To think you'd have been called a conspiracy nut...

(45 Posts)
AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:15:07

... if you'd have suggested in the 70s/80s that there was widespread institutional cover-up of systemic child abuse in the BBC?

Perhaps this should make us think again about not outright dismissing some of the things people get called nutty for suggesting these days. Establishment circles can cover up a LOT.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:16:38

Sorry, stray "have" there.

acasualobserver Thu 25-Feb-16 11:18:50

I think you make a good point. Having said that, I'm still not wholly convinced that the CIA masterminded 9/11. Or that we are being controlled by reptiles disguised as humans.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:20:46

Definitely with you about the reptiles, casual...

ZiggyFartdust Thu 25-Feb-16 11:21:18

No I don't think you would at all. Its not the same as the shit the nutters come out with.

SoupDragon Thu 25-Feb-16 11:23:24

Or that we are being controlled by reptiles disguised as humans.

Don't be so sure...

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 11:32:36

If the complaints had been adequately investigated at the time then no. No one would have suggested people were 'conspiracy nuts' because they would have found it to be true.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:35:27

If the complaints had been adequately investigated at the time then

Exactly the point. You think everything is "adequately investigated" now?

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 11:42:19

I think there is a massive difference between consistent complaints of sexual abuse and rape being ignored and people not buying into conspiracy crap that is spouted about 9/11 etc.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:52:16

Absolutely agree that "buying into" anything is a bad idea. What I am suggesting is less knee-jerk dismissal of ideas which initially challenge our assumptions, and more sensible, intelligent investigation. As it stands, we're all rather prone to "buying into" an awful lot of nonsense from lots of different sources.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:54:28

(Including "buying into" certain images of the BBC, Westminster, religious establishments, etc.).

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 11:54:41

I don't think it's in any way relevant to what happened at the BBC though. What happened wasn't people saying it was a conspiracy, it was people covering it up. If the allegations had been properly investigated then something would have been done.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 11:58:19

Very sensible, well informed people consistently find that when they suggest the existence of "cover ups" (in any area) they are branded paranoid and labelled conspiracy theorists.

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 12:03:37

I don't know of any tbh. But then again, I'm not well versed on conspiracists, other than the dubious types you see on channel five documentaries and some nutters on YouTube. grin

AnUtterIdiot Thu 25-Feb-16 12:13:02

What's the answer, OP? I'm still going to want to see evidence, personally.

AnotherEffingOrangeRevel Thu 25-Feb-16 12:15:21

Personally, PaulAnka, I've met quite a few people who espouse views which I've initially thought "that's nuts" about, before having to re-evaluate after further investigation.

The answer to what, AnUtter? What's the question?

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 12:18:58

You've met them? What sort of conspiracies are we talking about? What made their opinions sway your opinions? Were they well respected within their field or area of expertise?

acasualobserver Thu 25-Feb-16 12:20:00

What happened wasn't people saying it was a conspiracy, it was people covering it up

If the people covering it up colluded in some way then that is a conspiracy.

trufflesnout Thu 25-Feb-16 12:25:52

I don't understand how it would be a conspiracy. A conspiracy for/of what?Don't conspiracy theorists theorise in order for there to be an 'end goal' to a tragedy? IE that it wasn't an act of God, this terrible atrocity was planned and happened for a reason that everyone prefers to ignore.

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 12:26:39

I worded that poorly casual.

mummymeister Thu 25-Feb-16 12:26:57

this thread made me think about the bit in Men in Black where the Will Smith character picks up the Aliens magazine off the newsstand that everyone else thinks is barking and says this is where they get most of their info from!

anyone who thinks that there aren't cover ups at the moment is also barking. why did the new Lord Lucan only declare his father dead years after he legally could have done? is that because he was abroad and only just died?

TitClash Thu 25-Feb-16 12:28:05

I'm a bit taken aback by some of the comments here.
The CIA created Bin Laden. He was from a Saudi Royal Family. They groomed him, funded him and trained him. They trained him to fight for the freedom of Afghanistan against the Soviets.
Its not the first time they've done that.
Literally every time they do this, it backfires on the USA. South America is a mess, thanks to their interference. Look at the history of Nicaragua, and the dug cartels.

If the USA used is powers to provide stability in other countries., the world wouldnt be in such turmoil now.
But they don't Their mind set is to promote instability.

Its not some out there conspiracy theory to say any of that. And yes, they did lay the groundwork for 911.

So I dont think YABU.

PaulAnkaTheDog Thu 25-Feb-16 12:29:46

Taken aback? Really? Slightly extreme, no?

clockbuscanada Thu 25-Feb-16 12:44:27

I thought this was going to be about the talc thing.

trufflesnout Thu 25-Feb-16 13:14:10

You do know Men in Black is a fictional film, right?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now