andyh wrote: I agree.
I just thought I mention it before a false sense of security took hold.

andyh wrote:
Economic horrors are not ignored, people who have been drawn into conspiracy subjects by curiosity or shock about Savile etc will soon encounter information and links about banking and the financial system.

andyh wrote:

No.

But if we get this wrong, it could all be over very quickly for us as a site so if anything, a little won't go amiss from where I'm sitting.

musky wrote:
They've had plenty of time to see it.
Its not even 'conspiracy theory' either, just plain outright fact. Which perhaps makes it less 'exciting' to touch upon the psychological aspect psketti mentions a couple of posts up

I think a whole dedicated website is the way to go too. To provide help and assistance to victims and somewhere people can be pointed in the right direction if necessary. We on here could spread the word as need be. I know people who are newly awake to all this after Jimmy Savile myself included. Now I like forums but I know lots of people that don't and would not join here but obviously with links from here and people can choose to join in if they wish.

As for paedophilia being more acceptable in the 1970's and 1980's well you know it really was not talked about like it is now - it was the image of a dirty old man.

A relative of mine who was looked on as "mental" with all her many problems, well she accused her father of sexually abusing her when she was 14 or so, now this was in the 1980's when she was in her 30's and the whole family thought she was screwed up but turns out it was true and it was finally acknowledged by SOME just 2 years ago but not by her own sister. So sad.

A bit like gays were not talked about, now I must have worked in numerous places since those times yet I never knowingly worked with a gay person, how could that be? That's what I was trying to get across in the deleted post the other night.

In the 1960's and early 70's it was not uncommon for girls to give up babies for adoption as abortion was extremely hard to get on the NHS. If 2 people lived together without being married they would be gossiped about.

Different times - different mindsets. More close minded than today and more deferential to our so called betters.

psketti wrote:
The 50 posts per minute during October and November 2012, and the amount of posters who read and read til 5 or 6am, just speak for themselves - it was undeniably compelling to start to see many of the things you'd taken for granted for decades exposed as corrupt and sordid. I'm not describing child abuse as 'entertaining' I'm talking about the media storm and the way so many different and new people came together all at once to learn more. I'm also talking about the impact of it on newcomers to conspiracy matters, who will be looking at the 'disturbing corpse' for the first time.

musky wrote:
Highly unlikely imo.
The bulk of the people who paid attention to the Savile thing are the people who are enthralled by celebrity gossip and will tut and be indignant about his actions until a Kardashian dropping their keks or a Miley Cyrus twearking draws their goldfish attention elsewhere.

psketti wrote:
I see little choice in the matter tbh.
Anything considered libellous would just have to be deleted and if they don't like it tough titty.

I'm surprised stormfront still exists lol.
For example- www.hopenothate.org.uk/international/art...ckdown-on-stormfront

feather wrote:
Nevertheless, there are (or were, I don't know if the mods have swiped them) countless posts on that thread by new posters saying how they had spent the last weeks blown away by the connections with royalty, police, NHS, BBC etc, and hundreds upon hundreds of similar comments on Youtube vids etc. Lots of people first woke up because of this subject.

As they supposedly 'woke up' after 911 musky.
They're STILL talking about 911 even now, lol.

I'm sorry but I'm not convinced

@feather - a members only forum has greater protection from libel than one that guests/public can view. Whilst people can sue for libel over something posted in private - any case would be weaker.

Making the section members only with dedicated facilitators would help to ensure that anything potentially libelous could be removed quickly and with less chance of it being 'seen'

I do get what you are saying about those interested solely in csa discussion can start their own forum and therefore be in complete control over it - it makes sense in many ways

However I would hope that this place can offer sanctuary for those who have turned up here and somewhere to at least discuss the option of creating their own forum and somewhere to call home until if/when one is up and running - If a new forum is created then I would hope this one would signpost others to it and as ever we can all be members of both.

andyh wrote:
Yes, it just can't be denied. No revelations about banking corruption caused thousands of people to sit up all night, fascinated and horrified as many attested, reading page after page. I'm talking about what's going to get the 'average' person interested in conspiracy themes.

andyh wrote:
But how many have 'woken up' since 9/11, it's exponential. Compare the last twelve years to the twelve years before that in terms of how many people discussed these subjects. Strength grows in numbers. We can't do anyhting about much yet, but the more people are aware the more hope there is.

thoreau wrote:
Anyone can sign up and see the content, so that would make it whats considered a 'public' forum unfortunately.
The prosecution would certainly see it that way.

If it was by vetted invite only then that would be different.

musky wrote:
Depends what you define as 'woken up' musky.
I don't see Icke or Jones as being 'woken up'. Thats the point I'm getting at.

andyh wrote:
By 'waking up' I mean the initial, disturbing and life-changing, realisation that we as a world population have systematically been fed lies and propaganda for generations and are wide open to being preyed upon by organised psychopaths.

thoreau wrote: I still dispute your premise regarding the members only access protection.

Other than the site's title, we can offer no such thing as a sanctuary from legal action or demands for redress and it is an ridiculously unfair pressure to put non-professional volunteer moderators in the position of deciding what does and does not constitute libelous or defamatory statements or allegations.

I have been a big advocate to SZ providing links to related forums and resources I would certainly have supported a link to any group set up to increase awareness of and help and advice those being abused.

I believe this is a single topic issue which deserves not to be lost in amongst a plethora of other topics discussed on SZ.

andyh wrote:
From what I have read chances are it would be treated as slander rather than libel and either way up the case does depend on the extent to which the information may have been viewed, ie. a Red Top newspaper printing the same thing we post in vent are completely different cases dues to the 'reach' so restricting it to members means it isn't available to view by the whole www.

Slander is spoken

Libel is printed

feather wrote:
Internet grey area.

www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/bulletin-boards-slander-or-libel