This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
i have some experience of Freemasonry. I considered it quite a moral-based organisation. To suggest the organisation itself was responsible/complicit in concealing/non-disclosure of evidence regarding this matter would not be my first thought. Rather, like-minded people have sought to preserve/enhance their careers or bank accounts. There are different levels of Freemasonry, Lodges, Grande Lodges and Ultra Lodges, the last contains small amounts 6 to 8, of prominent people, Judges, Politicians, Police chiefs, CEOs, Etc, in Italy all Freemasonry lodges have to be submitted to an independent authority, names, addresses etc
“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn |
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
i have some experience of Freemasonry. I considered it quite a moral-based organisation. To suggest the organisation itself was responsible/complicit in concealing/non-disclosure of evidence regarding this matter would not be my first thought. Rather, like-minded people have sought to preserve/enhance their careers or bank accounts. You should include the police themselves in the a**e covering category. I guess it's natural to a degree but the need to make organisations accountable is paramount imo.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad
I have said many, many times that the BBC and the Metropolitan police are riddled with Freemasonry, i have made a study of it, and to pardon the expression, Arse covering is the norm. In the Freemason code this would have to be divulged to the lodge first, if not - out you go. The whole lodge would be due an apology and would set a punishment. In this case, whilst I can't be comprehensive, the lodge would punish and then expell.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You should include the police themselves in the a**e covering category. I guess it's natural to a degree but the need to make organisations accountable is paramount imo.
I think that's the point. I don't believe the BBC is unique in trying to protect itself at the expense of victims, look at ITV and Schofield or the NHS and whistleblowers. Big organisations have this in built culture to protect regardless of the wrong doing.
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You should include the police themselves in the a**e covering category. I guess it's natural to a degree but the need to make organisations accountable is paramount imo.
I always have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. In jobs where you are putting people into highly stressful and sometimes dangerous situations it can be a little unrealistic to always expect flawless outcomes. Especially when the Police have been lowering the standards on recruitment for decades now. I've often made the comment that the kind of people who criticise the Police and military wouldn't be seen dead in those jobs because of how hard they can be....and dangerous. Yet they often feel entitled to pass judgement upon anything our wonderfully objective media wishes to highlight. I have plenty of criticisms of the Police due to its politicialisation and....quite frankly highly selective persecution of laws. However, I will always recognise how difficult the job is and also note that expecting a Police force that will readily thrown its own to the many wolves isn't necessarily a Police force you want. Like most things there's a balance....for example, I'm still raging how they are just let off the grooming gangs situation...something that went on for decades and still does. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jul 2023 6.52pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I always have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. In jobs where you are putting people into highly stressful and sometimes dangerous situations it can be a little unrealistic to always expect flawless outcomes. Especially when the Police have been lowering the standards on recruitment for decades now. I've often made the comment that the kind of people who criticise the Police and military wouldn't be seen dead in those jobs because of how hard they can be....and dangerous. Yet they often feel entitled to pass judgement upon anything our wonderfully objective media wishes to highlight. I have plenty of criticisms of the Police due to its politicialisation and....quite frankly highly selective persecution of laws. However, I will always recognise how difficult the job is and also note that expecting a Police force that will readily thrown its own to the many wolves isn't necessarily a Police force you want. Like most things there's a balance....for example, I'm still raging how they are just let off the grooming gangs situation...something that went on for decades and still does. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jul 2023 6.52pm) I'd be happy for them to select to persecute my IN-laws!
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
|
Originally posted by YT
I'd be happy for them to select to persecute my IN-laws! Sounds a little spicy.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
You should include the police themselves in the a**e covering category. I guess it's natural to a degree but the need to make organisations accountable is paramount imo.
Totally agree. I have seen many examples of a*** covering within the Police, thanks to the lodge
|
|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Totally agree. I have seen many examples of a*** covering within the Police, thanks to the lodge And Cressida Dlck.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
|
On the brightside though, at least Philip Schofield will have found someone he is more employable than.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
Now the BBC threatening to sue people who 'put names out there'. Perhaps if their legal team concentrated more on making sure their own employees don't transgress the law in the first place, that might be licence-fee payers money better spent. I haven't seen that but if true it's not their job. If the individual wish to do so they are entitled to but taxpayers money should not be spent by the BBC. Would your company threaten to sue on your behalf if you were outed?
One more point |
|
|
I've just seen a photo-shopped image of Huw Edwards. That is hilarious.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
I've just seen a photo-shopped image of Huw Edwards. That is hilarious. Sing it....
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
|
"one of your own, he's one of your own, BBC he's one of your own."
One more point |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I haven't seen that but if true it's not their job. If the individual wish to do so they are entitled to but taxpayers money should not be spent by the BBC. Would your company threaten to sue on your behalf if you were outed?
Nicely put Badger. The BBC are patent failures in any kind of internal investigation. they are 5hlt at making TV programmes. Is there anything left at which they are good at ? apart from protecting sex-offenders.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
Nicely put Badger. The BBC are patent failures in any kind of internal investigation. they are 5hlt at making TV programmes. Is there anything left at which they are good at ? apart from protecting sex-offenders. They have 'Wisbech' as their protector & champion . . .
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I haven't seen that but if true it's not their job. If the individual wish to do so they are entitled to but taxpayers money should not be spent by the BBC. Would your company threaten to sue on your behalf if you were outed?
I don’t think it is true. What I heard one of their lawyers say this morning is that they, along with everyone, must be aware of the law of deformation so whilst allegations remain unproven and investigations are continuing they must be careful not to reveal the identity of the person concerned. I suspect that is exactly the same reason the Sun hasn’t named him and the fact they haven’t must raise doubts about their confidence in the story. Time alone will tell. In the meantime the BBC bashers will enjoy some free hits.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.