Mother Jones: Assault Weapons Ban Won't Work

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I noticed it said google Hollie Greg at the end of the video.
CHoff

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

choff wrote:I noticed it said google Hollie Greg at the end of the video.
Right up your alley:

So who is Hollie Grieg? Hollie lived in Aberdeen, Scotland. Her family consisted of Anne, her mother, Father Denis and brother Greg. It was back in 2000 when Hollie told her mum something very disturbing that any mother dreads to hear - that she had been repeatedly sexually abused by her father, Denis Charles Mackie and by her brother Greg. This abuse stemmed back to when Hollie was six years old, Hollie also told her mum that her brother Greg had also been abused by his father. We hear of such horror stories many times especially when another member of the family is also abused and that person then becomes part of the spider's web.

As one would expect Anne immediately reported the incident to the Grampian Police in Aberdeen and it was then that things started to go so terribly wrong. Over a period of time Hollie started to recall the names of those that had abused her. Anne eventually learnt that her husband Denis had offered his daughter to an extended ring of pedophiles. One can imagine the terrible abuse, psychological pain and humiliation that Hollie endured during this period and the terrible pain that mum also endured.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnists/ ... greig.html

==

Hollie Greg Case – Robert Green Due For Release – An Innocent Man

http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2012/ ... 33145.html

===

A week or so back I exposed a very real and very troubling matter. - That the de facto situation is Scottish victims and alleged victims of sexual assault are not being given the same protection under law as their English counterparts. That the interpretation of the law taught to young media professionals as ‘safe’ is being undermined. And that an English Police force are acting in a manner which potentially opens the floodgates for every nasty crank, pervert and pervert’s apologist to target those against whom a sexual offence is committed or is alleged to have been committed in Scotland!

Privately, representatives of various rights groups are as appalled as I am - publically or on any form of record they will not respond. Why? Because the key example I cite is associated with the Hollie Grieg case. And that case is rendered ‘toxic’ as far as any reporting or association is concerned. - I find it disappointing that credible organisations which otherwise work so hard for victims' rights feel they cannot afford to be associated with the matter; even though the particular issues in question are merely tertiary to Hollie’s case and have such grave implications for Scottish victims of crime. - And indeed the detection and prosecution of such crimes.

http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/

====

as you will note from my comment on Pt.1 of this series exposing the Hollie Greig hoax in confirmation of my exposure of the scam in April 2010 I had some difficulties with streaming but the soundtack, although a little stilted, would seem to be complete and lasts for between 7 & 10 minutes per 'episode' (Part).

I do not believe there is one shred of valid evidence indicating that Hollie Greig was ever sexually abused by anyone, I am pleased to say, despite reports which seem to be dishonestly misrepresented, the reports claiming or seeming to claim abuse are without a shred of medical evidence to back them and the entire story is clearly without any credibility lacking one iota of corroborative or substantive evidence and not a single word of addmissible evidence of any serious value.

http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2012/07/g0663- ... ed_25.html

====

Twenty-two people in and around Aberdeen have been accused of being paedophiles by campaigners styling themselves as "Hollie's Army".

Those named include a prominent sheriff who supposedly abused children at the home of his sister, despite the fact he does not have a sister.

And in a clear breach of laws designed to protect victims of sex crimes, another seven people have been named as rape victims along with Hollie.

Four of the "victims" would have been in their 20s at the time of the abuse. Two police investigations have resulted in no charges.

and

The campaign's battle cry is "Google Hollie Greig". If you do, you get more than 400,000 results.


http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2012/06/g0656- ... se-in.html

====

If I wanted to get information out and at the same time get it mostly disbelieved I would attach it to something like the "Hollie 'Greg' " story.

In any case we have McCoy. and "Mohammed Atta and The Venice Flying Circus"
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

False memory in these child abuse cases are not uncommon. We had that hysteria in the US a while back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_s ... e_hysteria

McMartin Preschool
Main article: McMartin preschool trial

The case started in August 1983 when Judy Johnson, the mother of a 2½ year-old boy reported to the police that her son was abused by Raymond Buckey at the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California.[1] After seven years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. As of 2006, it is the longest and most expensive criminal trial in the history of the United States.[1] The accusations involved hidden tunnels, killing animals, Satan worship, and orgies.[4] Judy Johnson was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia[5][6] and in 1986 was found dead in her home from complications of chronic alcoholism.[7] Buckey and his mother, Peggy McMartin, were eventually released without any charges. In 2005 one of the testifying children retracted his testimony and said he lied, to protect his younger siblings and to please his parents.[8]

In The Devil in the Nursery in 2001, Margaret Talbot for The New York Times summarized the case:

"When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80s — the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities."[9]

=======
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

One thing that always got me was that the CIA was involved with the drug smuggling in S.E. Asia while fighting the communists, meanwhile western companies with intelligence and military connections were aiding and abetting the NVA.


http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/

I've been following the Hollie case on UK column for a while along with other stories, still not decided either way, remember the hysteria back in the '80's very well.

The Dutreaux and Franklin cases are another story.
CHoff

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

Forgot to mention Jimmy Saville and Jersey Island.
CHoff

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Well Simon, if you want to acuse me of making things up, I would appreciate you citing specifics.

I was seeking to incite you to define "exposure" and also cite your basis for your numbers. Apparently I struck a nerve, which in turn caused one of your predictable wandering vomits of cut and post from old blog garbage and conspiracy theorists.

As for your offered numbers of addiction rates (45% exposure), and 1% addiction, maybe you should actually read up on Lee Robin's work as well as re-look at McCoy. If you truly did int he first place.

Like here is a starting point:

http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/201 ... -part-one/
She found a 20 percent rate of heroin addiction among returning soldiers using the subjective self-identification criteria for being psychologically addicted to heroin coupled with the more objective criteria of testing positive for opiates through urine screening. The 20 percent heroin addiction rate among military personnel in Vietnam is slightly lower than the 23 percent rate of addiction among the general U.S. population who use heroin. If they tested positive for opiates in their urine and/or reported that they were psychologically addicted to heroin, the soldiers were required to complete a military drug treatment program before they were eligible to return home to the U.S. However if the soldiers were able to stay clean for three days before their urine screen and did not-self-report psychological dependence, they would screen negative for heroin addiction and would not have been included in the relapse cohort for Robins study.
Points to note, your 1% does not match the authoritative study of the day which found 20% addiction rate in returning soldiers.
The actual rate was probably higher, as a percentage would have slipped through using the purge & lie techniques.

Also note that even with treatment, there was a relapse rate of 5% within a year of her tracked group (those who did the mandatory rehab) and 12% after 3 years. One of the study indications is that early treatment and abstinance is more successful, when one considers a general public relapse rate of 65% (may is also arguably influenced by environment post treatment). Of note is that there was another study (White House sponsored) that showed about a 1/3 continued addiction rate for returning addicts after two years that even your vaunted Mccoy cites in his book.

This is also an informative read when you actually do it, that once again refutes your 1% notion:
http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/centr ... ietnam.htm

My points in the previous posting was two fold. One was to spin you up. (it worked as usual), and the other was to point out that what you alleged made no sense. It was easy enough to do with only looking at the medical usage category (which you prompted with your "personal anecdote"). Of course I knowingly offered a fallacy, in which I ignored total population. I did this to further isolate your 1% nonsense.

You, once again, were so focused on your misrepresentational indoctrination efforts, that you failed to see the real issue in your self defeating argument.

1% my ass. Your own references even call you out.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mother Jones: Assault Weapons Ban Won't Work

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
MSimon wrote:http://blanksslate.blogspot.com/2013/01 ... ainst.html

and closes with:

In no other arena of public policy, save perhaps drug policy, would such inefficacy be so proudly touted as meaningful. And perhaps most frustrating, there is going to be so much self-righteous ink spilled all over this absolutely worthless legislation that, even if passed, will have no meaningful effect on gun violence. What a miserable waste of time and energy is on the immediate horizon.

Welcome to D.C.'s latest dog and pony show.

====


I am most amused.
It is a sacrament of Libertarian faith that the drug war has no beneficial effect whatsoever. A very significant example in history that proves this belief false is studiously ignored.

I am amused as well.

And yet - with prohibition or without the opiate using population in America has stayed stuck at 1.3%. Why?

I know this is a dumb question, but if drug usage doesn't grow, how did we ever get to 1.3%?


Weren't we at 0% at some point?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

I think his point was the prohibition doesn't seem to have affected usage, not that usage never changes.
Carter

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

kcdodd wrote:I think his point was the prohibition doesn't seem to have affected usage, not that usage never changes.


The possibility that the drug war holds usage down is simply unthinkable.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

I don't think its effective no. One could kill everyone that uses a drug, and that would probably cut usage. But I don't consider that effective. In my book the same goes for incarceration, except that wouldn't even necessarily cut usage.
Carter

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

kcdodd wrote:I don't think its effective no. One could kill everyone that uses a drug, and that would probably cut usage. But I don't consider that effective. In my book the same goes for incarceration, except that wouldn't even necessarily cut usage.


So you don't even consider the possibility that the drug war is what is holding usage down?



I assume you are aware that usage in China skyrocketed to the point where even the Drug Library claims a 50% addiction rate?



And yes, they did solve their addiction problem by killing the addicts. You can call it horrible and evil, but you can't deny that it worked.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

Well, if china did it...
Carter

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

kcdodd wrote:Well, if china did it...


Irrelevant to the point. Just because something works, does not mean that it is the ONLY thing that might work.


Just because China solved the problem that way does not make it the only possible solution. Obviously Americans have no stomach for the Chinese solution, and would rather live with whatever bad consequences exist from tolerating the status quo.

(As with alcohol, which causes ~75,000 deaths per year. We are willing to put up with that. )


I argue that usage is currently 2% because Americans will not tolerate efforts to make it lower.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

My approach is chop off the head of the beast. That means go after the bent politicians and banksters that drug cartels need to survive in the first place. This is a very small group when compared to all the drug users, and it's the prodigy of the same group that forced China to import opium.

This prodigy is also the same people who are wrecking the economy. They are also the same people who encourage and profit from war. They are the same people who financed the Bolshevik revolution, the rise of Hitler, the Soviet war machine, Chinese Communism and the NVA. Google search Antony C Sutton or Mao was a Yale man if you think otherwise. The exact same people who created the first Soviet five year plan drew up the New Deal.

Over three hundred years ago, there was no significant drug abuse problem in the world, certainly they had PTSD, but nothing on misery scale like after the drug cartels. There would be a few small isolated areas where people would occasionally use the precursors of todays narcotics, and they had minor alcohol problems. It was only when global trade routes were being established that business saw the potential in spreading addiction throughout, by force whenever needed.

Imagine if China had won the opium war, 100 million fewer addicts, they would never have to cure the problem by killing them in the first place. They would have been able to stand up to Japanese invasion, probably no communism too.

Don't be fooled into thinking it's a left versus right problem, that's the Hegelian trap they set for you. In the drug war, like any other war, just to break even you must fight to win, if you aim for a draw you will certainly lose.

People who say we can't go after the top players because they have too much power are working for the other side.
CHoff

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Chop off the head of the beast?

Is that going to work? Those folks have been running the trade for 200 years.

And you assume drugs cause addiction. That is not scientific. But drugs make people irrational, stupid, and unable to concentrate. The effect is strong with or without use. Amazing.

==

Here is what Dr. Shavelson found in his study of 200 addicts: a high proportion of severely abused children (beatings, rapes, rapes of siblings). He questioned his study methodology. He thought there must have been a flaw in how his sample was selected or in how the questions he asked were framed.

Then while he was doing his research, an article came out in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said that the addiction rate goes up for male sexually abused children. And it doesn't just double or triple. It is 25 to 50 times higher than the rest of the population. Approximately 70% of the women in drug rehab experienced sexual abuse before they started on drugs. In other words, those heroine addicts not in actual physical pain are suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. What is the preferred treatment in America today for these hurt and humiliated souls? We don't deal with the pain that made them liable for drug abuse. We ask that before they can be healed that they heal themselves by giving up drugs. And then we wonder why rehab for hard-core addicts does not work too well. But how could it when the treatment does not match the disease.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/heroin.html

====

If heroin use bothers you - a focus on child abuse would be the most direct attack on the system short of relegalization. Thing is - relegalization would put them out of business overnight. The child abuse reductions will take 15 to 40 years to have an effect on the business. Its effect on some children would be immediate.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply