Climate change PROVED to be nothing but a lie, claims top meteorologist

[claig]

"THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed."

And the distinguished meteorologist goes on to say what many wise heads have long been saying:

"Polar Bears are increasing in number."

www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

[claig]

''in some parts of Greater Manchester "child exploitation is the new social norm".''

It is not the former policewoman saying that, it is the report by Stockport MP Ann Coffey which was commissioned in the wake of the Rochdale grooming scandal.

[claig]

"Sexual exploitation of children has become “normal” in parts of Greater Manchester, according to a report described as “alarming” by Home Secretary Theresa May."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/report-child-sexual-exploitation-now-a-social-norm-in-parts-of-greater-manchester-9826816.html

And this former policewoman was warning about it a decade ago. Another disgrace and lots of people must have known and yet the newspapers never mentioned it.

[Solopower1]

It doesn't matter who says it. If those are the actual words that were used, they are inaccurate - they must be.

The only way to know for sure is to read the report, which would, presumably be based on some sort of research.

[claig]

'The only way to know for sure is to read the report'

I trust the BBC and the Independent enough to believe they are not lying and misreporting this. I presume their journalists have found out what was said in the report.

[mrsruffallo]

Solopower- What makes you question the statement? Lets not argue semantics instead of sitting up and taking notice.

[Solopower1]

How many times does this have to happen before it becomes 'normal', Claig? What proportion of the population have to be involved?

I'm not denying that this is a big problem, btw, and a horrible thing for the poor children involved. But it would be more convincing if the report said something like 'X number of children have been harmed in these ways: 1.2.3 ...' and then leave us to decide whether this makes it 'normal' or just a serious social problem that needs to be tackled urgently.

[Solopower1]

Of course we need to take note of this, Mrsruffalo. I don't think they are scaremongering in this case, either - I think they are trying to draw our attention to a serious problem. I just don't like it when they are not accurate in the way they report serious problems like this.

[Icimoi]

claig: "I don't want to wait for the evidence"

Says it all.

[Icimoi]

claig: "Do you mean the Daily Mail? They are doing you a service. They are not allowed to spell it out, but they give you as many hints as you need."

Why on earth wouldn't they be allowed to spell it out if they had incontrovertible evidence? You refer to them being unable to report "huge scandals" by reference to Jimmy Savile, but the only reason they chose not to report that was because they were worried about a libel claim. Even then they could have gone ahead on the basis that, if they had the evidence, they could have defended any libel claim successfully by demonstrating that what they said was true. But making assertions supported by evidence about the alleged dangers of light bulbs doesn't libel anyone and, even if it did, they would have an absolute defence.

[claig]

'but the only reason they chose not to report that was because they were worried about a libel claim. '

Do you really think they are worried about a fine when it comes to a matter of exploitation of children? They would be proved right and win and be national heroes. It is not about money.

[ConstantAcceleration]

I always wondered what kind of person believes what the Daily Mail prints. Now I know.

[claig]

What took you so long to realise that it is people of a discerning, inquisitive minds and an extraordinary intellects. I thought everybody knew that was the profile of the average Daily Mail reader.

[CalamitouslyWrong]

Arf. You are funny Claig.

[Icimoi]

Claig: "Do you really think they are worried about a fine when it comes to a matter of exploitation of children? They would be proved right and win and be national heroes. It is not about money."

You don't know a whole lot about libel, do you? A successful libel claim doesn't lead to a fine, it leads to an award of damages, including if appropriate punitive damages, and costs. Such claims also mean newspapers incur hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of costs with their own lawyers. If they had been sued successfully by someone like Jimmy Savile the total sums they would have to pay out could well run into six figures. The individuals who caused Associated Newspapers to incur that sort of loss would undoubtedly be out of a job very quickly indeed.

If you seriously think the Mail and its employees wouldn't be deterred by that, you just aren't living in the real world.

[claig]

Some papers have had costs of over a million for libel cases against pop stars for nothing as serious as child abuse.

We know that some former police officers have said they were told to drop the case over looking into Savile. There are truly shocking allegations about Savile and Haut de la Garenne.

We know that MPs can name people using parliamentary privilege. There are ways and means to bring something to the public's attention. And if someone had done so, I expect that Savile would not have taken them to court for libel because all sorts of witnesses would have had to be called and would have had to testify on oath ane then we would have found out who knew what. And that is why it was not allowed to happen, and why some police officers were told to drop it - because it would have shaken the establishment.

And if that would have happened, then we would not have had to wait until Savile was dead and for a whole year after his death during which the Queen's Jubilee and the Olympics took place, before it came out into the open and public attention.

Here is another case


'Police gunman told me to ignore paedophiles’, says ex-child protection officer

A FORMER child protection officer claimed last night a Special Branch detective held a gun to his head to stop him investigating a VIP paedophile ring.

Chris Fay said he was pinned to a wall and throttled before being given a chilling warning to “back away” from allegations surrounding the notorious Elm Guest House in Barnes, south-west London.'

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437954/Police-gunman-told-me-to-ignore-paedophiles-says-ex-child-protection-officer

I don't know if we will ever find out what this was all about.

[claig]

And David Icke published a book many years ago making accusationa against Savile and others and made presentations to thousands of people all over the world saying the same thing and yet he was never sued for libel. He says it is because they feared what would come out in a trial if they took it to court.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

Yes, but David Icke thinks he is a lizard.

He is probably safe from libel suits since he can claim diminished responsibility.

[claig]

I doubt it, some people have been jailed for tweets they made and they were either drunk or described as having some learning difficulties

[Icimoi]

Claig, if you seriously think that the Mail's dedication to the cause was such that they would have risked an expensive libel case against someone with very deep pockets, how do you account for the fact that they didn't reveal what was going on anyway? Surely, if they were prepared to risk a libel claim in the cause of saving children from abuse, they would equally have been prepared to risk government wrath?

If they were the omniscient heroes that you claim; if they didn't care in the least about a possible libel action; and if the result of revealing the Savile scandal would as you suggest have been their being acclaimed as national heroes, why didn't they publish what they undoubtedly knew? It's no good referring to some mysterious dark forces unless you have actual evidence for their existence; and you have to bear in mind that the papers themselves have been very frank about the fact that they kept quiet solely because of the libel threat.

[Icimoi]

Everyone knows that no-one takes seriously anything that David Icke says. He would have had a valid if somewhat unusual defence to a libel claim along the lines that it couldn't have caused any damage because no-one believed him.

[claig]

I think some journalists and papers know about some of these scandals, but cannot report it. I think they are leaned on and it is not about libel as they say. I don't think that papers are really worried about the wrath of the government - here today, gone tomorrow - I think they are worried about the Establishment - here permanently.

Of course, I don't really know, That is just my guess.

I don't think the Mail are heroes, they can't tell the whole truth. But I think they give more hints about light bulbs, swine flu, climate change etc than the other papers do.

[claig]

Fiona Woolf has resigned from the Government’s child abuse inquiry

The Mail was yet again, as sp often in other stories too, a key source of information on her links with Leon Brittan

"Fiona Woolf was under fresh pressure to resign from the Government’s child abuse inquiry last night after The Mail on Sunday uncovered new evidence suggesting undeclared links with Leon Brittan, a key figure at the centre of the scandal."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807976/Pressure-grows-beleaguered-sex-abuse-enquiry-chief-Fiona-Woolf-resign.html

[TalkinPeace]

Claig
do you read the papers and magazines from which the Daily Heil plagiarises?

[claig]

Are there any? I thought the Daily Mail breaks any story worth breaking and others scramble to catch up.

[TalkinPeace]

Bless

what other periodicals do you read?