tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post1329114225902684262..comments2024-03-28T13:42:43.329-07:00Comments on Aangirfan: IN THE NAVY- GAYS AND SPOOKSAnonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16577270335071593954noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-12052807574580575082016-03-06T09:11:37.128-08:002016-03-06T09:11:37.128-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.PAUL GOLDSTONhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17981640028947396185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-37494069560663713022015-04-01T16:25:54.386-07:002015-04-01T16:25:54.386-07:00This is horrible story,this persons is monsters fr...This is horrible story,this persons is monsters from hell and create hell in world!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-91380510783438334342015-03-30T08:37:22.108-07:002015-03-30T08:37:22.108-07:00Satanism is an OFFICIALLY recognised religion in t...Satanism is an OFFICIALLY recognised religion in the Royal Navy, and has been since 2004 when Chris Cranmer was allowed to register as a Satanist in Plymouth.see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/3948329.stm If Navy Law= Admiralty Law=Law of the Sea=Legal Law, then everything the Satanist rapists, murderers, paedosadists do is perfectly legal ... but not lawful.<br />Drifloud<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-55138229063962942892015-03-30T08:36:11.422-07:002015-03-30T08:36:11.422-07:00James... Many of us had the same feeling as well a...James... Many of us had the same feeling as well about those retractions, thank you for being able to put them into words. As soon as P(G?) said that 'some of them' and not 'all of them' -"babies were killed", I knew the children were being pigeonholed. A competent lawyer will be able to make this fact glaringly obvious. I also appreciate your fervor on this case, after reading Pauffley's ruling and seeing the propaganda being pushed out the door by the DailyMail and Ham & High my blood was boiling as well and it took me a full week to be able to digest their vitriol to be able to respond. To anyone with just a bit more knowledge about this case it is easy to see that most of the writing during this case was simply to get those coming aboard to lose interest while 'they' deal with the rest. It's also very easy after the fact to want to label them ALL 'The PIGS' from Orwells 'Animal Farm' -Pauffley and all the rest of those dirty cops.<br /><br />AkhaldanSoloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-51477009117618776462015-03-30T08:22:40.639-07:002015-03-30T08:22:40.639-07:00Thanks to the efforts of Aangirfaan, Anonymous and...Thanks to the efforts of Aangirfaan, Anonymous and many others, it’s clear this satanic cult, child-trafficking ring is vast. So vast that Pauffley was only allowed to come to the conclusion she was told to come to? Or maybe she’s directly involved, which would mean coming to the same conclusion.<br />I think the most damning evidence - apart from the medical evidence - is contained in the “Distinguishing Marks and “Drawings” mobile-phone videos revealing the intimate identifying marks. No way could they allow those vids – their WORST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE - to get anywhere near an investigation.That’s why DC Rogers dutifully scuttled off to bury the vids somewhere in Chingford(Epping Forest?) so no other investigating police officers(read: decent, unintimidatable cops)were aware of their existence until they saw them on youtube several months after the case was closed. As of March this year,4 million plus evil fools had already seen the vids, so Judge Pauffley, now unable to deny their existence, was obliged to attempt to trash some of them in her report – but she makes NO mention at all of the dangerously untrashable “Distinguishing Marks” vids. She also tried to ridicule the medical evidence, by pathetically trying to ridicule Dr Hodes. All an attempt to hide the truth, deception being their strongpoint. I think their weakest point, which needs to be exploited, is where Pauffley actually tells the truth in paras 107 and 108 of her report. She makes known the fact of DC Rogers’ crime of concealing evidence, or fraud in para 107. This revealed fraud not only utterly demolishes the validity and credibility of the police and SS investigation, but as her “fact-finding” report was based largely on that investigation, it destroys the validity and credibility of her judgement too. Simply allowing the proceedings to continue while aware of DC Rogers’ fraud, is aiding and abetting fraud. Judge Pauffley’s claim that the police and SS investigation was “wide-ranging”(para 9) when it couldn’t possibly have been(as DC Rogers had hidden the entire evidence from the investigating officers before the investigation had even begun!) is fraudulent. The proceedings should have been stopped immediately the fraud was revealed, but that would have been contrary to Achieving Best Findings. <br />I think the above proves the police/SS investigation and Pauffley’s “fact-finding”(invert: fact-concealing) hearing are nothing more than an operation in deception – a FRAUD - and therefore to be rejected as null and void. But what to do? This is just a suggestion: Instead of playing along with THEIR legal rules and appealing, petitioning, asking, demanding - all of which concede authority to these impostors who pretend authority over us - might it not be an idea to LAWFULLY affirm publicly we do not consent to this – that we entirely reject the mockery of the law that is Paffley’s “judgement”? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-37867669260453864392015-03-30T03:14:40.300-07:002015-03-30T03:14:40.300-07:00Hampstead Judgement.
Fact No. 142. begins "A...Hampstead Judgement. <br />Fact No. 142. begins "As emerges from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them."<br />I am extremely confident that this claim is factually incorrect and provably so and this is the one thread that causes the whole story to disintegrate, pointing to the greater truth, that in all her ho humming and tut tutting, the Judge did not investigate the allegations in any depth or with any sense of fairness whatsoever, she was simply Mrs. Fixit there to debunk the claims and defame those making them. So the poor Judge made a rather stupid mistake, she did not watch the interviews properly, because if she had she would have noticed the fact that in the September 17th interview of the male victim, the same"retraction" interview , during which the boy affirmed the dead babies story seven times before acceding to the police bullying and coercion and retracting. Later in the same interview the male makes a claim of abuse at the swimming pool that is never retracted. In this interview, the final police interview of the male to my knowledge, the boy is later asked about the allegations about abuse at the swimming pool, in the disabled toilets, "That happened" the boy said, so the policeman tried to talk him out of it, "But you weren't even in school then." To which the boy responded along the lines of "No but my sister was" Affirming again in a roundabout way, so the tired policeman just moves on, the whole thing is simply dropped and the policeman returns to previous retractions thinking presumably, "it's ok he thinks, I still did my job, the witnesses are destroyed"<br />The swimming pool allegation is quite simply never retracted. It didn't happen. So the statement that "both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them." cannot possibly be factually correct in my opinion. And it is one of the key, foundation facts that the judgement rests upon. This failure of the learned Justice to recognise this central fact that not all the allegations were in fact retracted surely renders the entire judgement essentially void and invalid.?<br />This single fact, provable fact then leads to the character of the entire "investigation" from the learned Justice. It was very clearly an entirely one way affair, completely motivated apparently by her personal response to the Internet coverage of the story, largely ignorant apparently of it as she was. There was no attempt whatsoever to investigate the claims to test their veracity, merely to debunk and dispose of them as quickly as possible. <br />The description of the police interviews is completely inaccurate, factually inaccurate. The characterisation of the Medical reports is factually inaccurate and clearly ,nakedly motivated by an attempt to discredit Dr. Hodes and her evidence. <br />What on earth could possibly motivate such an obviously skewed and utterly one sided investigation?<br />If their is no foundation to the claims why were the investigations so truncated and haphazard?<br />Why did the learned Justice tender her findings before making herself adequately aware of the facts of the case?<br />Surely an investigation into such grave matters should be taken with vigor and thoroughness in order to prove the allegations are without foundation rather than simply assuming so as the learned Justice appears to have done. James Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15596750680624119189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-2651382934971689852015-03-30T02:04:30.337-07:002015-03-30T02:04:30.337-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15596750680624119189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-78994816740888737512015-03-30T01:47:04.414-07:002015-03-30T01:47:04.414-07:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxiojvmaPGghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxiojvmaPGgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-46851907166702600132015-03-30T01:46:21.093-07:002015-03-30T01:46:21.093-07:00For your files:
http://www.constantinereport.com/...For your files:<br /><br />http://www.constantinereport.com/former-world-vision-canada-boss-accused-making-child-porn/ <br /><br />Other related articles at bottom of that page.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-40127893744764118982015-03-30T01:28:01.222-07:002015-03-30T01:28:01.222-07:00http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017096/Fo...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017096/Former-teacher-girlfriend-streamed-sex-underage-girl-internet-CLEARED-child-pornography-charges-legal-loophole.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-64239456665598712732015-03-30T01:01:51.823-07:002015-03-30T01:01:51.823-07:00I guess its all those long months at sea. I guess its all those long months at sea. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003998945645458544.post-61680442459113810902015-03-30T00:55:47.382-07:002015-03-30T00:55:47.382-07:00I guess that's where the saying, 'Hello sa...I guess that's where the saying, 'Hello sailor', comes from and then you tilt your hand as you say it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com