Fake news for fake people
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ice-chief.html
Printable View
Fake news for fake people
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ice-chief.html
How on earth did we survive before the term "fake news" came to pass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
It's the Daily Mail, so it must be fake news, because Wikipedia said so. See how it works? :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
This has hit you hard, hasn't it?
#prayforgluey
My sympathies are with the Chief Constable, I bet he now wishes that he had done the interview with the BBC, so that it would be real news instead of fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Yes it is as fake as the faux outrage people feel when offended by racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia.
I mean, Icke has been publicly saying this since 1998 and dared Heath to sue him while Heath was alive; and Icke - he's a fake messiah isn't he? That's what the BBC says anyway.
https://www.davidicke.com/article/18...ity-consultant
It seems he didn't do an interview with the daily mail either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
It's so good to see that giving full effort is now represented by 120% after the mere figure of 110% being bandied about in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
I look forward to that figure rising in due course.
Fake news about fake news?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I don't know, but we seem to have a parrot on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Just tell us the real story, stop keeping us in suspense.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Very interesting, so is this a conspiracy theory, fake news, or the truth? I suppose it all depends how influenced you are by the MSM, and if you view everything as being false until it is confirmed by the BBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by severncity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
as a ex PM he had full time armed police protection, his house down in Salisbury was like a fortress, The ARU covered the house house with IR camera's, i wonder what they saw :frown:
When I worked at Plaid HQ i was shocked to hear a senior staff member praising the impartialaity of the BBC as the UK military prepared to depose Gadaffi in Libya. Saunders Lewis and Gwyfor Evans would be spinning in their graves, I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Anyway, Icke has spoken more truth since he left the BBC than any of his Beeb contemporaries. I remember in the 1980s there was a news story about Edward Heath's allleged interest in children but I can't find it online.
I've been wondering that for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
It was always assumed that Heath was gay but as far I as can remember the claims about his interest in children only started after he died. I don't believe it. But, then, I don't believe the stuff about Savile and Rolf Harris. A lot of people - perhaps most - are willing to tell lies for money. Another problem is false memory. Our memories aren't as good as we think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by severncity
I used to chat to publican who'd had a pub in Salisbury. Heath used to come into his pub and have a quiet drink with his police guard. I asked the publican if he thought Heath was gay and he said he couldn't tell. He never seemed to drink with women but the only men he drank with were policemen. I can't imagine that he was able to molest kids with these policemen hanging around all the time.
BlimeyQuote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
So, moving forward with this news item, I would like to introduce an additional news category that is beyond Fake News. I think we should call it WTF! News.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sex-cult.html
Crikey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
The Mail, supposed darlings of the Tory party? .. what can be going on here?!
It's shocking stuff. Where will it lead?
If this comes to nothing, then there would be very little appetite for pursuing any further revelations involving politicians (etc) thereafter would there?
People in the comments sections have already been asking why 'time and money is being wasted on historical abuse'. As if it doesn't even matter.
It will be interesting to see if this is really about truth/justice, or about assembling a cloak to protect against further potential claims of systemic abuse in high places, or the Mail going even further with some agenda, having recently found such a profound ability to manipulate the British Government.
These alleged events have been hinted about for years though.
Why would an attempt to expose Heath be "a cloak to protect against further potential claims of systemic about in high places"? The story is just a load of nonsense which might sell a few more newspapers and might put a few bob in the pockets of some liars and fantasists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vimana.
There is far more fake news in The Guardian, The Times and The Telegraph than in The Mail. At least The Mail has at least one journalist - Peter Hitchens - who is capable of independent thought. Some of the "journalists" on The Times and The Telegraph are just mouthpieces for government propaganda. There was a typical anti-Putin piece in The Times today. Peter Hitchens, however, regularly warns about all this anti-Russian propaganda. I would guess that these "journalists" pushing anti-Russian stories are being paid by governments, globalists and by their newspapers.
Most people are quite willing to lie for money. If that means blackening someone's name they don't care. In the case of Savile or Rolf Harris these liars probably think everyone knows they are bad people so a few extra lies won't make any difference.
You raise some good points there. It's hard to see where they are going with all of this. And why now? I'm sure they could easily surpress this stuff it if they wanted too. Could it be they are preparing the public for more revelations to come? I've got the feeling that 2017 is going to be one very long roller coaster ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vimana.
I thought I'd been clear there with the notion: "If this comes to nothing, then there would be very little appetite for pursuing any further revelations involving politicians (etc) thereafter would there?"Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
i.e. there are so many incredulous stories flying about in our lives these days that - should some genuinely ludicrous event be uncovered - then it may likely just appear to be just another crazy, crazy story dreamt up by crazies.
Not just upon this subject. Every-bloody-where.
If this whopper of an 'on-high paedophilia' story is shown to be apparent bollocks (whether is it or isn't) and gets dashed upon the rocks - with many left reeling - then who will believe the next mind-blowing case? And who would dare run with it? Would the public even care by then?
As for your (or your MB persona's) notion that Savile was likely 'a bit hard done by', and your stated belief that "most" people will lie for money. ... Good grief...
I've been casually using the phrase 'interesting times' a lot of late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
It doesn't begin to cover it!
for the record, the CP would have been with him till he got home, then the ARU would have taken over and the CP either sent away, or would sit in the garage that had been converted for the purpose of surveillance and guarding Heath with the ARU team ( who often he would have been part of the team ( but not always )Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
as i pointed out above, the ARU would have recorded every in and out of the house, what would have happened to them recordings though ? ? ?
ARU? Is that the Arse Reserve Unit in case Heath ran out of children to molest. I wouldn't want to be one of those policemen. As soon as Heath was mentioned in connection with "satanic abuse" it was game over for these silly claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue matt
It is quite easy to find respectable sites on the net claiming that there is no real evidence against Savile.
http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.co.uk/...f-demonic.html
One very senior policeman told me that he thought these Savile claims were a load of bollocks. I'm not saying he was a saint but I imagine his groping would not have been any different from what would have happened in nearly every office and factory in the country. What some people on here don't realise is that we had a "slap and tickle" culture in the 1970s. I know it is totally unacceptable now and it was horrible then but most women had to fend off lecherous oafs at work. Even girls just starting work at 16 would not have been immune.
This does not explain the supposed attacks on children and corpses but I'm not sure if there is any real evidence for this.
FFS ... :shrug:
If the lost profits fella is ever looking for a pr man ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vimana.
Armed response unit, but i guess you knew thatQuote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
Oh and CP is Close protection, the police officer the " publican who'd had a pub in Salisbury " would have been talking about
Or even Lord Haw Haw in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninianclark
Or even the Apostles, or the Prophets etc ..Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
But until relatively recently none of them had twitter, email, facebook, texting, 40 thousand daily publications, blogs ... etc etc.
Good thing?! bad thing?! So much conflicting info, from so many sources .. it is hard to know for sure.
How can fake news reports have quoted comments and names associated to them without facing libel law discretion ,this story has legs and is reported in many decent broadsheets, it's main thrust is did he or didn't use or drive his own car, worth reading up on the original details and where it is now?