Longcol Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 He points out two small "statues" on the wall at the front of this home and clearly seen from the road. One child is, or appears to be masturbating the other is...Well,see for yourself. Both of these figures have children's hats placed on them, when Bill returns What have these to do with the childrens home - apart from being on Jersey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC33 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 mocking what is said without researching is standard procedure for sheep. they can brand Bill Maloney's opinions imaginings of the lunatic fringe. or state his opinions are too bizarre,half-baked to merit serious discussion. is this a valid reason to more or less cover-up his allegations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 mocking what is said without researching is standard procedure for sheep. they can brand Bill Maloney's opinions imaginings of the lunatic fringe. or state his opinions are too bizarre,half-baked to merit serious discussion. is this a valid reason to more or less cover-up his allegations? Perhaps you could answer the question I asked vResistance - what would Livingston have known about a kids home in Jersey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 "appers to be" ? pics or it ain't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Perhaps you could answer the question I asked vResistance - what would Livingston have known about a kids home in Jersey? Nobody said he would know anything about it. He is talking to Ken about institutional child abuse in general,not accusing Ken of involvement in the Jersey case. "appers to be" ? pics or it ain't true. It's shown in the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 He also talks to Livingston about the home in Jersey. Does he? When? Are you making this up? The problem here is, you've started a thread about a very real and serious topic, with no intention of discussing it. It's been clear that this thread is about promoting your latest "hero". From his videos I've seen, it's obvious he's just trying to make a name for himself as an "investigative journalist", something which he knows nothing about. Shouting, swearing, accusing, talking AT people (not TO people) is NOT investigative journalism. He will get no answers this way and I very much doubt it is his intention to get any. As for the statues, yes one is a child holding his willy, this doesn't mean he's masturbating. There have been statues like this throughout history, usually as a cheeky garden fountain or similar water feature, sometimes used as an ornament without the plumbing. Does this mean the owner is a paedophile? No. There are hats on the statues, does that make the owner a paedophile? No. There is also a cuddly toy monkey on the tree next to it, I would guess it's more likely a child has been having fun decorating the garden with hats and toys than a paedophile being the culprit. Always best to jump to the worst conclusions though eh? The other statue is quite clearly NOT a child with his own todger in his mouth. It's way oversized, it's not attached between his legs (it's actually held over the bowl, which IS between his legs) and there is a large opening at the front of the base, suggesting it's more likely a pipe or musical instrument. The idea of a child with it's own member in it's mouth came from the mind of Bill Maloney. The statue of "Satan" looks a lot more like a statue of Pan to me. Does this make the owner a paedophile? No. Does angrily telling the statue that you are a friend of Jesus make you an investigative journalist? No. Once again, why did you choose to bring Ken Livingstone into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 On anything to do with Bill Maloney "Award-winning Film Director" is plastered about. It should be made clear that the award he won was an independant award for a badly made low-budget gangster film he made, after dropping out of film school after a month or two. He is NOT an Award-Winning journalist or documentary maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 mocking what is said without researching is standard procedure for sheep. they can brand Bill Maloney's opinions imaginings of the lunatic fringe. or state his opinions are too bizarre,half-baked to merit serious discussion. is this a valid reason to more or less cover-up his allegations? It's standard procedure for conspiracy fans to try and partake in an argument that doesn't exist. Who is trying to cover something up? what are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Nobody said he would know anything about it. Yes they did, and it was Maloney, in a post by you: Maloney: "Do you believe children were buried in Shirley Oaks?" Livingstone: "How on earth would I know?" Maloney: "How would you know? You're the one that ordered it to be levelled!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes they did, and it was Maloney, in a post by you: Shirley oaks wasn't on Jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.