Britain - The Official Thread

[Novalee]

Not bothering to answer a single question then. Can't imagine why.

You're making the exact same claim as one proposed by a conspiracy theorist and lunatic (all freemen on the land are lunatics), but for whatever reason you're pretending it's not the exact same claim. Of course, you may well have got it from some un-named people who told you the claim to your face as you say, but given that it is the exact same claim as one which is clearly false, you should be asking yourself why it tallies so perfectly with the false claim and asking where they got it from.

Seems to me as simple as the usual attention-seeking act; they want to be important, so they pretend to be part of the thing they heard, but couldn't be arsed checking on.

And you heard it and couldn't be arsed checking on it, now you're presenting it as true despite being demonstrably false.

If your own personal level of something being true or false is "a guy told me", you're going to get scammed a lot. Set the bar higher. Ask questions - like what were the names of these kids, and when did it happen.

Being smart has nothing to do with being able to rebut something. Rebuttals are as simple as having evidence. That's what a rebuttal is - proving something to be untrue with evidence.

Which you don't have, otherwise you'd not be claiming something without any evidence for it.

Yea i read their story . I believe the people that told me what happened long before i even joined this forum .
I have been in this area since 2008 and in 2011 is when co workers told me of the abuses that happened at the school and the Queens visit .

You dont believe them , i get that , i believe what they said happened . To me it doesnt make sense that people would lie about their own family member going missing .

I have never heard about or know about anyone in the Reuters article .

 

[Famine]

Yea i read their story

Then where did you read this story about the Queen kidnapping ten First Nation children?

I believe the people that told me what happened long before i even joined this forum .

Why? Why is your personal bar for evidence "a guy told me"?

Why is their account apparently identical to the known lie if not directly derived from the known lie and passed around as truth to the gullible for the attention?

These people have told you this thing happened, but they didn't tell you when and, despite apparently being peers with the kids who they say went missing do not know their names. And this doesn't ring any alarms to you?

I have been in this area since 2008 and in 2011 is when co workers told me of the abuses that happened at the school and the Queens visit .

The Canadian government apologised for the abuses at the school in 2008. The first version of the horsecrap claims about the Queen kidnapping 10 kids popped up in 2010.

There is no record of the Queen having ever visited the school in 1959. In fact contemporary reports say that the royal party arrived at Fulton Field on the morning of July 14, toured Kamloops with Mayor John Fitzwater by car, and left by train to Chilliwack at 5pm. Yes, I checked (like you should have done).

There is no record of the Queen being in Canada in September 1964, which is when the faked story - that's identical to the one you believe - places her at the school. She did visit in October 1964, but was on the east coast.

There is no record of the Queen having visited the school in 1983, as it had been closed by then.

If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.

You dont believe them , i get that , i believe what they said happened .

You don't need belief if you have evidence. That's literally the point.

To me it doesnt make sense that people would lie about their own family member going missing .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Shannon_Matthews

What does or doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant. You cannot make claims like this without providing evidence. No evidence, no claim.


Worse than that, you are being lied to and you are amplifying the lies. Someone's using you and you don't know it. Set your bar higher. Check information you're told. Don't just scoop up paranoid conspiracy claptrap because you think those in power eat children and it fits into your narrative.

 

[Northstar]

So, is this like the Canadian version of Pizzagate? Perhaps Poutinegate would be more fitting?

I'll get my coat...

 

[TexRex]

Canadian version of Pizzagate

Worse than the Canadian version of pizza, which is saying something.

Edit: That Shannon Matthews incident is giving me "dingo ate my baby" vibes.

 

[Novalee]

Then where did you read this story about the Queen kidnapping ten First Nation children?

Why? Why is your personal bar for evidence "a guy told me"?

Why is their account apparently identical to the known lie if not directly derived from the known lie and passed around as truth to the gullible for the attention?

These people have told you this thing happened, but they didn't tell you when and, despite apparently being peers with the kids who they say went missing do not know their names. And this doesn't ring any alarms to you?

The Canadian government apologised for the abuses at the school in 2008...

There is no record of the Queen having ever visited the school in 1959. In fact contemporary reports say that the royal party arrived at Fulton Field on the morning of July 14, toured Kamloops with Mayor John Fitzwater by car, and left by train to Chilliwack at 5pm. Yes, I checked (like you should have done).

There is no record of the Queen being in Canada in 1964, which is when the faked story - that's identical to the one you believe - places her at the school.

There is no record of the Queen having visited the school in 1983, as it had been closed by then.

If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.

You don't need belief if you have evidence. That's literally the point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Shannon_Matthews

What does or doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant. You cannot make claims like this without providing evidence. No evidence, no claim.


Worse than that, you are being lied to and you are amplifying the lies. Someone's using you and you don't know it. Set your bar higher. Check information you're told. Don't just scoop up paranoid conspiracy claptrap because you think those in power eat children and it fits into your narrative.

Where did i say people in power eat kids ? Where did i state a had a narrative ? This was the first thing i posted that would be considered negative towards your Queen .

I will also add i never implied the missing kids where killed , only that they are missing. I believe the families and wont apologize for that belief .


Now as far as the unmarked graves kids , there is over a hundred of the residential schools to still be checked and claims of over 10,000 native kids that never made it home from these schools , mostly run by catholics sent over from many parts of the U.K. There is still lots of horror to be uncovered. Now does that mean i will just hate every person from the U.K. ? Not at all , so their is no agenda except an accurate history, good or bad.

 

[Famine]

Where did i say people in power eat kids ? Where did i state a had a narrative ?

I didn't say you said either of those things.

You are accepting something demonstrably false, with all evidence pointing at its falsehood, on no better than "a guy told me". That means one of two things: either you have a perpetually low bar for belief; or you have a specifically low bar for belief where a thing fits into your preconceived notions - your narrative.

If it's the former, you must have been scammed out of everything you own repeatedly for your entire adult life, which I doubt. If it's the latter, you've accepted this fakery because it fits the preconceived notion that those in positions of power and privilege commit and get away with gross crimes that are never followed up on because of their power and privilege - which is the metaphorical eating of children.

In either case though, your bar needs to be higher, because you're here spouting absolute garbage and insisting it's true when it cannot be true, having done absolutely no fact-checking of any kind. Even cursory fact-checking reveals it to be horse****, and the claim is identical - identical - to an even earlier pile of crap from a known crap peddler. You are straight up parroting a conspiracy theory from a whackjob because someone else who took it to be factual with no scrutiny said it to you in person, apparently.


You've been lied to, straight to your face by an attention-seeker... and you're defending it.

 

[Rossell2]

https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out

For the Brits among us if this is something you feel strongly about, here's the link to opt out.

Edit: I thought the link would expand with the explanation. Basically NHS are passing on data to other places.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Basically NHS are passing on data to other places.

Less basically, the official words are as follows:


What is confidential patient information
Confidential patient information is when 2 types of information from your health records are joined together.

The 2 types of information are:

• something that can identify you
• something about your health care or treatment

For example, your name joined with what medicine you take.

Identifiable information on its own is used by health and care services to contact patients and this is not confidential patient information.

How we use your confidential patient information
Your individual care
Health and care staff may use your confidential patient information to help with your treatment and care. For example, when you visit your GP they may look at your records for important information about your health.

Research and planning
Confidential patient information might also be used to:

• plan and improve health and care services
• research and develop cures for serious illnesses

Your choice
You can stop your confidential patient information being used for research and planning. Find out how to make your choice.

If you're happy with your confidential patient information being used for research and planning you do not need to do anything.

Any choice you make will not impact your individual care.

 

[Liquid]

Any choice you make will not impact your individual care.

 

[Novalee]

I didn't say you said either of those things.

You are accepting something demonstrably false, with all evidence pointing at its falsehood, on no better than "a guy told me". That means one of two things: either you have a perpetually low bar for belief; or you have a specifically low bar for belief where a thing fits into your preconceived notions - your narrative.

If it's the former, you must have been scammed out of everything you own repeatedly for your entire adult life, which I doubt. If it's the latter, you've accepted this fakery because it fits the preconceived notion that those in positions of power and privilege commit and get away with gross crimes that are never followed up on because of their power and privilege - which is the metaphorical eating of children.

In either case though, your bar needs to be higher, because you're here spouting absolute garbage and insisting it's true when it cannot be true, having done absolutely no fact-checking of any kind. Even cursory fact-checking reveals it to be horse****, and the claim is identical - identical - to an even earlier pile of crap from a known crap peddler. You are straight up parroting a conspiracy theory from a whackjob because someone else who took it to be factual with no scrutiny said it to you in person, apparently.


You've been lied to, straight to your face by an attention-seeker... and you're defending it.

Except that is not what happened no matter the leaps you make.

If someone tells me something that turns out to be true later on as in 215 unmarked native kids graves which a few weeks ago turned out to be true as i posted in the human rights thread , then why would i question other remarks .
I was told all this in 2011. its now 2021 and one the things i was told turned out to be true.

Infact it is so true that other residential schools are now searching their grounds for unmarked graves .

It is also true most the monsters that ran these schools came from the U.K. Britain to be exact .

As far as what any member of the royal family did on any of their trips here , i will stick with what i was told in 2011 .
Arnetts claim was made in 2020 as per the Reuters article .

 

[Famine]

Except that is not what happened no matter the leaps you make.

If someone tells me something that turns out to be true later on as in 215 unmarked native kids graves which a few weeks ago turned out to be true as i posted in the human rights thread , then why would i question other remarks .

I was told all this in 2011. its now 2021 and one the things i was told turned out to be true.

Infact it is so true that other residential schools are now searching their grounds for unmarked graves .

It is also true most the monsters that ran these schools came from the U.K. Britain to be exact .

You're conflating two separate issues again, almost like it's on purpose to try to confuse things.

The children abused and killed at the school is demonstrably true. The Queen kidnapping ten kids is demonstrably false.

You're amplifying and defending a lie, and your own absolute lack of critical thinking.

As far as what any member of the royal family did on any of their trips here , i will stick with what i was told in 2011 .
Arnetts claim was made in 2020 as per the Reuters article .

It first surfaced on the internet in 2010; 2020 refers only to Annett's own blog. You can with no effort at all, find it quoted in multiple sources in 2010/2011.

Edit: With minor effort, I've since found it appears in Kevin Annett's "documentary" called Unrepentant, published in 2006, and his book of the same name from 2002, along with information that he's been pushing the entire narrative since 1992, before he was ejected from the United Church of Canada in 1997 for... peddling conspiracy theories.


Whoever repeated this claptrap to you in 2011 simply recited it, having done no critical evaluation of it at all. Now you're doing the same.

No names, no dates, no information, just an easily disprovable lie. I remember very clearly when the Queen came to my school in 1991. I remember very clearly the name of the kid who died - one of 750 kids at the school and 1500 across my time there. But your man can't remember when the Queen went to his school or the names of any of the ten kids she took and who vanished.

And you've lapped it up. It speaks volumes to your personal level of proof and agenda.

 

[Novalee]

You're conflating two separate issues again, almost like it's on purpose to try to confuse things.

The children abused and killed at the school is demonstrably true. The Queen kidnapping ten kids is demonstrably false.

You're amplifying and defending a lie, and your own absolute lack of critical thinking.

It first surfaced on the internet in 2010; 2020 refers only to Annett's own blog. You can with no effort at all, find it quoted in multiple sources in 2010/2011.

Edit: With minor effort, I've since found it appears in Kevin Annett's "documentary" called Unrepentant, published in 2006, and his book of the same name from 2002, along with information that he's been pushing the entire narrative since 1992, before he was ejected from the United Church of Canada in 1997 for... peddling conspiracy theories.


Whoever repeated this claptrap to you in 2011 simply recited it, having done no critical evaluation of it at all. Now you're doing the same.

No names, no dates, no information, just an easily disprovable lie. I remember very clearly when the Queen came to my school in 1991. I remember very clearly the name of the kid who died - one of 750 kids at the school and 1500 across my time there. But your man can't remember when the Queen went to his school or the names of any of the ten kids she took and who vanished.

And you've lapped it up. It speaks volumes to your personal level of proof and agenda.

Im not conflating two things , the same people told me the same things .
Now if your main point is do i personaly hold evidence of what happened the answer is no i do not . I will concede that . Have i ever posted on here about the royals running killing everyone ? nope . So there is no agenda on my part against anyone in the royal family .

My grampa served king and country in ww2 and i am very proud of that . I am also first nations and also very proud of that .

Do i hold grudges ? nope. will i move on ? yes i will .

Have a great day and i hope the Queen has a great day also .

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well one thing i give the British credit for is keeping records , it is documented in your country .

Obviously it would be.

If someone tells me something that turns out to be true later on as in 215 unmarked native kids graves which a few weeks ago turned out to be true as i posted in the human rights thread , then why would i question other remarks .

It's obvious to you that one thing being true does not make all things true. Of course you would question other remarks. Famine has demonstrated to you (using sources you could find yourself) why the story doesn't hold water.

If you think it through... if somebody was exercising their power to kidnap children then wouldn't they have them obtained in more secretive ways? Just nadging ten of the buggers on a school visit seems open to question.

 

[UKMikey]

I remember that time in 2021 when someone tried to kidnap the Britain thread...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Daily Mail seems to be a bit confused on this one....

 

[merseyxshore]

Daily Mail seems to be a bit confused on this one....

I expect nothing less from the rag that supported Hitler until Britain declared war on Germany.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I expect nothing less from the rag that supported Hitler until Britain declared war on Germany.

Didsbury. Didsbury.

The only exclusion zones run there are by the hipster proprietors of not-as-good-as-they-should-be eateries that have penny farthings on the walls and sell goji flan.

 

[Famine]

And now there should be no question that it is absolutely not time to universally demask.

 

[Liquid]

"Doctor" Gillian McKeith.

 

[Touring Mars]

Agreed, but I can't help but think that it is a good idea for Gillian McKeith personally to demask, since it makes her more recognisable and thus more likely to get slapped.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Doctor" Gillian McKeith.

I dunno, it says something about the state of British light entertainment when the woman who mashes celebrities' poo with a fork can't get a gig any more

 

[UKMikey]

 

[merseyxshore]

B O D I E D

 

[Stotty]

Handcock wriggling like a fish on a hook and avoiding answering any questions directly... just ‘everything was happening quickly, we were making the best possible decisions’... which totally ruins the purpose of the committee.

Some scary questions on data and privacy that he’s not answered either.

It’s embarrassing.

 

[Liquid]

It’s embarrassing.

YouGov:

Conservative - +4 (48%)

 

[Stotty]

I guess that’s not too much of a surprise as the Uk public seem to love having their freedoms and civil liberties destroyed and the opposition parties are pretty much invisible.

 

[merseyxshore]

The right have been very successful worldwide of late with making people fear the left above all else. Boris could execute a puppy live on air and lose not support at this point.

 

[TheCracker]

The right have been very successful worldwide of late with making people fear the left above all else. Boris could execute a puppy live on air and lose not support at this point.

I blame boomers starting to slip into senility for it. Its the only logical explanation, to largely go against what their parents likely fought for in WWII.

(i can blame boomers guilt-free as my parents are, just, pre-boomer war babies)

 

[Daz555]

I guess that’s not too much of a surprise as the Uk public seem to love having their freedoms and civil liberties destroyed and the opposition parties are pretty much invisible.

Well the English gifted the Tories an 80 seat majority. Opposition is largely impossible with such a majority.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well the English gifted the Tories an 80 seat majority. Opposition is largely impossible with such a majority.

I think it's more that Labour has an identity crisis rather than the size of the Con majority.