In an exclusive interview for BBC Newsnight, Sir Elton John expressed his frustration that tech giants are not doing enough to keep people safe online and said he would urge people to stop using social platforms that don’t take the abuse seriously.
Sir Elton spoke to Kirsty Wark after delivering The Diana, Princess of Wales Lecture on HIV in London.
Please subscribe HERE http://bit.ly/1rbfUog
I hope that nobody leaps to hasty conclusions about Sir Elton John. Despite rumors that the Queen knights a lot of pedophiles, it would be incorrect to say that everyone who has been knighted is a pedophile. Probably, Her Majesty has knighted a number of individuals who are not pedophiles. I would not be at all surprised if that should turn out to be the case. We should give to all persons who have been knighted the benefit of the doubt. We are all innocent until proved guilty, of course. Except for hate crimes, where the "perception" of the "offended" decides the matter.
But wasn't former BBC presenter (and pedophile) Sir Jimmy Savile _also_ fond of wearing rose-colored glasses?
i think i have more rights than elton john against being terrorised as my children have the rights to be left alone and terrorised by gangs using torture and extortion, sabotage on them being media or evil protagonists in rape and extortion using criminels and terrorists engaging in it, be it medical staff or be it sadistic clans or be it hooliganteachers or be them rapists and criminels engaging in terror and torture to those being hunted down and blocked and hindered for the work done by me is real work under uttermost evil terror done by rapists and terrorists using torture and blockage and sabotage to person fighting this terror and organised crimes, which are crimes against health of children also.
He is a gay, means he likes it deep in his butts and throat. A normal, balanced man like weman. This unstable gay stands to teach us morals! Something is wrong with the world! That's what BBC does prompt abnormalities and low ethics under the pretext of freedom of speech and sexcuality
no election is being rigged, for critisim to politics and sadism done by media, planned by religionists, sadists, hackers and terrorists and psychopaths is blocking and sabotaging truth in any way possible and even blocking and sabotaging those informing about cruelty, which will have to be suffered by the next generation to come, for it is already planned by the psychopaths ruling politics and media, educating children how to be violent and sadistic, while "mapping tears" of those they terrorise.
There is something like misogyny by homosexuels also, and there is a crime which is done by them also, for a child abused by churchmembers includes girls also, which are harrassed for being "experimented" on by violent sadistic circles, which may be "communities" interested in the harrassement and "torture to girls" first, as if musicindustry were interested in crimes by their brotherhoods of cowardness united in terror. still janis joplin is the winner of the "contest", for her words are true as mine are.
there is just one stigma and that is to have been terrorised by sadists, fanatics or churchmembers, terrorists, but still there is no stigma to those engaging in terror and torture by experimentation on even persons, who did nothing wrong, but want to flee those terroristis circles in their psychopathic engagement.
I really like you Elton and your music and have prayed for you in the past, but you are continuing to live an immoral life which is perverted and wrong and won't recognise this. God has made it abundantly clear this life style is an abomination to Him, and grieves his Holy Spirit. He has also given you a conscience to know right from wrong. I ask you "What does it profit a man if he gains
the whole world and loses his own soul?" He will spend eternity in Hell separated from the Loving Heavenly Father he will long to be with. You must change your ways Elton and stop falsely justifying them before it is too late. People really care about you, but you must listen to them. Stop listening to false friends who do not care that you spend eternity in Hell. Still praying for you Elton.
God Bless: Anne in Skye.
I had no idea that I was any kind of an intellectual, let alone someone of the "quasi" variety, but thankyou anyway - most flattering! As I am a New Zealander (lived in England for many years, 1960`s -70`s, last over there 2013, back again this October) and am not therefore directly exposed on any kind of on going basis to the BBC, I don`t feel I can justly or accurately be accused of a perception of reality through their "filter", and the only pills I take and have ever taken are white - the ones I take daily to keep at bay the cancer I went a couple of rounds with in 2014.
Looking back, I believe I went through a perfectly normal non threatening non satanic safe and secure NZ state school system in the 1950`s and early 1960`s, and can recall no paedophile (note correct spelling) scandals or even vague suggestions of paedophilia among my peers of the time. Perhaps your experience of school was different. Perhaps you have had in that context or since, direct personal experience of paedophilia and "satanism". Once again, I invite you to share.
The balance of your barely in control although undeniably funny ravings do of course reveal nothing more than your extremely unhealthy obsession with the subjects of homosexuality, paedophilia and "satanism", and your general small minded fundamentalism.
Nice job though in side stepping addressing the easily verified facts about adrenochrome (you might try, as I did to begin with, the Oxford English Dictionary - nothing like good old fashioned books!) and anything else I invited you to respond to in terms of documented, verifiable fact as opposed to unverified, unpleasant loony-isms derived from the more extreme and sillier net sites which are never a sensible place to gain accurate, balanced unbiased information. Although of course I do appreciate that those are the kind of sites you would fly to with all the uncanny instincts of homing pigeon.....
Your quasi intellectual comment reveals to me that you are thoroughly blue pilled and oblivious to reality and the nature of it. And that you perceive reality through the filter of the BBC.
You are a perfect example of the satanic pedophile educational system.
You know, the system that is based on the teachings of the self declared incest committer and extreme racist Charles Darwin. And of course the perverse scribblings of the self declared homosexual pedophile Siegmund Freud. And combined with the ludicrous nonsense of the self declared satanist Karl Marx with his fully retarded "das Kapital", you have the perfect basis for comments like yours.
So he "looks like an adrenochrome addict" to you... You can tell that simply by looking at him! Remarkable! That rather suggests that you have had some close up front and personal experience of adrenochrome "addicts" - all the more interesting as there is no evidence that adrenochrome is in fact addictive, hence its not falling within the US Controlled Substances Act - but do please share your personal experiences! It`s "a drug extracted from the spine of children". Actually, notwithstanding the nonsense to be found on several sensationalist, dodgy and hysterical web sites (clearly where you`re getting your mis-information from), it`s actually produced from the oxidisation - or vapourisation - of adrenaline - epinephrine. No human material of any kind is used in the production of adrenochrome. However, the laughable nonsense is what you want/need to believe, and that of course is what you`ll go with. Fact, naturally, must not take precedence over your fantasies.
He is "a paedophile, a child rapist". Again , you can tell that just by looking at him! Astonishing! Or do you have actual authenticated documented evidence you are able to present in support of your contention? Again, do please share! He additionally has "the look of the typical satanist". Once again you can tell a satanist just by looking at them. A marvellous gift, and how delightfully medieval you are in your adherence to primitive superstitious belief !
The Oxford Dictionary defines homophobia as " Contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and is often related to religious beliefs.... observable in critical and hostile behaviour such as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientations that are non heterosexual".
All the attitudes and negative qualities you voice and project, so I really do think that in your case "the phobia thing" actually does work, don`t you?
I think old dear that you rather than me are the one in a state of some confusion. You actually clearly *are* afraid of the gay fraternity, male and female, on a number of silly, illogical pathetic levels - which include in addition to the above, intolerance, disgust, tiny mindedness, an absurd equation of homosexuality with paedophilia and a lack of any ability to advance your thinking and attitudes in this area or the area of religion, beyond the thinking of the 1500`s. I`m perfectly content to leaving you dwelling there...
Whatever. Mr John still looks like an adrenochrome addict to me. A drug extracted from the spine of children.
A pedophile, a child rapist. That how he comes across.
That look of the typical satanist, the spiritual nitwit.
And throwing in the phobia thing won't work, because in reality nobody is a afraid of sissies.
You confuse fear with disgust.
* A.Q.* Thank you "hun" for your good wishes which appeared in my email box, but which you swiftly deleted from under Harriet Boateng`s sweet old fashioned and delightful statement nearer the top of the page. I feel you see that derisive laughter is the only sensible response to the ravings of homophobes who are additionally afflicted with religious fundamentalism and a mind set that is firmly medieval. And no "honey", I`m not gay, just an old fellow of 73 whose attitudes and outlooks evolved many decades ago though I am, naturally, deeply disturbed that you should think me a "complete and utter spiritual nitwit"! Incidentally, the present day wide scientific community does not accept the hypothesis voiced by Abraham Hoffer and Humphry Osmond in the 1960`s, that Adrenochrome (note the correct spelling, and where is the verifiable evidence of your statement that Mr John is an addict, other than your wish to believe that he is?) is a neurotoxin that may play a part in schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. There is in fact no contemporary evidence to suggest that Adrenochrome has any ability to induce psychedelic experiences, and it is not a substance which falls within the US Controlled Substances Act. Keep smiling, babe! (^_^)
#FreeTommy please spread the word the Government has moved Tommy Robinson to Leicester Prison with a 71% Muslim population to make sure he dies. If you know a guard or prisoner inside, contact them to make sure Tommy stays safe.
This is an SOS.
No more immoral practices unclean immoral behavior is causing sexually transmitted disease. Why does God command do not commit fornication adultery homosexuality. God honestly warned man about wrong behavior unclean behavior. God commanded hate what is bad love what is good. Hate bad immoral behavior. Love does not create sexually transmitted disease.
When I was a kid and heard the Philadelphia freedom song, I thought he was singing about us overthrowing the Monarchy and having a constitution guaranteeing freedom from oppressive government. I was shocked to later find out the song was about being gay
Homosexuality is an abomination to man kind,it's A curse in every sense of the word.God loves you but he doesn't love your sin and it is A incorrect teaching it's just plain as that.We can love our neighbors but don't teach it like it's not an incorrect behavior!If everyone did what this man is doing we would cease to exist as A species.Look at Japan right now on birth rates,there's your model.
Now you know why Gnosticism became so popular in the early Church. They believed the Creator was evil and that the true loving God is higher than the Creator, the true God who calls us home from this dark world of enslavement. This of course was dealt with nicely by Saint Augustine, whose 'Confessions' you should read for a good exposition on the true nature of evil, which Augustine discribes as simply the absense of good. Therefore anyone who is good possesses God, whether they know it or not.
The area of theology that deals with the problem of evil is called Theodicy, again, this is another thing you should be studying, don't stop here, go find those answers.
I'm putting the blame on the supposed creator. Nope, I don't really give a shit, you're missing the point. Either your god is a sadist for creating another level of sin, or he's just too lazy too think things through. After all you're the one who claimed it wasn't supposed to occur in humans. Hmmm.
Sorry, not buying it. I suggest we stop wasting eachother's time.
You rightfully understand that this world is full of suffering and injustice, but you put the blame in the wrong place. You wanted the world to be an ordered paradise like it was when you were child in the family home, but later came to realise that the world offers little assurance of lasting peace and security, i understand, yet God provides us a way out of this mess by strengthening our faith and hope for laster peace and security in the next life to come. Heaven is described as a timeless eternity where there isn't any possiblity for change, therefore it has lasting security, because things that cannot change are secured. It also offers peace, because it's a place of the fullest happiness and love. The world cannot offer hope, but God can. All things are destined to die, it's inevitable, so the only things necessary is to prepare our eternal home.
God created the world so that we could grow from nothingness into something which can ultimately experience true love. This cannot be achieved without free-will, but free-will comes with consequences, these we must overcome with patience and humility.
Read "The Consolation of Philosophy" by Boethius, if you wish to solve this dillema for yourself.
Uhu, he just wires their brains in a certain way, but that's not his responsiblity, right? Yes, the world he so sloppily threw together.
Oh, yes. Raping a woman and sending her own son to be tortured and killed (Evidently lazy god was too lazy to go himself. Shocker.) to prove a point to his ramshackle creation. How kind and loving.
Nope. God fucked up and he can clean up his all-powerful mess on his own.
Like i said, he doesn't make someone gay. Homosexuality is just one of the unfortunate consequences of living in this world, but as most people are not gay, that means the vast majority of us are not suffering this _terrible affliction,_ although there are other afflictions to overcome.
Is God lazy? Nope, He sent Jesus to teach people the way back to God. Jesus laboured hard for the souls of the damned, even suffering the worst possible death to redeem us, even though many of us don't deserve it. That's not sadism, that true love, and i accept it. He puts great effort into his creation, He's still saving souls as we speak.
God has outstretched his hand to you, all you have to do is take it, it's a free gift.
Men are taking their own lives in huge numbers, Sir Elton, and it's got a lot less to do with online bullying than it has to do with them losing their jobs, homes, kids, money and reputations by bullying from the divorce/family courts, feminists and social justice activists (a.k.a. vigilantes) supported by the mainstream media demonizing men and boys (particularly the white ones) and the almost total lack of acknowledgment, by society, of the serious issues men and boys face in general.
Jennifer Loftus - Typical stock response from a female who's either been brainwashed by the media or is simply displaying the average female's capacity for self-obsession.
I don't *need* to *imagine* how women feel, - they and the mainstream media and the politicians and the feminists are talking about it *all the time* and have been for ever and a day. Some feminist groups actively prevent men's issues from being raised and discussed in public forum! Some even stopped a domestic violence refuge for men being abused by women from being opened. They demanded it be for women only even though there were already 20 refuges for women and 0 (zero) for men in the county! BTW, 40% of domestic violence is female on male.
There already exist plenty of laws against threatening and/or abusive written/spoken words. We really don't need more - it would risk impinging on an individual's free speech and free expression. While nobody has the right to say anything they want and be totally immune from any negative consequences as a result of what they choose to say, it is also the case that nobody has the right to "not be offended".
The real issue regarding tackling online (e.g. social media) "abuse" is the lack of access to affordable litigation using the existing laws. Only a court of law should be able to decide what is "abuse" and what is not. It is *not* the responsibility of social media platforms to decide - being unelected bodies and essentially just utility companies, they have neither the mandate nor the legal expertise to do so - they certainly won't have the impartiality either. We don't demand the telecommunication companies to monitor and moderate all telephone calls do we?!!!
I really don't understand why celebrates believe they can express their opinions as facts. Prince Charles is inspirational? Really? In my opinion millions of Britons will disagree with him. Or is Elton John talking about people who may be inspired to be unfaithful and forget their wedding vows? Homosexual people are less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals? Really? And on what evidence does he base this statement? We live in the post truth world. Because celebrities express their opinions, this does not make them statements of fact...
Yes. To my mind the royal family are nothing more than hereditary high-end welfare scroungers. We are living in the second decade of the third millennium. You have to wonder what future historians will make of our nonsense society.
yes - I know exactly what it means. But not relevant here. You have free speech - no one will prevent you from saying "I hate homosexuals". No one will try. It's not illegal, and it's not 'hate speech', or whatever you think. No one will prevent you from saying "I hate gays and would like to see them excluded from (whatever)".
BUT you'd find yourself in trouble fairly quick if you stood up in front of people in a public place and said "I hate gays and I think you people here in the crowd should kill them".
And in fact the same thing would fall foul of the law in the US.
The legal mechanism would be a bit different but the results are pretty much the same. Theirs is probably clearer.