If only the English were more like this.

Yes.

Because it was covered up. Please keep the hell up. At the time he was best mates with Charlie, even his own pal Esther knew what was going on. Everyone did in that circle. Somehow though, this seemed to escape the attention of Charles and those that vet people before they can become his best mate.

Do you sort of understand now?

 

No, that's a pointless question. Why aren't you talking about the queen's fine hat?

 

And you can not prove it was covered up. That is your opinion.

 

It's not my opinion though.

It is an expression of an extensive police investigation and a wealth of other factors.

You seem almost keen to defend the child rapist scumbag for some reason...

- - - Updated - - -

How can it be 'pointless'?

We are speaking about befriending child rapists, not the 'queens bloody hat'.

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ.

 

A conclusion shared by the vast majority of people who've paid attention and examined the evidence.



FYI - Stalins/Hitler + many others , was also "never convicted and only after their deaths did these Allegations come out "


GOT IT ? (wink)


...

 

not Hispanic but Basques
one for sure the British chicks are defiantly . Celto-Germanic , always wander who and why fuc% them

 

The police investigated these allegations?

Can you link to the report?

 

ewww, somebody defending that awful jimmy saville pervert.

You get all sorts on the internet but this is too creepy, think im gonna exit this thread right now.

 

Can I please read this report? Do you have a link?

 

dont quote me please.

 

Thought you left the thread and weren't going to read anything in this thread anymore. But since you claim to have facts that Saville raped anyone, I was interested to read them.

 

yeh, im sure you are

 

All I wanna see are the facts.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=police+investigation+into+jimmy+savile

 

The child rapist vermin that was Savile was awarded an OBE. Perhaps it now stands for Order of Beasts Empire?

Buddied around with Charles, who if investigation permitted it(and this is the problem with these monarchies), would probably throw up an interesting skeleton or two.

Andrew buddied around with the biggest child trafficker in the US, and convicted rapist, Jeffrey Epstein. Either the British Secret Service must be so utterly dire that everyone but them seems to know about these dirtbag's, but the more likely scenario is that of course they know, and the reason why Charles and Andrew hang around with child rapists and sexual deviants is... that they too are complicit.

Birds of a feather flock together and all of that..

The Queen owns the island of Jersey. Not everyone knows or is aware of this. You can buy a house there, but she owns the island. It's their way of evading tax, by passing it through Jersey.

Very odd place.

I recall the film maker, Bill Maloney, doing an excellent film called 'Sun, Sea + Satan'. The reaction of the locals to answering questions that any normal person would happily speak about was most odd. Most odd indeed.

 

I don't see much problem with the British monarchy. They're essentially figureheads. While on paper, the crown runs the government, they don't make any of the decisions that people live by. If the queen decided to withdraw from the EU for example, she doesn't have the power to make that happen, the PM does, or at least could if parliment would go along. I don't see any problem with a bunch of people pretending to be monarchs, especially since they actually pay taxes. It's not the house of Sa'ud where their word is the de facto law of the land. it's more like a Disney thing -- it's all for show. I don't know about what happens in Spain, but the Brits don't have much of a monarchy.

 

You cannot vote them out.

Or in.

We pay their bills.

We have better things to spend our money on than propping up an out of touch family on inbreds.

They make themselves above the law.

They make it near impossible for the media to run certain stories.

They befriend child rapists and traffickers.

 

The so called queen is just like the head of a family of parasites.

Parasites need a host. A host does not need a parasite.

We can easily see that the monarchy/nation is a parasite/host model, because while the nation could survive just fine without this monarch(the parasite), the monarch would die without the host(us).

**

The Queen asked ministers for money to heat Buckingham Palace from a fund reserved for low-income families, it has been revealed.

Royal aides pleaded for the cash as they claimed gas and electricity bills had risen by more than 50 per cent in a year - totalling more than £1million.

They complained that the £15million government grant to cover the Queen's palaces was inadequate and her energy bills had become 'untenable'.

The money would have come from £60million of energy-saving grants reserved for cash-strapped families, housing associations and hospitals.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314446/The-Queen-pleads-poverty-help-Buckingham-Palace-heating-bill.html

 

Perhaps they wish to understand their subjects and are reaching out to examples of average brits?

 

Its just the way it is over there. I'll never understand why the vast majority of Brits love their royals. Royalty is so alien to our culture here.

 

It would be, albeit there was once a move to make one of your FF's a 'king'. But that plan was knocked on the head, and instead, you were given a republic. Not a democracy, as some may think. The good side with a republic is that in theory, law limits the powers of Gov. The bad side is that once given a Republic, you have to hang on tight to it, since there will be those that conspire to 'take' the essence of a Republic, and alter it into something else. It's the something else that you now have. The US had a republic, but now it can better be described as a plutocracy or an oligarchy.

As far as general plebs go, the US public hero worship drug addled film stars etc, that is their fix of idolatry.

 

But at least they are doing something to earn their bread, unlike your worthless Royals.

 

In a democracy, there is unlimited power of the majority over the minority. I believe we have that now.

 

The Germanic Anglo-Saxon "natives" (especially the elderly) identify as English, Scots, or Welsh, where the younger (and more multicultural) people tend to identify as "British" Nobody gets exercised about the royals much, except the extremists.

 

No.

What you have now is unlimited power of the minority over the majority.

In effect an oligarchy. Leaning toward a plutocracy.



Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos, meaning "wealth", and κράτος, kratos, meaning "power, dominion, rule"), also known as plutonomy or plutarchy, defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the top wealthiest citizens.


While....

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command") is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.

These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. But inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.