Bulletguy Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:48 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:19 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:11 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:04 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 3:57 PM Savile was clever, he courted pillars of the establishment for good reason. Yeah he was and he why he did ;-) ......... Try again. *-) Which is prolly why Sneaky Snakey and the establishment didn't do anything until after he'd snuffed it >:-) ........ Thatcher knew of his predilections and had the power to do something.......so rewarded him with a Knighthood. I never heard you complaining about that. I suspect Thatcher was told lots of things by the establishment ;-) .......... It appears it was those who had the power in the establishment that stopped him from getting a knighthood and then gave him a knighthood.........and also prevented him from being prosecuted >:-) ....... Clearly Sneaky Snakey didn't want to rock the boat when he joined the establishment >:-) ......... She was advised against nominating Savile for his Knighthood by Downing street aides but she ignored them and persisted, putting his name forward no less than four times. Aides are mere underlings and as PM she had authority they didn't. So there was no doubt over what she did. You've had the role of Prosecutor explained to you over and over and over again and also during Saviles active years, there were six other DPP's prior to Sir Keir Starmer being appointed you've overlooked. Acksurely ;-) ......... You have highlighted how our Prime Ministers can be overuled by the Establishment 8-) ....... Thatcher wasn't. The head of the Honours Committee tried to, but she still had her way because ultimately she had authority over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 5:30 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:48 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:19 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:11 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:04 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 3:57 PM Savile was clever, he courted pillars of the establishment for good reason. Yeah he was and he why he did ;-) ......... Try again. *-) Which is prolly why Sneaky Snakey and the establishment didn't do anything until after he'd snuffed it >:-) ........ Thatcher knew of his predilections and had the power to do something.......so rewarded him with a Knighthood. I never heard you complaining about that. I suspect Thatcher was told lots of things by the establishment ;-) .......... It appears it was those who had the power in the establishment that stopped him from getting a knighthood and then gave him a knighthood.........and also prevented him from being prosecuted >:-) ....... Clearly Sneaky Snakey didn't want to rock the boat when he joined the establishment >:-) ......... She was advised against nominating Savile for his Knighthood by Downing street aides but she ignored them and persisted, putting his name forward no less than four times. Aides are mere underlings and as PM she had authority they didn't. So there was no doubt over what she did. You've had the role of Prosecutor explained to you over and over and over again and also during Saviles active years, there were six other DPP's prior to Sir Keir Starmer being appointed you've overlooked. Acksurely ;-) ......... You have highlighted how our Prime Ministers can be overuled by the Establishment 8-) ....... Thatcher wasn't. The head of the Honours Committee tried to, but she still had her way because ultimately she had authority over them. 5 attempts at authority? :-| .......... Sounds likes Labours election history >:-) ........ Why are you trying to gloss over Sneaky Snakey Starmer's missed opportunity to put him on trial? ;-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-28 6:10 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 5:30 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:48 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:19 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 4:11 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 4:04 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 3:57 PM Savile was clever, he courted pillars of the establishment for good reason. Yeah he was and he why he did ;-) ......... Try again. *-) Which is prolly why Sneaky Snakey and the establishment didn't do anything until after he'd snuffed it >:-) ........ Thatcher knew of his predilections and had the power to do something.......so rewarded him with a Knighthood. I never heard you complaining about that. I suspect Thatcher was told lots of things by the establishment ;-) .......... It appears it was those who had the power in the establishment that stopped him from getting a knighthood and then gave him a knighthood.........and also prevented him from being prosecuted >:-) ....... Clearly Sneaky Snakey didn't want to rock the boat when he joined the establishment >:-) ......... She was advised against nominating Savile for his Knighthood by Downing street aides but she ignored them and persisted, putting his name forward no less than four times. Aides are mere underlings and as PM she had authority they didn't. So there was no doubt over what she did. You've had the role of Prosecutor explained to you over and over and over again and also during Saviles active years, there were six other DPP's prior to Sir Keir Starmer being appointed you've overlooked. Acksurely ;-) ......... You have highlighted how our Prime Ministers can be overuled by the Establishment 8-) ....... Thatcher wasn't. The head of the Honours Committee tried to, but she still had her way because ultimately she had authority over them. 5 attempts at authority? :-| .......... According to your DM.....every other msm quoted four. Sounds likes Labours election history >:-) ........ Hhmm....first you had your pact with the Lib Dems, then you had Cameron, next came your "Sainted" Theresa (remember her?), not forgetting bribing a terrorist supporting party with a billion quid of taxpayers money to prop you up. and now you've got Johnson. Ten years on and we're in a worse mess than ever. Why are you trying to gloss over Sneaky Snakey Starmer's missed opportunity to put him on trial? ;-) ....... I clarified the point you raised. Changing the subject is simply your way of conceding defeat without having to admit. You've thrashed this thread to death with your laborious repetition and absurd paranoia. Concern yourself with worrying over whose going to replace Johnson instead. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 7:18 PM I clarified the point you raised. Changing the subject is simply your way of conceding defeat without having to admit. You've thrashed this thread to death with your laborious repetition and absurd paranoia. Concern yourself with worrying over whose going to replace Johnson instead. (lol) No you didn't :D ....... But I know once you start sub dividing my posts, you have lost the argument >:-) ...... Don't worry I'm sure Sneaky Snakey Starmers back catalogue of dealings with Sh1tbag Shiner and time at the CPS are being investigated as I type >:-) ............ Best fire up the Loser shredders (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-28 8:01 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 7:18 PM I clarified the point you raised. Changing the subject is simply your way of conceding defeat without having to admit. You've thrashed this thread to death with your laborious repetition and absurd paranoia. Concern yourself with worrying over whose going to replace Johnson instead. (lol) No you didn't :D ....... Yes I did. You had a memory loss over Thatcher so I detailed it for you. But I know once you start sub dividing my posts, you have lost the argument >:-) ...... I forgot you still need potty training. As it's too complicated for you we can do it by numbers like Brian has to (go to post). Don't worry I'm sure Sneaky Snakey Starmers back catalogue of dealings with Sh1tbag Shiner and time at the CPS are being investigated as I type >:-) ............ Best fire up the Loser shredders (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ 1)Yes I did. You had a memory loss over Thatcher so I detailed it for you. 2)I forgot you still need potty training. As it's too complicated for you we can do it by numbers like Brian has to. *-) 3)You're so "sure" of your assumptions you can't link wild conjecture. Have you logged into Ickes forum? You'd be well at home in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 9:10 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-28 8:01 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-28 7:18 PM I clarified the point you raised. Changing the subject is simply your way of conceding defeat without having to admit. You've thrashed this thread to death with your laborious repetition and absurd paranoia. Concern yourself with worrying over whose going to replace Johnson instead. (lol) No you didn't :D ....... Yes I did. You had a memory loss over Thatcher so I detailed it for you. But I know once you start sub dividing my posts, you have lost the argument >:-) ...... I forgot you still need potty training. As it's too complicated for you we can do it by numbers like Brian has to (go to post). Don't worry I'm sure Sneaky Snakey Starmers back catalogue of dealings with Sh1tbag Shiner and time at the CPS are being investigated as I type >:-) ............ Best fire up the Loser shredders (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ 1)Yes I did. You had a memory loss over Thatcher so I detailed it for you. 2)I forgot you still need potty training. As it's too complicated for you we can do it by numbers like Brian has to. *-) 3)You're so "sure" of your assumptions you can't link wild conjecture. Have you logged into Ickes forum? You'd be well at home in there. Seeing as Blair & Brown were in power for years AFTER Thatcher ;-) ......... Why didn't they ensure Savile was brought to justice? >:-) ......... Oh yeah silly me........Blair was another Lefty Lawyer Labour Party Leader who turned a blind eye to Peados *-) ........... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8886601/Tony-Blair-admits-nominating-former-MP-Janner-peerage-despite-knowing-child-sex-abuse-claims.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 Says it all when you have to change the subject from the government in charge, and the worst you can dig up on the leader of the opposition is that not all crooks were caught when he was a lawyer :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 John52 - 2020-10-29 2:48 PM Says it all when you have to change the subject from the government in charge, and the worst you can dig up on the leader of the opposition is that not all crooks were caught when he was a lawyer :D It's funny how Peado's withs links to the establishment seem to be rewarded or avoid prosecution by Lefty Lawyer Labour Leaders *-) ........ One must assume they knew to much to be taken to court, which is why they were allowed to die before they were outed officially >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.