/ Here is one extremely brave lawyer...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
I commend this man for his bravery. It takes guts to ask the Public Prosecutor to investigate this surreptitious group...extremely risky.

http://www.theglobalistreport.com/bilderberg-group-prosecutor-of-rome-investigation/

Sir Chasm - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: It's a set-up, the lawyer is actually a member of the Bilderberg group (secretly, of course). His report will miraculously find nothing untoward.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: That's definitely plausible.
TryfAndy on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Good on him, will be refreshing to have a bit more to look at about them than just Charlie Skelton's annual reports at the Guardian.
EeeByGum - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: What's wrong with a group of people getting together to talk about stuff?
Timmd on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) What's wrong with a group of people getting together to talk about stuff?

Nothing at all, but secretiveness can lead to corruption, and select people and companies being given contracts or jobs in a way which isn't open to competition from others, and unhelpfull things like that.
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: So its either find something wrong or he's one of them.. that open questioning mind you have must really help undercover the truth..
Philip on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> Nothing at all, but secretiveness can lead to corruption, and select people and companies being given contracts or jobs in a way which isn't open to competition from others, and unhelpfull things like that.

Really? I don't think these meetings are about just making money.

Almost any of the attendees of that group, or similar, has private meetings with the democratically elected government members attending those meetings. Why is it different if they sit down together?

You expect the leaders of the EU to discuss, off the record issues which need handling carefully away from the posturing in front of the media. You expect heads of industry to speak to government. You expect heads of state of non-EU counties to meet with EU leaders.

So what if they do it at the same time and sort out their differences.

There's too much conspiracy theory in all this.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Which one of my responses motivated you to respond with this sentence?

Just because I said it was plausible that it could be setup? Is it not plausible? Is it not ok for me to repsond in this way?
Goucho on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Italian politicians linked to possible corruption!!!

This as about as shocking as Paul and Barry Chuckle dropping a pane of glass :-)

What would be really shocking is a headline that read....

...Italian politicians NOT linked to possible corruption.
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Occam's razor again...
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: And the term surreptitious..

doesn't exactly come across like you enter this without bias..
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Generally speaking I think it's good to start with an actual crime and then investigate it.
Starting with an assumption of criminality about a particular group of people suggests that you have a biased view of "acceptable" outcomes to an investigation

Fishing expeditions against known criminals are prohibited and their rights are fiercely protected by human rights lawyers. Do you give up these rights because you happen to be rich?
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: surĚrepĚtiĚtious [sur-uhp-tish-uhs]adjective
1.
obtained, done, made, etc., by stealth; secret or unauthorized; clandestine: a surreptitious glance.
2.
acting in a stealthy way.
3.
obtained by subreption; subreptitious.

So...the Elite and leaders of industry have been meeting, in secret, under extremely heavy guard with no press allowed, every year for over 50 years and you think surreptitious is inappropriate?

I don't enter with bias, I enter with extreme SUSPICION.

What do you think they do? Have a cup tea and discuss what's going to happen on the next episode of Eastenders?
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) surĚrepĚtiĚtious [sur-uhp-tish-uhs]adjective

>
> I don't enter with bias, I enter with extreme SUSPICION.


As opposed to an objective open mind free from pre-formed opinions?

I think that's classed as bias

Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: Hey Sir! I'm heading to Font in a week then we should arrange to meet up if you're keen?

Starting with a crime would be ideal however this organisation wouldn't be involved in petty crime. For example the tactics had to change when dealing with the Mafia.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat: If I didn't know anything about the topic then I would enter the subject with an open mind however this is not the case.

ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) If I didn't know anything about the topic then I would enter the subject with an open mind however this is not the case.

Worst kind of bias.
Postmanpat on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) surĚrepĚtiĚtious [sur-uhp-tish-uhs]adjective
>
My parish council meets once a month but sometimes they don't post the date and time of the meeting. The list of parish councilors is public but I know for a fact that sometimes other people attend without disclosing their attendance.

The minutes of the meetings are not usually made public nor are they audited.

I am deeply suspicious......
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) If I didn't know anything about the topic then I would enter the subject with an open mind however this is not the case.

Hold on...aren't you the guy who's into pretty much every conspiracy theory there's ever been? What was the most recent one...WTC death rays or hoaxed moon landings?

I'm leaving now and going over there

(picks up sandwiches and moves to a sensible table)
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

Said too much. A white van with a massive satellite dish on top just parked up outside my house.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: Haha! Good use of sarcasm.
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat: I would be that guy who spends extended periods of time researching certain topics (and therefore knowing more about said topic than the average person) and not being spoon-fed information direct from the television.

You must be the naive person who, in general, does the opposite?

You've done me a favour and moved to the "sensible table".
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) I would be that guy who spends extended periods of time researching certain topics (and therefore knowing more about said topic than the average person) and not being spoon-fed information direct from the television.
>
> You must be the naive person who, in general, does the opposite?
>
> You've done me a favour and moved to the "sensible table".


Shout up! Can't hear you over here.
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) I would be that guy who spends extended periods of time researching certain topics (and therefore knowing more about said topic than the average person) and not being spoon-fed information direct from the television.
>
> You must be the naive person who, in general, does the opposite?
>
> You've done me a favour and moved to the "sensible table".

Rarely watch TV - see what assumptions do?

I get the feeling you do your 'research' on a certain type of websites...ones with 'TheTruthIsOutThere' and 'WhatTheyreNotTellingUs' in the domain name?

ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

You fell into earshot for a second there. I'm taking my sandwiches out to the carpark
tony on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> So...the Elite and leaders of industry have been meeting, in secret, under extremely heavy guard with no press allowed, every year for over 50 years and you think surreptitious is inappropriate?

They're so secret they don't even have a website. Oh hang on ...
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

How is Bigfoot these days, anyway?
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
>
> They're so secret they don't even have a website. Oh hang on ...
> http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

Better check outside your window for that big white van dude...


tony on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) I would be that guy who spends extended periods of time researching certain topics (and therefore knowing more about said topic than the average person) and not being spoon-fed information direct from the television.
>
So what is it about the Bilderberg group that concerns you? What have they done?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat: Yip, maybe you should have done the same.

I hadn't heard of those websites till now.

Bye-bye! :)
tony on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Better check outside your window for that big white van dude...

So that's why it's been snowing today - camouflage for the big white van. Damn, they're good!
Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: And when was the website created?
tony on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

No idea. You're the one who's been doing the research.
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> So that's why it's been snowing today - camouflage for the big white van. Damn, they're good!

Everytime you click "Submit Message", 'they' home in on you and get a little bit closer, until eventually they pinpoint your house and disconnect your internet conne

Sircumfrins - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: I'll respond to your question with a quote from the late JFK:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...

"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

And that's all I have to say on the matter.
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) I'll respond to your question with a quote from the late JFK:
>


NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's responded to our question with a quote from the late JFK!!!!!

ANYTHING but a quote from the late JFK!!!

My one weakness!

tony on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

That would be JFK, the serial shagger. Apparently that counts for something.
ThunderCat - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
>
> That would be JFK, the serial shagger. Apparently that counts for something.

You may have a fleet of white vans outside right about now.... :)


toad - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
> My parish council meets once a month but sometimes they don't post the date and time of the meeting. The list of parish councilors is public but I know for a fact that sometimes other people attend without disclosing their attendance.
>
> The minutes of the meetings are not usually made public nor are they audited.
>

Really? Most parishes post the Agenda and minutes on the village notice board

> I am deeply suspicious......

Me too, have they been sweeping the leaves this Autumn?
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to ThunderCat) I would be that guy who spends extended periods of time researching certain topics (and therefore knowing more about said topic than the average person) and not being spoon-fed information direct from the television.
>
> You must be the naive person who, in general, does the opposite?
>
> You've done me a favour and moved to the "sensible table".

You don't research.. look at your twin towers thread.. (what have I done..).. you lazily blindly quote a few heavily biased and poorly researched websites.. the burning cars marked as suspicious.. later easily identified as being moved highlighted how untrustworth such sites were..

That is not research or questioning.. it's blind faith..

No.. re secret meetings.. many millions of meetings a day between banks, businesses and governments are held behind closed doors..
IainRUK - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
>
> That would be JFK, the serial shagger. Apparently that counts for something.

Also the kennedy family.. heavily linked with corruption..
Postmanpat on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Really? Most parishes post the Agenda and minutes on the village notice board
>
Yes, mine say they do but sometimes they don't. Suspicious, eh.....?
craigloon - on 13 Feb 2013
Oh for god's sake. They're not secret in any kind of sense that a rational person would understand.

They announce where they are held. They publish a list of attendees. They have a steering committee of known people. They just don't publish the proceedings. Lots of policy forums do this, as it allows people to speak their minds more freely. Also referred to as Chatham House Rules, after the Royal Institute of International Affairs where the procedure was first adopted.

Plenty of journalists from all over the world are invited to attend Bilderberg meetings, but are asked not to report what they hear. I know a couple of journalists who have attended and they are hardly illuminati types. In fact one of them was deeply suspicious about the group until he went himself and saw they didn't sit around with hoods on their heads chanting cabbalistic incantations..
off-duty - on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to craigloon:

>
> In fact one of them was deeply suspicious about the group until he went himself and saw they didn't sit around with hoods on their heads chanting cabbalistic incantations..

At least not in the sessions he was "allowed" to see ......... LOLZ ;-)
Timmd on 13 Feb 2013
In reply to Philip:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> Really? I don't think these meetings are about just making money.
>
> Almost any of the attendees of that group, or similar, has private meetings with the democratically elected government members attending those meetings. Why is it different if they sit down together?
>
> You expect the leaders of the EU to discuss, off the record issues which need handling carefully away from the posturing in front of the media. You expect heads of industry to speak to government. You expect heads of state of non-EU counties to meet with EU leaders.
>
> So what if they do it at the same time and sort out their differences.
>
> There's too much conspiracy theory in all this.

Stop extrapolating from what I posted.

I posted that secretiveness can lead to those negative things, not that it does do or is doing. It is true though, secretive meetings can lead to the things happening which I mentioned.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.