make sure you don't end up with your knob in some eight year old again for God's sake, or you'll be deselected" - Was that really the conversation that was had back in the day ?
Thus began Anthony Powell's "Earthly Powers", his great novel of 20th century manners, first published in 1980.
Sexual morality, gay rights, pederasty and the role and attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church were all major themes of his novel.
0 -
Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.0 -
I think it may be an example of "big lie" type psychology. Most people wouldn't believe someone saying something like that was being serious and so they'd assume the speaker didn't mean it.Pulpstar said:Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.
0 -
[Deleted]0
-
Well, here's something from a well known Labour parliamentary by-election candidate published in the Guardian on 26th June 1997.Pulpstar said:Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.
In keeping with the Moderator's wishes, I post a reputable news source. You'll have to find the full text of the letter yourself. (Don't bother with the Guardian website).
dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html0 -
It's like the invisible gorilla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
a lot of times if people can't believe something they won't believe it
0 -
Not really. Tim Fortescue probably spoke unwisely as the unwritten rule was that this stuff was never openly discussed in the media.MrJones said:
I think it may be an example of "big lie" type psychology. Most people wouldn't believe someone saying something like that was being serious and so they'd assume the speaker didn't mean it.Pulpstar said:Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.
But look at the culture of the time. The jokes, the gossip, the hints in popular tv programmes. The rich and famous 'confirmed bachelors' (and married) who regularly holidayed in Morrocco.
Example:
There was a young bishop of Birmingham
Who buggered his choirboys while confirming them
To a round of applause
He pulled down their drawers
And pumped the episcopal sperm in 'em.
A limerick I first laughed at in the early 1970s.
Not heard in polite society today though.0 -
All of that may be true my point is simply that sometimes if people hear or see something they can't believe or handle then they will blank it out like the invisible gorilla.AveryLP said:
Not really. Tim Fortescue probably spoke unwisely as the unwritten rule was that this stuff was never openly discussed in the media.MrJones said:
I think it may be an example of "big lie" type psychology. Most people wouldn't believe someone saying something like that was being serious and so they'd assume the speaker didn't mean it.Pulpstar said:Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.
snip
0 -
Absolutely. You knew it was going on, you would gossip about rumoured perpetrators, joke about it, but run a mile if threatened with having to make a decision about real knowledge of real people known to you who were involved in actual incidents.MrJones said:
All of that may be true my point is simply that sometimes if people hear or see something they can't believe or handle then they will blank it out like the invisible gorilla.AveryLP said:
Not really. Tim Fortescue probably spoke unwisely as the unwritten rule was that this stuff was never openly discussed in the media.MrJones said:
I think it may be an example of "big lie" type psychology. Most people wouldn't believe someone saying something like that was being serious and so they'd assume the speaker didn't mean it.Pulpstar said:Didn't that interview get picked up back in 1995 by any papers or anything ?
I can't remember a fuss being made over it at the time... mind you I was only 14.
snip
Out of sight, out of mind.
0 -
Without wanting to cause trouble to the moderators - this is all a very tangled web. I remain skeptical of Chris Fay's accounts, if you can pardon the pun, due to his involvement and subsequent conviction over an Olympic-themed property fraud. Fay has been at the centre of several surfacings of this story in the press, via the Express and the investigative journalism website Exaro. I understand, third-hand, that some of the more recent child-abuse ring allegations in the Express were not sourced from Fay, though. Nor is Fay the only dubious witness - the "Anna Raccoon" blog ventures down this rabbit hole quite frequently, and is probably a must-read if you're interested in this stuff, but everything is so knotted that it would be quite a time-sink for anyone really seeking to get to the bottom of what is going on. With little payoff, as far as I can see, in terms of betting outcomes. I'd suggest the curious would benefit from reading this blog post, and probably its associated comments.Luckyguy1983 said:
I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth. Perhaps being of an anti-establishment frame of mind I am primed for it, and others would pick more holes.
There is also the unhappy precedent of the "Satanic ritual abuse" cases, where there was also talk of abuse by Tory ministers, systemic institutional failings and a widespread cover-up. The entire thing was made-up. I am not claiming that there is a direct comparison to be drawn, but it is a useful reminder that "no smoke without fire" is a weak guide to the veracity of dark whispers.
As an aside, I remain surprised by the Elizabeth Butler-Sloss decision. If no suitable judges were available, would someone with a senior police or civil service background have worked?0 -
Excellent, MBE.MyBurningEars said:
Without wanting to cause trouble to the moderators - this is all a very tangled web. I remain skeptical of Chris Fay's accounts, if you can pardon the pun, due to his involvement and subsequent conviction over an Olympic-themed property fraud. Fay has been at the centre of several surfacings of this story in the press, via the Express and the investigative journalism website Exaro. I understand, third-hand, that some of the more recent child-abuse ring allegations in the Express were not sourced from Fay, though. Nor is Fay the only dubious witness - the "Anna Raccoon" blog ventures down this rabbit hole quite frequently, and is probably a must-read if you're interested in this stuff, but everything is so knotted that it would be quite a time-sink for anyone really seeking to get to the bottom of what is going on. With little payoff, as far as I can see, in terms of betting outcomes. I'd suggest the curious would benefit from reading this blog post, and probably its associated comments.Luckyguy1983 said:
I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth. Perhaps being of an anti-establishment frame of mind I am primed for it, and others would pick more holes.
There is also the unhappy precedent of the "Satanic ritual abuse" cases, where there was also talk of abuse by Tory ministers, systemic institutional failings and a widespread cover-up. The entire thing was made-up. I am not claiming that there is a direct comparison to be drawn, but it is a useful reminder that "no smoke without fire" is a weak guide to the veracity of dark whispers.
As an aside, I remain surprised by the Elizabeth Butler-Sloss decision. If no suitable judges were available, would someone with a senior police or civil service background have worked?
I knew about the Fay conviction but not the Andrea Davison story.
And all the cautions expressed about the 'undernet' stories (and Scallywag) are absolutely valid.
0 -
MyBurningEars said:
Without wanting to cause trouble to the moderators - this is all a very tangled web. I remain skeptical of Chris Fay's accounts, if you can pardon the pun, due to his involvement and subsequent conviction over an Olympic-themed property fraud. Fay has been at the centre of several surfacings of this story in the press, via the Express and the investigative journalism website Exaro. I understand, third-hand, that some of the more recent child-abuse ring allegations in the Express were not sourced from Fay, though. Nor is Fay the only dubious witness - the "Anna Raccoon" blog ventures down this rabbit hole quite frequently, and is probably a must-read if you're interested in this stuff, but everything is so knotted that it would be quite a time-sink for anyone really seeking to get to the bottom of what is going on. With little payoff, as far as I can see, in terms of betting outcomes. I'd suggest the curious would benefit from reading this blog post, and probably its associated comments.Luckyguy1983 said:
I've seen Chris Fay being interviewed on youtube, and I cannot shake the fact that I think he's telling the absolute truth. Perhaps being of an anti-establishment frame of mind I am primed for it, and others would pick more holes.
There is also the unhappy precedent of the "Satanic ritual abuse" cases, where there was also talk of abuse by Tory ministers, systemic institutional failings and a widespread cover-up. The entire thing was made-up. I am not claiming that there is a direct comparison to be drawn, but it is a useful reminder that "no smoke without fire" is a weak guide to the veracity of dark whispers.
As an aside, I remain surprised by the Elizabeth Butler-Sloss decision. If no suitable judges were available, would someone with a senior police or civil service background have worked?
Of course the wicked tinfoilers would answer that character assassination and chaff (like satanic abuse) is commonly used to deliberately deflect attention.
0 -
@MyBurningEars
God, following these sites takes time, but sometimes you find a jewel.
I loved this comment on the Anna Raccoon page you linked:
Eyes Wide Shut February 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Dear lord, what a crew! This is what we’ve been reduced to: scamsters, grifters, lob-lollymen (and women), low-level police informants, chancers, opportunists, con-artists, palmists, three-card montey practitioners, carney-barkers, roustabouts, scene-riggers, fly-by-nights, rent-dodgers, fishers, duckers and divers, women on the badger-game and all that Dickensian mob, together with our post-modernist narcissists, borderline personality disorders, fantasists, “recovered-memory” cases, ambulance-chasing lawyers, political policemen, third-sector czars, a demoralised and corrupt Parliament (one or’t’other if not both), a media which has whored itself out of any recognition, and a public willing to believe anything or nothing and both at the same time. And forget it all five minutes later.
Jesus. If it wasn’t for you guys, I’d just be left with my own wild surmise about all of this. Thanks. Much good may it do any of us – but thanks.
Hmmmm!0 -
0
-
AveryLP said:
@MyBurningEars
God, following these sites takes time, but sometimes you find a jewel.
I loved this comment on the Anna Raccoon page you linked:
Eyes Wide Shut February 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Dear lord, what a crew! This is what we’ve been reduced to: scamsters, grifters, lob-lollymen (and women), low-level police informants, chancers, opportunists, con-artists, palmists, three-card montey practitioners, carney-barkers, roustabouts, scene-riggers, fly-by-nights, rent-dodgers, fishers, duckers and divers, women on the badger-game and all that Dickensian mob, together with our post-modernist narcissists, borderline personality disorders, fantasists, “recovered-memory” cases, ambulance-chasing lawyers, political policemen, third-sector czars, a demoralised and corrupt Parliament (one or’t’other if not both), a media which has whored itself out of any recognition, and a public willing to believe anything or nothing and both at the same time. And forget it all five minutes later.
Jesus. If it wasn’t for you guys, I’d just be left with my own wild surmise about all of this. Thanks. Much good may it do any of us – but thanks.
Hmmmm!
You and anna raccoon are probably right. We should only listen to pillars of the establishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-t-iRQOSeQ#t=1425
0 -
After Saville, anything is possible, isn't it?
I was sceptical whether its possible to convict anyone after so many years- yet they've managed it for Rolf Harris, and they've managed it for Stuart Hall.
It really comes down to whether there are victims still alive and brave enough to testify.\
hmmm indeed0
This discussion has been closed.