PARASITES: cast-off ministers given golden goodbyes of almost £90,000 including payment to richest MP in Commons

553210_3675287878960_551982437_nTories and Liberal Democrats axed in the reshuffle will receive a total of £88,687 on ‘Money Monday’ in Whitehall.

Taxpayers face forking out almost £90,000 in “golden goodbyes” to reject ministers today.

Tories and Liberal Democrats axed in the recent reshuffle can pocket up to £17,000 apiece tax free on what has been dubbed Money Monday in Whitehall.

Conservative Richard Benyon – the richest MP in the Commons, who stands to inherit £110million – is in line for more than £5,000 of public money.

Officials say that the severance pay is a legal entitlement but Ireland is changing the law to end the cash for cast-offs scheme there as part of austerity measures.

Campaigning MP John Mann said that the UK should follow suit.

Labour’s Mr Mann said: “There is no basis whatsoever for paying this in Britain. We should follow their lead.

“These people are still getting generous MPs’ pay. It is an insult to people struggling across the country that they get a golden handshake.”

All departing ministers are entitled to three months pay if they do not get another job within three weeks.

That means that those dumped in the last reshuffle can claim the cash from today.

Former Cabinet minister Michael Moore is set to pocket £17,042 after he was sacked as Scotland Secretary.

Fellow Lib Dem Jeremy Browne is among five ex-Ministers of State who are in line for £8,086 after being axed.

Conservative Simon Burns can also pocket the huge sum even though he quit to stand unsuccessfully for Deputy Commons Speaker.

Benyon is one of three junior ministers who are entitled to £5,760 each. Three of his fellow Tories get £4,646 after leaving the whips office. Two of them, John Randall and Greg Knight, have also received knighthoods.

In all, taxpayers face paying out £88,687 to ex-ministers.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “Severance pay is widely used across both private and public sectors. Ministerial severance pay has been required under legislation since 1991.”

But low tax pressure group the TaxPayers’ Alliance echoed John Mann’s call for the payments to be axed.

Spokesman Jonathan Isaby said: “When money is so tight and David Cameron talks about wanting to reduce the cost of politics, it beggars belief that these golden goodbyes are still being doled out to ex-ministers.

“After all, having left these posts, they will all still get the MPs’ annual salary of more than £66,000.

“MPs taking on a ministerial role know full well that it’s no job for life and ought to be planning their finances accordingly.

“Taxpayers will be especially baffled that even those who resigned of their own accord still get these tax-free payments worth thousands: which of their constituents working in the private sector would get a bumper payday for quitting their job?”

ARTICLE: Eric Joyce M.P., Patrick Mercer M.P., and Mike Hancock M.P. -”PERFECT EXAMPLES OF PARLIAMENT’S LOW STANDARDS”

In any other profession, the three errant MPs would have been shown the door.

A few weeks ago, James Arbuthnot, after a long and almost pointless career, announced that he was standing down as a Conservative MP. Mr Arbuthnot, whose final position was as chairman of the backbench defence committee, gave an interview which seemed to suggest that he was now hoping to find jobs in the defence business. He could not resist one final, parting bleat: “The constant assumption that everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook, gets very debilitating after a bit.”

Mr Arbuthnot, whose expenses claim as revealed in the Telegraph included a bill for work on the family swimming pool, money he later repaid, was voicing a characteristic complaint among members of the political class. They are convinced that they are underpaid, under-appreciated and asked to uphold standards that would never be expected from an ordinary person.

This view needs challenging as urgently as ever. Five years after the expenses investigation revealed evidence of criminality, fraud, cheating and greed among a substantial minority of MPs, there is still a problem. I only have space here to look at three examples, one from each main political party, each exposing the way that Parliament tolerates disgraceful conduct that would not be allowed in any other walk of life.

The first involves Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk, who head-butted a Conservative MP and caused damage and mayhem in the Strangers Bar of the House of Commons. At a later date he wrestled two policemen to the ground during a karaoke night at the Sports and Social Bar. There was another episode in an airport, but that is a complicated story and need not detain us here.

The second concerns the Conservative Patrick Mercer, who was exposed by BBC Panorama and the Telegraph for accepting £4,000 (by a reporter pretending to represent the Fiji government) to ask parliamentary questions.

The third case is the most topical: the Lib Dem Mike Hancock, who has been accused of making a series of inappropriate advances towards a female constituent suffering from mental health problems.

According to an internal Lib Dem report carried out by a QC, and leaked to the Guido Fawkes website, the alleged victim provided “compelling prima facie evidence of serious and unwelcome sexual behaviour by Mr Hancock”.

There are grounds for sympathy for all three MPs. Colonel Mercer will always merit great respect as a soldier who carried out nine tours of duty in Northern Ireland, ending up as commanding officer of his regiment, the Sherwood Foresters. Eric Joyce, an admirable politician in his lucid moments, clearly suffers from a serious drink problem. There but for the grace of God go many of us. The allegations against Mr Hancock are very disturbing, but he denies them, and they have not been proved. I have been told that he is a conscientious local MP.

Nevertheless it is extraordinary that any of them remain in their jobs. MPs often demand more money and expenses with the insistence that they occupy a serious and responsible position in society comparable to senior civil servants, headmasters, GPs or high-ranking members of the Armed Forces.

Yet it is quite inconceivable that Joyce, Hancock or Mercer would have survived for a single second had they occupied a position in a serious profession. A drink-drive conviction is career death in the Army, let alone the kind of drunken brawl that is Mr Joyce’s speciality. A doctor with charges of the gravity being levelled against Mr Hancock, particularly when given credibility by an internal investigation, would surely not be allowed to carry on holding surgeries. Parliament, however, has very low standards.

Messrs Joyce, Hancock and Mercer carry on collecting their salaries of approximately £66,000 a year, not to mention expenses that, according to one estimate, will total, collectively, around £500,000 (enough to pay the annual salary for more than 20 nurses) by the time they finally quit at the next election. The evidence suggests that, in return, they don’t carry out much work.

Eric Joyce has voted 97 times in 489 divisions (19.8 per cent) since being stripped of the Labour whip just under two years ago. Patrick Mercer has voted on 24 occasions out of 184 divisions (13.6 per cent) since he resigned from the Tory Whip. Mike Hancock has much the best record of the three errant MPs, with a voting record of just under 45 per cent since he lost the Lib Dem whip in May 2013, but this is nevertheless a very low total for a backbencher.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that three constituencies have gone at least partially unrepresented in recent months, and Parliament is relaxed that this should remain the case. Portsmouth, where Hancock is MP, has cause to feel especially neglected. His neighbouring MP, the Conservative Penny Mordaunt, recently participated in an exhausting televised diving competition, though she claims she scheduled all her training out of parliamentary hours.

One would not expect that Speaker John Bercow, a notorious expense “flipper”, to be much bothered by this kind of conduct, and he hasn’t been. However, it is surprising that neither the Prime Minister nor either of the other two main party leaders tolerate the situation. Their supporters point to the fact that the three MPs have been stripped of the whip; but this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

Before the 2010 election, the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour each pledged that they would legislate to allow voters the power of “recall”, thus giving ordinary people the chance to force a by-election. The proposal was so uncontroversial that it slipped easily into the Coalition Agreement: “We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing the voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrong-doing.”

The Coalition government finally published a Bill in draft form last December, but it comes too late and – worst of all – puts a parliamentary committee in charge. As the Tory dissident Zac Goldsmith told the Guardian last week: Recall it is “about empowering voters not parliamentary committees. The Government’s proposals are the opposite of what was intended and promised.”

Why have David Cameron and Nick Clegg broken their promise? It is impertinent to speculate about motive, but my guess is that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are terrified of a by-election. Hancock’s Portsmouth South constituency and Patrick Mercer’s Newark are classically vulnerable to the Ukip electoral insurgency.

Meanwhile, up in Falkirk Ed Miliband and Labour have serious problems of their own. With Labour discredited, the Scottish National Party could easily win. So all three party machines seem to have concluded that it is better to allow Hancock, Joyce and Mercer to wander round Parliament like a foul smell than to allow voters their say.

It is a decision that shows the habitual contempt in which the British political class holds voters. By an interesting paradox, that contempt is the reason for the rise of Ukip in the first place. To answer James Arbuthnot’s complaint, it is no wonder that so many people believe that “everybody in politics is in it for their own good, or is a crook”.

Hat tip: Peter Oborne at The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10604812/Joyce-Hancock-and-Mercer-are-perfect-examples-of-Parliaments-low-standards.html

VIDEO: Labour’s Cyril Smith -PAEDOPHILIA BEFORE HIS TIME IN THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WITH THE FULL BACKING OF THE ESTABLISHMENT

In the video Chris Marshall, one of many victims of Cyril Smith, makes the following uncomfortable points and asks some serious questions of the Establishment that is directly involved with your children.

…people knew about what he was doing, people that worked close to him. Why didn’t they come forward…why didn’t they open their mouths? They knew what he was doing. They were quite happy to go and watch him get knighted; they were quite happy for him to be an MP, a mayor or something… People knew what he was doing; why didn’t anyone say anything.

The answer is obvious and simple: because the Establishment is riddled with paedophiles, degenerates, criminals, traitors… who look after each other and who are a direct threat to you and your family.

ARTICLE: United Nations Finally Admits to Purposefully Killing off European Native Peoples

Peter Sutherland

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.

‘More open’

An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

Read on:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

ARTICLE AND VIDEO: Liberal Democrat M.P. Nick Harvey -TOLD HE IS A DISGRACE FOR CLAIMING TRAVEL TO REMEMBRANCE DAY

Former Royal navy engineer Fiona Laing embarrasses Sir Nick Harvey after Remembrance Day service.

A Royal British Legion worker approached a former Armed Forces minister following a Remembrance Day service and ‘reimbursed’ him for £7.20 in expenses he claimed after attending a previous ceremony.

Fiona Laing, 45, marched up to Sir Nick Harvey, 52, in front of other dignitaries, officials and members of the public, and gave him an envelope containing the money.

Read on an watch the video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10441802/Former-Wren-to-ex-minister-You-Sir-are-a-disgrace.html

VIDEOS: ‘Beheadings-R-Us’ by Cameron and Hague-backed Syrian “Rebels” (WARNING: Graphic Images)

syrias-bullshit

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/07/18/syria-beheadings-r-us-by-obama-backed-and-armed-fsa-jihadist-rebels-warning-graphic-images/

ARTICLE: As Cameron attacks ‘Bongo Bongo’ MEP… How £1billion of your cash is being used to help Nigeria join the space race

As Britain hands Nigeria more than £1billion in foreign aid, here at home ATOS force the disabled onto the dole and Bedroom Tax steals people’s home –all because the UK is in debt. Had enough? Or are you still going to vote for this monstrosity, Fools?

liblabcon

  • Oil-rich country has accepted £300million in aid this year alone
  • Plans for Nigerian astronauts to join missions within next two years
  • But 70 per cent of the country live below the poverty line of £1.29 a day
  • Row ignited by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s ‘Bongo Bongo land’ comments

Nigeria is spending millions to put a man into space – as Britain hands it more than £1billion in foreign aid.

The oil-rich country, which has accepted £300million this year alone, has set in train ambitious plans to launch its own rockets.

And the first Nigerian astronauts are being trained to join Russian, Chinese or American missions within the next two years.

Last night critics asked why Britain was, in effect, subsidising a space programme for a nation where 70 per cent of people live below the poverty line.

This latest controversy came just two days after Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom ignited a fierce debate by saying it was folly to give billions in aid to ‘Bongo Bongo land’. Yesterday David Cameron said the remarks were offensive and accused Mr Bloom of being guilty of a ‘stop the world I want to get off’ approach to foreign aid. The £1.14billion Nigeria will receive over the five years of the Coalition is double the £500million set aside to prop up struggling accident and emergency departments at our own hospitals.
Backbench Tory MP Philip Davies said it was ‘totally unjustifiable and unaffordable’ for Britain to give this money to Nigeria, given the scale of its ‘grandiose’ space programme.

‘We cannot go around the world saying “don’t worry, we will feed your public for you while you waste your money on all sorts of other projects”,’ he said.

‘We have got to say to these countries “you have got to spend that money on your people where it’s most needed not on some grandiose space programme”. We are against welfare dependency at home but at the same time we are encouraging welfare dependency abroad.’

The row surrounding Mr Bloom flared when he insisted that sending aid to Africa was tantamount to treason.

He added: ‘How we can possibly be giving a billion pounds a month, when we’re in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo land is completely beyond me.’

He claimed foreign leaders frittered the money away on ‘Ray-Ban sunglasses, apartments in Paris and Ferraris’.

ARTICLE: U.K. “Government” Refuses to Allow a Petition against White Genocide

This was recently emailed in to the site and I found it interesting so I re-publish it here:

I recently attempted to set up a white genocide petition on the UK Government’s website. Normally when a petition is rejected, they list the rejected petition and the reasons why it was rejected. However my petition was not listed as rejected and i never received any explanation as to why. So I decided to contact the Petition site for an explanation.

Here the email exchange I had with a House of Commons Assistant Secretary.

to me
Moderation decisions are taken in individual Government departments, and I was not involved in this decision. Having viewed the petition, I agree with the views of the moderators. We do not display e-petitions which are moderated as offensive, as made clear in the terms and conditions of the site.
Yours sincerely
Ben Sneddon
Assistant Private Secretary
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
——————————————————–
to petitions
could you please explain to me how protesting the genocide of my people is OFFENSIVE?
——————————————————–
to me
We do not allow petitions which make accusations of criminality. As your petition accuses unspecified ‘anti-racists’ as genocide, this falls as a matter for the courts.
—————————-
to petitions
I see that this petition was accepted
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44089
if i take out the accusation of unspecified individuals and replace it with the wording in the numbered list, that will be acceptable correct?
——————————————————-
to me
Moderators consider e-petitions based on the action the petition is calling for. In your rejected e-petition, the action you are calling for is for the Government to stop ‘non-white immigration’ and ‘forced assimilation’. Should you wish to resubmit your e-petition, the wording should be focused around this, rather than the accusations of genocide which are presented without evidence in the original petition.
——————————————————-
to petitions
This petition is making accusations of ongoing genocide, how is mine any different?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44355
——————————————————
to me
As I have said, I do not take the moderation decisions, these are taken in individual Government departments and so there is a degree of freedom in terms of what is accepted.

However, the focus is on the outcome of the petition. The use of terms such as genocide are emotive and controversial – if you wish to start a petition on the recognition of a genocide, you would be advised to state this as the purpose of the petition and provide evidence (we discourage the use of external links, but departments may choose to accept these). We would otherwise advise against making such claims

You may wish to contact the department to which you are submitting the petition for further advice, as my information is hypothetical. You can find departmental contact details either via their website or http://www.gov.uk

(2013) David Cameron, Nick Clegg, William Hague -ORDER DESTRUCTION OF HARD DRIVE TO HIDE DIRT SECRETS FROM PUBLIC

 

  • PM asked Sir Jeremy Heywood to warn paper against publishing material
  • GCHQ later went to Guardian’s office and helped staff smash hard drives
  • White House say it is ‘difficult to imagine’ U.S. government taking that action
  • It also emerged Mr Cameron knew in advance David Miranda would be held
  • Home Secretary Theresa May said police acting in national security interests
  • Rifkind says Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on ‘weak ground’
  • ‘He did not dispute that he had no legal right to possess the files,’ he said
  • David Miranda, who was carrying secret CIA files, was held for nine hours 
  • Brazilian has said he is launching legal action against the Home Office
  • Lord Falconer, who helped bring in Terrorism Act 2000, slams decision
  • ‘I’m very clear that this does not apply to Mr Miranda,’ Labour peer said

ATICLE: Former head of MI6 threatens to expose Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’

tony_blair_war_criminal

The truth will always out -eventually. Seems the regime (“government”) doesn’t have the control it would like on the secret services. Perhaps MI5 might like to start to question to whom its loyalties really lie (the innocent people or their aggressor, corrupt, plutocratic “government”).

A former head of MI6 has threatened to expose the secrets of the ‘dodgy dossier’ if he disagrees with the long-awaited findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s role in the Iraq War.

Sir Richard Dearlove, 68, has spent the last year writing a detailed account of events leading up to the war, and had intended to only make his work available to historians after his death.

But now Sir Richard, who provided intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that was apparently ‘sexed up’ by Tony Blair’s government, has revealed that he could go public after the Chilcot Inquiry publishes its findings.

Sir Richard is expected to be criticised by the inquiry’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, over the accuracy of intelligence provided by MI6 agents inside Iraq, which was used in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’.

Now the ex-MI6 boss, who is Master at Pembroke College, Cambridge University, has said: “What I have written (am writing) is a record of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq from my then professional perspective.

“My intention is that this should be a resource available to scholars, but after my decease (may be sooner depending on what Chilcot publishes)

“I have no intention, however, of violating my vows of official secrecy by publishing any memoir.”

Sources close to Sir Richard said that he insists Chilcot should recognise the role played by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman Alastair Campbell in informing media reports which suggested Saddam could use chemical weapons to target British troops based in Cyprus, a claim which led to Britain entering the war in Iraq.

Sir Richard is said to remain extremely unhappy that this piece of intelligence, which his agents stressed only referred to battlefield munitions which had a much shorter range, led to media reports that UK bases were under threat.

However, he accepts that some of MI6′s information on the WMDs was inaccurate, the Mail on Sunday reported.

Mr Blair and Mr Campbell have repeatedly denied making misleading statements about WMD.

Last week it was revealed that Sir John had written to Prime Minister David Cameron informing him of his intention to write personally to those individuals he intends to criticise, with Tony Blair reported to be among those on Sir John’s list.

Sir Richard has taken a sabbatical from his duties at Cambridge University to research and write his record of events, and is expected to resume his Master’s role at the start of the new academic year.

A security source told The Mail on Sunday: “This is Sir Richard’s time-bomb. He wants to set the record straight and defend the integrity of MI6. And Sir Richard has taken a lot of personal criticism over MI6′s performance and his supposedly too-cosy relationship with Mr Blair.

“No Chief of MI6 has done anything like this before, but the events in question were unprecedented.

“If Chilcot doesn’t put the record straight, Sir Richard will strike back.”

Last night the committee’s chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was appointed in 2010, offered Sir Richard his support, saying: “I have never heard of a former MI6 chief putting something out there in these terms but I would be interested in what Sir Richard has to say in response to the Chilcot Inquiry which is clearly going to have some meat in it.

“I know Sir Richard and worked with him in the Foreign Office many years ago. He is a very able man of the highest character and a man of his own opinions. We shall have to wait to see what he says.”

Last night, Alastair Campbell and the office for Tony Blair declined to comment on Sir Richard’s account.

ARTICLE: Scandal as MPs are Found to be Snorting Cocaine in Parliament

cameron

Then again, what’s new? Take a look at the previous drug-related charges of the “elite”

  • Evidence of class A drug use detected in UK’s seat of power
  • Chemical swabs found substance on toilet seats and hair dryers
  • Drug was also found in toilets close to MPs’ offices, away from public areas 
Evidence of cocaine use has been found inside toilets at the Houses of Parliament, including some just yards from MPs’ offices.

Traces of the class A drug were found in nine toilets throughout the Palace Of Westminster, the meeting place of the UK’s political elite.

The powder was detected in toilets used by guests at Parliament’s bars, as well as cubicles a few yards away from MPs’ offices – areas where members of the public are restricted from going.

The drug use was uncovered using cocaine indicator swabs, which come up with blue blotches when rubbed on surfaces where the drug has been laid out in lines, such as toilet seats and hairdryers. The swabs are used by the police and customs officers.

As Parliament’s toilets are cleaned regularly, the white powder must have been snorted in the past few hours, according to reporters from The Sun, who did the testing.

Users would have to smuggle the drug past extensive security checks and 500 police officers and guards.

The reporters, acting on a tip-off from a House of Commons insider, claim to have found evidence of the drug in the cubicles of the toilets outside Strangers’ Bar and in private areas close to MPs’ offices.

Tory MP Douglas Carswell was scathing about the find. He said: ‘With decadence comes something rotten. It suggests there is something rotten about the institution itself.’ On two occasions cannabis has been confiscated at Westminster’s entry checkpoints since the start of 2008, according to a Freedom of Information request. A Parliamentary spokesman said: ‘Parliament is a public place and we welcome over a million visitors a year who have either direct access to these facilities or access when accompanied. ‘Clearly, it is inappropriate to monitor what happens in toilet facilities. In addition, we have issued over 14,000 passes, held by contractors and other third parties, as well as staff of both Houses, Members and their staff. ‘Consequently, it is impossible to know who may be involved. Our security searches are focussed on preventing harm to others and the building, not the detection of small amounts of drugs. ‘Parliament takes the issue of substance misuse very seriously and offers a range of welfare and health support services for those who need them.’ A few days ago a Parliamentary watchdog said MPs should have an 11 per cent pay rise to £74,000 a year. In 2005 a German television station found traces of cocaine in 41 of 46 lavatories tested at the European Parliament in Brussels. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362866/Corridors-powder-Drug-scandal-Houses-Parliament-traces-cocaine-toilets-Palace-Westminster.html#ixzz2ZF38JDTW Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Article: Paedophile ring link to No10 to be investigated

Not forgetting our extensive documentation of paedophilia within the SYSTEM, not just Number 10…

..

Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into historic claims of child abuse after an MP alleged a “senior aide of a former prime minister” had links to a member of a paedophile ring.

The Metropolitan Police announced last night that an inquiry, called Operation Fernbridge, was under way into allegations of child abuse in the early 1980s at a guesthouse in Barnes, London.

This follows claims in October last year from Tom Watson MP, who said that a file of evidence used to convict a man, Peter Righton, of importing child pornography in 1992 contained “clear intelligence” of a sex abuse gang.

Speaking at Westminster, he alleged a member of the group had bragged about links with a senior aide to a former PM.

Raising the issue during Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Watson said: “The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring.

“One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister.

“The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists. I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and Number 10.”

Video: Why are UK politicians so preoccupied with lowering the age of consent?

Why are UK politicians so preoccupied with lowering the age of consent? Who asked for it to be lowered in the first place? Not parents in Britain, that’s for sure. Listen to this bit of common sense before you start your debate…

Hat tip: http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/01/15/why-are-our-political-elite-so-obsessed-with-lowering-the-age-of-consent/

ARTICLE: Sheffield Judge in sex-abuse denial as Rochdale MP’s hypocrisy on paedophiles revealed.

Why, if you’re looking for help against a pervert, the last thing you should do is approach the judiciary or a legislator

goldsacropA Judge retires to consider his verdict. Judge Alan Goldsack QC (left) of Sheffield Crown Court spoke out last week, as he retired after 43 years in the legal profession. I have added suitably satirical bits in red to his statements in order to demonstrate, with as little didacticism as possible under the circumstances, why he is part of the problem in Britain of dealing with systemic child abuse. Sadly, the bits in black are what he actually did say.

“A frightening thing is the number of people I see who are the grandchildren of the people I have prosecuted and defended 40 years ago – because crime runs in families in the same way that being a doctor, teacher or lawyer does – and despite all of them having been rogered up hill and down dale for three generations by some of my closest colleagues, they continue to offend. It is really quite mystifying. We have to get in on the ground and remove young babies from the families that are going to produce the next generation of criminals, and that is why I did family law right up until the end because I think it is very important work and without it, we’d have sex-starved teachers, care workers and politicians all over Britain, which I think would be tragic. I have read so many pre-sentence reports where I said to myself ‘why was this person not adopted at birth? All the signs were there’…but despite knowing as I do that the self-centred fluffies on Westminster’s Left were in denial about feral crime, I said nothing beyond floating the idea of post-natal strangulation. Family is all important if you want to prevent people becoming criminals – a stable family life prevents most people from becoming criminals but rather than deal with the families what we have decided to do as a society is bugger their children senseless. Sadly, this had proved ineffective….children are removed from dysfunctional homes too late – at an age when it is difficult to find adoptive parents so the youngsters end up in care. And of course when they come before me, utterly without shame, and complain that their bottoms hurt, I am forced to ignore their manipulative lies in favour of some some tosh cooked up by a bent shrink and a care-home perv. 

“Children removed from home at 11 or 12 will invariably end up in a children’s home, and that’s a bit too old for the likes of most paedos, which is why we have to get in early. It’s not uncommon for a dysfunctional family to have £250,000 spent on them, but if we got in early and removed children from these homes we could save thousands of sexual sadists from being forced to kidnap happy children and murder them. It all seems very obvious to me. Supervision on release is all important and here in Yorkshire we have the very people to groom them for a life ending abruptly in suicide later, which is a much cheaper solution to the problem.”

Now to be fair to Judge Goldsack, in other parts of his valedictory address he did make a number of telling points about why society is falling apart, and how a combination of do-gooding twits and uncaring psychos in Parliament had been the vital catalysts for managing – in sixty years flat – to turn a generally stable, polite and law-abiding society into the wriggling mass of licentious behaviour and emotional incontinence we are forced to spend each day ploughing through in 2013 Britain. But there are two overriding features of his goodbye note that are utterly reprehensible:

1. His astonishing inability to think of the consequences of some of his proposals in terms of personal liberty. (Taking children away at birth, supervision at every lifestage and so forth).

2. After five decades working in Family Law, the complete omission of any reference whatsoever to the obvious existence of pernicious sexual corruption in the care system. Alan Goldsack freely admits that Britain’s care system is failing, but refuses to even acknowledge the existence of a hard core of the depraved preying on the deprived.

The first point above is so close to being ubiquitous in Britain today, I no longer have the strength to deal with the uncaring naivety that typifies much of it. The Woolwich event brought forth yet more controlling drivel from the Mayor: proposed moves to stop two clowns chopping someone’s head off by introducing ID cards and yet more CCTV is beyond stupid as a suggestion. A better observation might have involved asking the security services why they hadn’t collared the pair long ago. Another might have been to ask the Left why they took no notice, for years, when Islamic demonstrations in the UK carried placards suggesting “Behead infidels” as a form of progressive social action.

On the one hand we have a silk – a Judge – giving the police yet more carte blanche to turn into a Gestapo; on the other, we have muddled and unscrupulous ‘human rights’ lawyers fighting endless orders for the deportation of folks like the Woolwich double-act.

The second point recurs over and over at The Slog, and is a central, critical reason why the vast majority of paedophiles go about their sexual behaviour with something approaching impunity: the parents don’t want to hear what their kids tell them, the police aren’t interested in wading into a sewer of political privilege, the media’s readership are made uncomfortable by the coverage, and the Judges don’t believe the testimony.

The first person to put his literary finger precisely on the power of judges to defend the forces of authority was Charles Dickens. While on occasion such an attitude is essential if a culture’s positive values are to be retained, far too many of the Bench bewigged these days begin with the assumption that they’re dealing, in the case of abuse victims, with incorrigible liars. Sometimes they are, of course. But you can’t be a judge and a bigot: something has to give.

When those above the law make miserable the lives of those who have broken it, it is very hard indeed to engender public sympathy: that, I’m afraid, is human nature. But when those exploiting the law go around at will sodomising the sanity of kids already unlucky by dint of birth, they are committing one of the worst crimes known to our species.

The long-term answer is to put some principles and reality back into social politics…rather than privatising the process of getting feral families to reform (on the Right) or saying such and such “is not a syndrome I recognise on the ground” (on the Left). The short term key to at least starting the process of cleaning up the care system is to stop denying that the problem exists.

Oh look, nothing’s changed in Rochdale after all. That it does exist continues to be obvious on a daily basis. And whereas for some reason it seems to have a Tory bias in national politics, at the local level Labour enjoys a clear majority. Fifty-five year old Garry Layfield hails from Rochdale, and has been active in Kirkholt Labour Party for much of that period. Last Friday 24th May, he was jailed for several sexual offences committed over a number of years involving minors, including two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault.

Layfield, who had been followed by ugly rumours for a considerable time, was found guilty at Manchester’s Minshull Street Crown Court. He got seven years, and was ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register indefinitely. His main victim was eight-years-old when the abuse started….in 1975. It continued for five years. It happened in Rochdale. It went undetected, then ignored, then – when confided by the victim to an appalled relative – resulted in a conviction.

Since taking over as Labour MP in 2010, Rochdale’s Simon Danczuck has been extremely voluble on the subject of systemic paedophilia in the previously incumbent Liberal Democrat Party. The local Member used to be Cyril Smith. Only a few days ago, I posted about Rochdale Council’s former CEO being uninterested in child sex-abuse, along with a tub-thumping insistence from Danczuck that Ellis should be forced “to pay back his enormous pension fund”.

But when it came to things being put right on his own watch, our Simon told the Manchester Evening News that he was confident “Lessons have been learned. There’s no complacency on the part of police about these horrific crimes, and I’m confident every effort is being made to get these predators off our streets”.

Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have included the Labour man himself, allegedly: a comment threader at the Rochdaleonline piece notes, ‘I want to know what Mr Danczuk has to say about this beast? After all, I personally told Mr Danczuk in 2011 about this vile person and what he had done, yet he still remained an active part of the Kirkholt Labour Party, knocking on doors all over the estate. As said by Mr Danczuk, sex offenders are walking the streets, and obviously they are helped around by our councillors.’

Once again, tribalism triumphs over any real sense of justice among our MPs. Be it Tom Watson or David Cameron, Theresa May or David Steel, over the decades the mantra has remained the same: “My Party right or wrong”.

Pompous MP turns out to be full of sh*t. Nothing to see here, move along now please….

Hat tip: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-paedofile-sheffield-judge-in-sex-abuse-denial-as-rochdale-mps-hypocrisy-on-paedophiles-revealed/

(2013) Liberal Democract Cllr. Derek Osbourne -ARRESTED OVER CHILD PORN

Derek Osbourne

The leader of Kingston borough council has resigned after he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

Derek Osbourne, 59, was arrested on Tuesday at his home in Kingston and taken to a south London police station. He has been bailed until August.

In a statement, acting leader Liz Green said the Liberal Democrats were “deeply shocked”.

Mr Osbourne was first elected leader from 1997-98, and then again from 2003.

A spokesman for the council said: “Everyone connected with Kingston Council is shocked by this news and we will of course assist and support the police investigation in any way that we can.”

Mr Osbourne has resigned from the Liberal Democrat group as leader and is expected to resign as a councillor later, said a spokesman.

His duties have included sitting on a committee for the creation of a joint children’s services department between Kingston and Richmond upon Thames, called Achieving for Children.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22883414

ARTICLE: Why The Paedophile Politicians & Royal Family Want To Silence The Alternative Media

original (2)

Whilst Friday the 21st of December 2012 may not have seen the end of the world, it is fair to say that the date came as a disaster for an awful lot of paedophiles. This disaster came about after I received an Email which contained a link to a child porn website.

The author of the Email – who out of fear of reprisals wishes to remain anonymous – was sickened, not only by the fact that the vile site existed; but also by the fact that it was easily accessible via Twitter – A sentiment that I was in total agreement with.

According to my source, he found it necessary to Email me only after first contacting the Daily Mirror Newspaper about the sicko website. During the course of reading the Email, I learned that this Child porn website has a foothold in the UK, USA, Brazil, and Germany.

However, the fact that my Source first chose to contact the Daily Mirror, turns out to be quite fucking ironic as you shall see, if you take the time to finish reading this report. So, just for the record, the following is a cut and paste of what my Source told me about that contact with the newspaper:

I contacted the mirror to see if they were interested in busting a paedo net, they were then said i should contact the old bill, im not keen on that as from what i see they all swim in the same sludge. Anyway the (sic) took my phone number have a chat with lawyers (sic) and get back to me. Im not holding my breath.

Funnily enough – That is to say it would be if it wasn’t so fucking serious – I am also in contact with someone who is due to give a statement to detectives… Don’t fucking start again. I take your point but that is still their job description… from Operation Pallial, the police investigation into the historic child abuse that took place in children’s homes such as the Bryn Estyn. Here is what he told me in one of his communications:

I am about to make a statement to Operation Pallial, they have cancelled twice so who knows eh? Obviously I will not be giving the Police the full story as they are as crooked as the rest, especially the lot here in North Wales eh?

Notice the similarities between the two messages? Course, the fact that these two sources of information have no faith in the Old Bill comes as no surprise to me what so ever. The Police top brass are just as involved in this cess pit of paedophilia as the Government and Royal family are. However, I digress.

The website in question, had a layout similar to that of the social network website, Tumblr and appeared to consist of photos showing naked girls whom I would estimate as being between the ages of 11 – 15. Even more disturbing, was the fact that approximately half the photos I saw were of a professional standard and taken in studio like settings. From that website, I was then able to access links to other paedophile sites.

One of these websites had abhorrent, professionally taken photos of young girls and boys whom I would estimate as being between the age of 5-7. All the children appeared to be in various states of undress and all were photographed in provocative poses (legs splayed etc).

Unsure of where best to report these websites, I passed the information onto Chris Wittwer whose website http://chris-ukorg.org/ specialises in exposing paedophiles. Chris in turn reported the sites to the Police Paedophile Unit and the Internet Watch Foundation – http://www.iwf.org.uk/

However, when both failed to respond – the police obviously being far to busy investigating a jape that led to a suicide as well as whitewashing Operation Yewtree – Chris engaged the services of a group of ‘Hackers’, who were able to gain access into the sites data and users personal information. That info was then passed on to the police.

Here is what Chris Wittwer said about the Hackers on his Facebook page:

Well done to the lads who hacked and destroyed hundreds of child abuse websites & twitter accounts this weekend. It was a education watching you all locking in and destroying them !!! Lots of intelligence gained and arrests to follow soon.

All in all then, a good weekends work. Makes you wonder why the Cunt Cameron wants to silence us here in the AM, doesn’t it? Never the less, the closing down of these horrific websites has been reported by one newspaper in the MSM. And that newspaper was… The fucking Daily Mirror. You really couldn’t make this shit up, don’t cha know.

I would like to think that the above good news goes some way to reassuring all those who send me information, that I do take everything that I am sent seriously and act on it accordingly. However, I do have to check that the information you send me is accurate – which obviously takes time. This has resulted in some senders believing that I am not interested in using their information. I can assure those who do think that to be the case, that nothing could be further from the truth. Keep the information coming, no matter how trivial you think it may be.

I would also like you all to be aware that over the festive period, this website will be moving from the http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk domain to its own – http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk. I am told that this necessary transferring of domains may lead to some minor disruption, and as such I apologise in advance if anyone has trouble accessing the site. Fortunately the transfer should take no more than a day or two.

However, by liking my FB page, which you can do via the ‘home page’ on this site, and/or following me on Twitter @chrisspivey3, you will still be able to get all the latest news.

Finally, before you read the afore mentioned article from the Daily Mirror, I will just take this opportunity to wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Let 2013 be the year that we put the Great back in Britain. Lets go to fuckin’ war.

Much love,

Chris

Hat tip:  http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/?p=8077

ARTICLE: Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Pedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To Stop Hemorrhaging of Public Confidence

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire
Guest Columnist

A disturbing shift has occurred over the weekend in Britain.

A very noticeable pressure has been building against Britain’s elite establishment composed of politicians, highly paid media executives and celebrities, over the ugly issue of pedophilia and child abuse – a crime which has, for generations, been allowed to be carried out in secret.

Since Friday’s assessment of David Cameron’s most embarrassing TV challenge by seemingly harmless personality Philip Schofield, the whole national conversation is now being engineered by Downing Street and top media executives, to rotate away from Jimmy Savile and MP Tom Watson’s call for a rooting out of organized pedophilia in government – and over to protecting the allegedly fragilereputations of hereditary elites like Lord McAlpine, who according to major newspaper editors and TV pundits, have suddenly become victims of a ‘witch-hunt’ for paedophiles.

Lord McApline: “I never abused children’.

Following a rather obvious, internally staged damage control event, where the embattled BBC Director General George Entwistle went on BBC Breakfast Show and the Radio Four Live programs to fall on his sword for ‘bad journalism’ over last week’s Newsnight set-up – Entwistle resigns. Now the government are crying witch-hunt. It’s an attempt to apply a new spin to the old spin, where the public are now expected to feel sorry for Lord McAlpine and any other ‘proper person’ like him, for being accused of child abuse, or pedophilia.

This is the latest effort by Downing Street spin doctors and certain media executives and hired writers, to shut down any serious debate on paedophiles in power, and close the doors on any more fruitful external or internal investigations.

They really hope to end it here with Jimmy Savile and Sir Peter Morrison, and maybe throw in the clown Gary Glitter for good measure.

Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Why? Because when it comes to its children, parents nationwide will not accept the standard government cover-up inquiry and perverting the course of justice. The nation will not let go of this issue, because it’s out there, and because 9 out of 10 plebs agree that pedophiles should be eradicated from all public institutions.

Up until this week, the major media gatekeepers were locked into a spiraling narrative which they could not escape because the implications towards the people involved threatened to entire power structure – because they are very afraid about what people will find out. In their dark world of cloak and dagger, the most coveted prize of all is dirt. It’s the most valuable form of currency behind the scenes. Newspaper editors, executives, TV producers, police, MI5, lawyers, MPs, Ministers and gangsters are constantly trafficking in information about each other in order to gain an advantage. In this black market of classified information, reports of pedophilia, child abuse – and also homosexuality, are as good as gold.

The key word here is classified.

Gatekeepers and Consensus Makers

David Aaronovitch published his column in the Times on  Thurs Nov 8, 2012, entitled, ‘Beware of a modern Salem over child abuse’. This was 24 hours before another intellectual giant, Prime Minister David Cameron went on national TV and cried ‘witch-hunt’when ambushed by housewife pin-up Schofield. Predictably,Aaronvitch has led the charge calling for the sacking of Philip Schofield on LBC Radio. Aaronovitch also stating on air that some of the allegations against Jimmy Savile “may not be true”, quite a shocking sympathetic stance regarding the nation’s worse-ever child abuser. Pretty shocking.

Aaronovitch’s ‘witch-hunt’ is a rather hysterical claim. Yet, it’s hard to believe that the great and the good would be crying scared so much to scream “witch-hunt!”, but there you have it. If this scandal wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing right about now.

On its surface, the new witch-hunt talking point sounds like a desperate establishment meme, from an elite criminal ring who are now in such a panic as to try and equate the very serious and documented problem of organized paedophilia operating through positions of power, in government, the media, the police – and the judiciary, with a sensational event which happened in colonial Massachusetts. No, we have stacks of forensic evidence, and police reports that prove that, unlike witches in Salem, paedophiles in British institutions do actually exist.

Rather ironically, the cause of that old Salem witch hunt was guilty men in power trying to cover-up and silence anyone who dared speak of their heinous crimes.

Paedophiles and sexual deviants in positions of power – is a reality, not a ‘conspiracy theory’, as the Times writer Aaronovitch hoped to define it, by denying it exists. Documents in the Belgium child rape and murder case pointed at the involvement of both Belgium AND Dutch politicians, judiciary and police – all taking part in the Mark Dutroux child abuse scandal, but writers like Aaronovitch will tell you that it’s just another ‘conspiracy theory’The UK’s police and security services do have reams of evidence, but unfortunately for us the public, most of these crimes are sealed by government D Notices, while the rest are buried through internal institutional investigations.

It was also more than a little disturbing to watch how Aaronovitch is said to have spoken to “a Senior BBC journalist”, whom he claims, like Aaronovitch, was “deeply skeptical” about child abuse victim Steve Messham’s testimony. Notice how David Aaronovitch doesn’t name the journalist, but is clearly using his column to draft a conviction – for all we know, David Aaronovitch could just be making things up to spread false information – just like those pesky internet blogs he says he loathes. Anyhow, I think it’s pretty darn safe to say here that the last person I would call on would be aBBC journalist for a second opinion when it comes to child abuse cases (I cough here).

So here we have it, a senior Times columnist who appears to be using his column in a national daily newspaper to deliver his own verdict in the North Wales Child Home scandal by trying to convince the public that victim Messham’s testimony was “shaky”. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he has an ulterior motive, maybe ‘moonlighting’ as they say, but it’s really so hard to tell these days who’s who in the world of big money media.

Aaronovitch: Drafted in again to protect the establishment line.

I suppose that Aaronovitch might also be a little upset to know that fixer Sir Jimmy Savile was also acting as a go-between for Israel and Britain.

What was Jimmy up to in Israel? I can tell you this much - it’s no secret in Whitehall. That’s not a conspiracy theory by the way, and as upset as some folks might be about it, you can’t rewrite history.

Moreover, writer David Aaronovitch also made a highly questionable, and arguably insensitive, if not bizarrely inappropriate statement in the same article:

“The unattractive (because complicating) truth is that sometimes people do lie about being abused. Sometimes it’s for money, sometimes for attention, sometimes because that’s what they infer their listeners want to hear.  Or fantasy has become solidified as fact, the dream as daylight.”

Pretty shocking stuff. Aaronovitch’s statement about victims ‘fantasizing’ about their abusers, is designed to support his rather disingenuous ‘witch-hunt’ thesis, when it appears a paragraph before his own self-styled verdict on Steve Messham’s ‘shaky’ testimony, and this type of statement in the face of what is clearly a national institutional problem almost looks again like Aaronovitch has been put up to help steer public opinion completely away from a problem. His statement is Salem in reverse. Shame on you David.

Aaronovitch has a history of making some rather ridiculous statements, and then cleverly covering their own tracks.Whether defending the mythology of WMD’s in Iraq (after his pro-war campaigning for Gulf War II, he tries to cover his tracks in 2004 saying, “From the outset of the Iraq debate I was a WMD agnostic”), or defending Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Aaronovitch has a pretty shameless record as an establishment gatekeeper, whilst touting some sort of Marxistpedigree. As a former Observer columnist, he is the classic example of a 20th century media-annointed, intelligentsia gatekeeper who typically writes a column per week, appears on the odd panel, looks to be busy by writing a few mediocre history books debunking ‘conspiracy theories’ – and somehow gets paid handsomely for it. His job it seems, is to put his own memes out there into the public conversation in order to get people thinking along received establishment wisdom. The irony here is, when it comes to opinion forming, when it’s all said and done, more people will have read our article here on this website than David Aaronovitch’s piece for the Times – thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s subscription firewall at theTimes.co.uk.

Tories in Arms

Mellor: Here’s one guy who shouldn’t be calling anyone ‘weird’.

The great thing about a Tory is, they will come out to defend their own, even if it’s a bit off key. Another much celebrated (although slightly odd) Tory politician turned media intelligentsia figure,David Mellor, has also come out this weekend in support of pal Lord McAlpine to help discredit Steve Messham by labeling the abuse victim a “weirdo”. Here Mellor is joining the fight to protect the elite, but his motives are obvious. Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP has rightly pointed out that victims could now fear being “taken out to dry” by the media if they name any public figures as paedophiles – something I’m sure the Tory government would hate to have happen now.

The latest rewriting of history is underway with North Wales Child Homes latest ‘photo swap’- enter stage left, ‘Jimmy’ McAlpine,because it doesn’t take a Times reader to figure out that Steve Messham would have looked at images of McAlpine prior to yesterday, “Oops, we made a mistake”. He’s either been threatened or bribed, or both. Would this have been done if McAlpine was not guilty?

This latest establishment stunt is designed to stop the momentum of the revelations about elite involvement in Savile’s activities, and to discredit information on the internet about elites involvement paedophilia.

So Aaronovitch and Mellor’s gatekeeping on the issue of institutional pedophilia in Britain is just one example of how members of the media regularly conform, and in some cases, streamline, to Whitehall’s desired talking points on any major issue involving national security – and make no mistake here, paedophiles in government is a national security issue, just ask the Russians and the Israelis. The media, for the most part, also did this before and during, the war with Iraq. The same thing is happening with this paedophile scandal, and it should sicken the public. It’s a vile exhibition of symbiotic members of the establishment covering each others asses – figuratively, and literally.

Savile: A friend if the elite, protected by the police, the royals and media.

So Pope Entwistle has resigned (aka sacked). Big deal. A new Pope will replace him. No matter how many Director Generals they sack, no matter how many Tory heads cry “mistaken identity!”, the fact is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not working alone and the BBC are beyond guilty with their shameful cover-up. The BBC are officially a damaged brand.

Jeremy Paxman is said to be upset over Entwistle’s departure, and will probably resign next.

Could it be that the system is so corrupt it cannot be trusted to investigate itself?

I would sincerely hope that the public will be the judge of that one – and not highly paid media gatekeepers and secretive politicians.

Investigations – as well as debates on child abuse, need to be opened up, not closed down. Those who are trying to shut either of these down, are very probably covering for the guilty in power.

More and more revelations will be forthcoming. The gilded age of paedophiles could soon be over, because no matter how hard they  try, they cannot rewrite history now.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/11/11/an-attempt-to-erase-history-bbc-and-downing-street-hope-entwistle-sacking-will-stop-the-hemoraging-of-public-confidence/

ARTICLE: The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan Clark

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire

You’d better believe that Max Clifford has a lot of skeletons in his filing cabinet.

If you have enough money, you too can have your skeletons filed away in these rather seedy archives.

In the leaked video that has since gone viral, allegedly filmed before last year, the camera man managed to loosen up Clifford enough to spill a large can of beans. In the video, the legendary PR Guru to the stars and elites let slip that he had successfully hid away the sins of one Tory MP, and ‘diarist’, Alan Clark.

Tory MP Alan Clark

Alan Clark’s noted adulterous affair with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African judge, and her two daughters Josephine and Alison, for their tale of the seduction of all three by Clark (to whom he referred collectively as “the coven”) made the Harkesses ‘a lot of money’ according to Clifford.  The affair became public knowledge in 1992 after Clark left the House of Commons, and later took its place between the covers of a few best selling seedy novels. Both sides had profited from the affair, but according the Clifford in the video below, it seemed that MP Alan Clark had to bury a rather inconvenient detail which would have landed him in a criminal court.

Here are two excerpts from the video which was released by super blog site Guido Fawkes:

“He enjoyed it that whole thing, Alan Clark loved the whole thing…  they(the Harkesses) made a lot of money out of it, he used them, so they wanted to make money out of it, and had a … so they did, he(Alan Clark) enjoyed it and sold a lot of books.”

“The only slightly serious side of it was that he(Alan Clark) actually interfered with those girls from the age of 14…”

He seems to be referring to the crime of paedophilia there…

If this was indeed the case, then Clark would have also profited from it. Fancy that.

Watch the video here:

The next line is the real killer though, and one which we should all stop, pause, and consider properly – particularly during the current paedophile upheaval which the BBC and the current government are so anxious to draw a line under. Following the fake duel between the BBC’s Newsnight and much maligned Lord McAlpine, the establishment was hoping that no more high-ranking figures or MP’s would be fingered for paedophilia or child abuse.

This much is certain – the elite power brokers want their public nightmare to end with Savile. 

Casually referring to the volumes of dirt he has tucked away for a rainy day, Max Clifford ignominiously boasts here:

“I’ve got all the evidence, I’m the one who’s hidden it from the world, I know where everything is…”

If this video is genuine and what it appears to be, then Clifford could eventually become a key figure at the centre of this issue.

The Independent had published a story on this incident entitled,Publicist Max Clifford Denies Covering Up Conservative MP Alan Clark’s Underage Sex Scandal, but then quickly removed it from their website. This is not surprising because Max still wields incredible power on Fleet Street. The full text of their article can be found here, explaining:

“The former government minister Alan Clark had sex with children, according to the publicity agent Max Clifford. In a secretly filmed, three-minute interview posted on the internet last night, the publicist said that the Tory MP and diarist had “interfered” with two 14-year-old girls. But he added, during a discussion of his success in suppressing scandals, that the story had never come out.

Last night Mr Clifford, who was unaware his comments were being recorded, strenuously denied that he had told the girls’ family to stay quiet about the allegations.”

Max: Keeps ugly secrets safe.

Max Clifford keeps things tidy for the elite, and the dirt he collects keeps him safe from reprisals. It’s a high stakes game, and he is undoubtedly one of the best ever to play it. He knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. Sure, it would be career suicide for his PR business, but if he chose to, he could certainly help towards gaining justice for many sexually abused children. In the end, that’s up to Max Clifford, but because of the nature of his work and the confidentiality which is the currency of his profession – any disclosure on crimes in high places is unlikely to happen.

One might ask here, where does Clifford stand morally, or legally for that matter, if he is holding back information about known paedophiles, particularly those in government? Does he have the same sort of protection from disclosure as say, a doctor, or Catholic priest? He has not committing any offense as such, but it’s worth asking here, does he have a duty to report a child abuse case? Critics might charge here, and rightly so, that Clifford is somehow putting his own wealth above the safety of children. If it’s a paedophile in government, then it could be viewed as a national security issue because that public official could be blackmailed by a foreign interest.

It would be interesting to know if Sir Jimmy Savile was a past client of Clifford’s, or of another firm.

An intriguing question now is: how many more MPs, celebrities and various oligarchs (these are the only people who can afford to retain the services of a high flyer like Max Clifford) have had their sins washed away by Clifford, or other PR firms like his?

Since the Savile scandal broke, guess who have been getting flooded with phone calls from ‘frightened’ celebrities who are afraid of being implicated, for unknown offenses and associations with Savile, including – paedophilia. A recent article describes the phenomenon:

Dozens of big name stars from the 1960s and 70s have contacted Max Clifford “frightened to death” they will become implicated in the widening Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal, the PR guru has claimed.

He said the stars, some of whom are still big names today, were worried because at their peak they had lived a hedonistic lifestyle where young girls threw themselves at them but they “never asked for anybody’s birth certificate”.

Most celebrities and TV people will use the ‘rock n roll’ get out clause, claiming that children were “throwing themselves at me”, and this tends to work in Britain where morals are now subject to the laws of relativity. But after Savile, the rock star excuse doesn’t hold as much credence. They are all genuinely scared, feeling guilty, because they know they got away with it back them because the system covered for them, but that system is crumbling – that’s why they’re calling Max – to preserve their media value. More girth for Max Clifford’s expanding filing cabinet? More girth in fees too.

This couldn’t come at a worse time, as Max Clifford has recently been appointed as the PR Ambassador to the BBC charityChildren In Need. Is a man who makes his living running cover for the rich and powerful the right man to steer a children’s charity?

You cannot ignore the spooky echoes of old Esther Rantzen and pal Jimmy Savile and their Child Line panto.

Without a doubt, there is a lot to speculate on – is this yet another example where the activities of paedophiles in high places strangely link with these “children’s charities” in Britain?

This comment below is from the forum at Mumsnet:


Above text states:

“Paul Roffey (child protection expert) said that pop stars used their position to manipulate young women to carry out acts which were as illegal then as they are now. Clifford also says he has also been contacted by women claiming ‘all kinds of things’, some of whom want to make money out of the abuse scandal. He actually says that he doubts that 50% of what they have told him is true! And Yet he believes his famous friends who come to him because they are worried about associations with JS and child abuse. He defends clients such as OJ Simpson, Mohamed Al Fayed, David Copperfield, Kerry Katona, Simon Cowell, Shilpa Shetty, the five men who were suspected of killing Stephen Lawrence, Gillian McKeith and Shrien Dewani, the man accused of orchestrating the murder of his wife, Anni in S Africa. I rest my case. MC is, in fact, the perfect, living embodiment of contemporary hypocrisy. God Help us!!”

You can try and spin it all you want, but an older folks having sex with a child is morally, and legally wrong.

Let’s be honest with ourselves on this issue - paedophillia seems to be acceptable with certain privileged people in power.

Therein lies the BIG problem we are facing as a society.

(2012) Former Liberal Democrat M.P. Cyril Smith -”29 STONE BULLY” WHO SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILDREN

Careful observers will note that the mainstream media/Establihment focus not on the present –those alive and still abusing children– but instead on the deceased. Prima facie this indicates a a well-wrought ploy to shift focus on the deceased and thereby hide the present and operational paedophilies in the government, State, and Establishment. In so doing, the System is seeking to appease the outraged public and decieve them into thinking that this issue is being dealt with rather than brushed under the carpet.

Do not fall for this ploy. Please continue to speak out, share information, and raise awareness. Once the peadophiles in “power” are exposed they will no longer be able to hide.

So who is still voting for the criminal, corrupt, degenerate tripartite machine at the General Election in 2015?   

Protect children and clear out these Enemies of the People by spoiling your ballot and withholding your consent. Don’t just sit at home and not vote –spoil your ballot and send our enemies a clear message. All spoiled ballots are counted and the message is acknowledged. 

It is time to kick back now and kick back harder against this regime which is not for our benefit (as evidenced in the plethora of crimes against the people documented on this website). 

Paedophiles in power (page 1):   http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/

Paedophiles in power (page 2):  http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/2/

Paedophiles in power (page 2):  http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/3/

We all have a duty of care to children –past, present, and future.

Popular former Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith today became the latest public figure to be accused of sexually abusing children.

The former Rochdale MP, who died in 2010, was accused in a Commons debate of physically and sexually abusing boys at Cambridge House hostel in the town, which he ran in the 1960s.

He was one of the best-known politicians of the 1970s and 1980s and earned a reputation for speaking his mind.

It was a trait not always appreciated his party leaders but one which made him popular with the public and in the media.

Labour MP Simon Danczuk said four victims had come forward to claim they were abused by Smith. ‘Young boys who were humiliated, terrified and reduced to quivering wrecks by a 29-stone bully imposing himself on them,’ Mr Danczuk said.

The allegations centre on Cambridge House Hostel, which Sir Cyril ran in Rochdale in the 1960s before becoming the town’s MP.

Mr Danczuk told the Commons Sir Cyril had a ‘kind of disciplinarian role at the hostel and was given free rein to administer punishment to the boys’.

Similar allegations have been made about Sir Cyril in the past and were repeated in his obituaries when he died two years ago.

Mr Danczuk made his accusations against his predecessor Sir Cyril during a Commons debate on child sexual exploitation.

Mr Danczuk said: ‘Attempts to suppress the truth are not new in Rochdale.

‘The culture of cover-up stretches back much further than the recent grooming scandal, and extends right to the heart of our political establishment.

‘If we are to make sure victims of child abuse are sufficiently empowered to claw back some of the dignity that has been taken from them, we need to be open about a widespread abuse of power in our borough. That’s why it’s necessary to turn to Sir Cyril Smith.’

He said Sir Cyril was a ‘political giant’ in Rochdale and ‘one of the most recognisable politicians in the country’.

But his career was continually dogged by allegations that he abused boys.

Mr Danczuk said the allegations ‘appeared in police reports’ but Lancashire police said they cannot be found. ‘It is suggested that a report was pushed to the director of public prosecutions back in 1969.’

The Labour MP referred to four alleged victims who have come forward in recent weeks to say they were abused by Sir Cyril.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232460/Sir-Cyril-Smith-Former-Liberal-MP-accused-Commons-29-stone-bully.html#ixzz2C8bNiLdH

ARTICLE: David Cameron just doesn’t get it – the police and judiciary are part of UK abuse problem

Full public inquiry and special commission must happen now

Peter Sterry 21st Century Wire

As the rippling waves emanating from the cesspool that is Sir Jimmy Savile’s legacy break on the shores of the British establishment, it is becoming increasingly clear how the establishment is attempting once again to protect its own.

In response both to Tom Watson’s questioning in the House of Commons – and the fabulous impromptu exposure by Philip Schofield (an event surely set to become legendary in television history) British Prime Minister David Cameron’s singular response is that anyone with any evidence should go to the Police, regardless of how powerful the accused may be. Is Cameron aware that multiple victims in the North Wales inquiry names the same high ranking Tory politician, and in at least one case, the police deemed their testimony as “fantasy”? For a Prime Minister, it is a breathtakingly, though probably deliberately naive approach. It feels like a government’s greasy denial that paedophiles are operating in positions of power. North Wales abuse victim Steve Messham testified that his life was threatened by his abuser, which is a common intimidation tactic seen in many abuse cases. Death threats change the playing field considerably.

Cameron: confused, or just waiting to pass the buck on?

So where exactly is David Cameron suggesting survivors take their evidence ? The serving police officers referred to by some of those abuse at the hellish Bryn Estin in North Wales? Or is the Prime Minister proposing just walking in to your local cop shop ( if you can still find one of course, given the aggressive programme of police station closure now being implemented by Cameron’s government) and saying “Hey! I was raped by ********* twenty years ago”?

Sensitive matters such as child rape require sensitive solutions. Cameron’s response is not only inadequate, it is simultaneously ignorant, insulting and ludicrous. Lest anyone has missed it, serving police officers and members of the judiciary are among those named by Bryn Estyn victims. It is increasingly clear that the original inquiry was a cover-up, and let us not forget the Masonic connection.

The Waterhouse Tribunal set the tone for its approach to freemasonry right from day one.

In the very first session the barrister for one of the groups of former residents of care homes made an application about masonry. The barrister, Nick Booth, asked that “the Tribunal should keep a register of the masonic membership amongst its staff, the members, its representatives and witnesses who appear before it”. He explained: “The duty of loyalty to a brother mason and his duty of impartiality if he is involved in the administration of justice is not a new one and it’s one that’s very much in the public eye, particularly at the moment.”

“The Tribunal will be aware of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee which is investigating the issue,” he added. “Sir, I stress, if I have not stressed it before, that I am not making any suggestion of disreputable conduct, merely to put the matter beyond the reach of any possible public comment which might undermine the public confidence in the Inquiry.”

Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who chaired the Tribunal, felt that the application was a slur on the integrity of the Tribunal’s staff.

The chairman of the Tribunal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, and the two other members of the Tribunal, retired for a brief adjournment.

“It will not surprise you that the application is refused,” said Sir Ronald on their return. “As far as the staff are concerned,” Sir Ronald said, “in so far as the application carries any reflection upon the integrity of the staff of the Tribunal it’s repudiated, wholly unwarranted; there is no evidence whatsoever to support any suggestion that they have not acted with complete integrity… ”

“The members of the Tribunal are in this position: the Tribunal was set up by Parliament and the members of it were appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales and the [criticism of the composition] should be addressed through the proper channels.”

He said that the Tribunal’s own Counsel, Gerard Elias QC, was appointed by the Attorney General. “Any criticism … should be addressed through the usual Parliamentary channels,” he suggested.

Gerard Elias said nothing during Booth’s application and he remained silent after Sir Ronald had made the Tribunal’s ruling.

Gerard Elias QC. Leading counsel to Tribunal kept silent on discussion about a register of freemasons. He himself is a freemason…

Yet both Sir Ronald and Gerard Elias knew something that journalists reporting on the Tribunal would have wanted to know.

Gerard Elias is a mason. He’s a member of perhaps the most powerful masonic lodge in Wales, Dinas Llandaf. The lodge, which meets in Cardiff, is made up mainly of legal professionals and members of the Conservative party, although there are members from other political groups. This in and of itself is not a problem, but there is a problem if fellow members have an oath of loyalty to each other which supersedes their oath to uphold law and conduct due diligence in any proper investigation into organised crime.

British ‘Justice’ done in the dark

Imagine a mafia trial where the prosecution and the defense had members of the mafia embedded in key positions. What would be the chances of full disclosure?

We have to ask ourselves, is it possible to have an investigation free from private allegiances stemming from Masonic interference? The British people will demand both a full public enquiry  into the extent of child abuse , rape and murder in Britain both past and present, and a new independent Police investigation with a remit to arrest and prosecute, headed by officers prepared to DECLARE PUBLICLY that they are members of any secret society.

David Cameron can do this now, and retain some personal integrity, or wait until his hand is forced, and retain none.

ARTICLE: Tom Watson M.P. Writes to P.M. Regarding “A concerted establishment cover-up”

Please sign the petition and pass it on:

Public Enquiry into organised Child Grooming, Child Prostitution and Paedophilia in the UK:  http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39312

The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

5 November 2012

Dear Mr Cameron,

Congratulations on ordering a review of what information government departments may hold about organised child abuse at the heart of government 30 years ago.

In acting swiftly you have sent an important message about how seriously you take this matter. You have done the right thing and I commend you for it.

And the inquiry that you have announced performs a useful function. It is certainly important that government departments trawl their archives to see what documents they hold. But my experience of uncovering massive establishment conspiracies leaves me in no doubt that what you have suggested does not go anything like far enough. Its limited scope may even slow things down, muddy waters, damage trails. What is needed is a much wider, but equally immediate, investigation.

Since sharing my concerns with you at PMQs, a number of people have come forward to say that they raised their suspicions with the police, but investigations were not carried out. One allegation involves alleged child abuse and a former cabinet minister. We both know that many untruths are told about politicians, but this allegation was specific, informed and appeared well corroborated.

Cutting through a concerted establishment cover-up requires meticulous, diligent, fearless commitment to uncover the truth, whomever it unmasks.

My advice to you as Prime Minister – and from one father to another – is that you need to order a special police investigation, outside the affected forces, with proper resources, to review all relevant police files and those of the intelligence services. If they have documents suggesting politicians in the Commons and Lords or others in positions of power were involved in child abuse then they should make them available to a new inquiry team.

The forces so far known of be affected (Met, Surrey, West and South Yorkshire, West Mercia, Dorset, Kent, Essex, North Wales, Suffolk and Sussex) need to have their archives systematically searched for intelligence from witnesses/victims making claims which were not investigated; investigations which were closed down, and so on.

If what you really want – and I believe that it is – is the truth, then you must draw the terms of reference such that the police inquiry has licence to follow any lead it finds in what will be, after all, a serious criminal investigation. There should be no historic sexual abuse of children which is off limits to this investigation. The police should be supported by a dedicated team of child protection specialists, many of whom have been raising their concerns for years. Your advisers will tell you to be wary of “opening the floodgates”. They are wrong. Their decorous caution is the friend of the paedophile. Narrowing the inquiry equals hiding the truth. That is the reality and it is not what you want.

Detailed recommendations about how to organise an investigation is in the possession of the government. The 2002 guidance on Complex Child abuse investigations: Inter agency issues (Home Office and DoH) continues to be relevant and is referenced in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010 Investigating complex (organised or multiple) abuse (p194 6.10-1.6.13).

A dedicated police unit is essential, investigating the organised abuse of children, wherever it happened – from the seediest backstreets even to Downing Street – without fear or favour of exposing the rich and powerful, or those who covered up for them.

And if it opens a floodgate of misery, then so be it. We will all feel dirtied and sickened – as we should. Victims have an absolute right to the whole truth.

I know you want to do this and ask that you give it your urgent attention.

You have no choice.

Yours sincerely

Tom Watson MP
Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East

ARTICLE: Was Guy Fawkes the Last Honest Man to Pass through Westminster?

Hat tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/was-guy-fawkes-the-last-good-man-to-pass-through-westminster/

Imagine a government that would deliberately take millions away from the budget meant to educate its own nation’s children, while at the time use billions to send foreign aid to other nations who don’t need it?

That would be nothing less than treason. You cannot imagine any sane government doing such a thing. Think of, for example, China, or Japan, deliberately depriving its own people of an education while giving money to Korea? It just wouldn’t happen, because the Chinese and the Japanese would—rightly—regard that as nothing less than treason.

Of course, you guessed it: Britain’s House of Treason down by the banks of the old river, has done precisely that—and no-one seems to know or care.

The Tory-Lib-Dem-Labour party—because they are just all the same party—is busy with much-vaunted “budget cuts” to “save the economy” (after they and their big business bank cronies screwed it over in the first place) and one of the first cuts to be announced was in the education arena.

Any parent with university-age going children is well aware that uni fees have now rocketed from a manageable amount just two or three years ago, to an impossible £9,000 per year—and that is just for the tutoring fees, never mind books, resources, living allowances, residence and so on.

Even those students “lucky” enough to get loans, start off their working lives with tens of thousands of pounds of debt—an impossible burden which—even more importantly—makes starting a family next to impossible.

The nuts and bolts of the process are as follows: England’s university budgets were cut by £449 million in 2010, with similar cuts being added each following year. This means that over £1.3 billion has been cut in the last three years, and there is no end yet in sight. By the end of 2014, the total uni education budget cut will be cut by nearly £4 billion.

In practical terms, this means that the universities have had at least 6,000 fewer places each academic year.

In addition, research funding has been frozen and the uni buildings budget cut by 15 percent.

At the same time, the Government has announced that taxpayers will hand over £50.8 billion in foreign aid to the Third World by 2014. This translates to 61 percent of the total “spending review” cuts announced by the Government.

According to a press release issued by the Department for International Development (DFID), the total foreign aid budget will reach the targeted 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013.

This would mean a yearly spend of £12.6 billion, the DFID said.

This increased spending, the DFID said, is “in line with the UK’s international commitments to help those living in extreme poverty in our world. Over the course of the Spending Review period, the Department for International Development will increase resource spending by 35 percent in real terms, and increase capital spending by 20 percent in real terms.”

This means that the foreign aid budget was £8.4 billion in 2010, £8.7 billion in 2011, £9.1 billion in 2012, and will be £12.0 billion in 2013, and £12.6 billion in 2014—totalling £50.8 billion by the end of 2014.

So there you have it: cut the education budget by £4 billion, but boost the foreign aid budget by £50 billion.

Who would dare call it treason?  I for one, and I am increasingly becoming convinced that the last honest man to pass through the halls of Westminster was indeed Guy Fawkes.

ARTICLE: “Shhh! Don’t Worry, They’re Not Our Kids”: State, B.B.C., Establishment, and Government Cover-up of Widespread and Institutional Paedophilia

Firstly, thank you very much to Sonia Poulton for her direct and cutting coverage of one of the greatest outrages to have rocked the British Establishment. Perhaps such reportage will go some way to restoring the People’s faith and trust in an ostensibly impartial media but one which nevertheless has time and again shown itself (in its dubious friendship with the Establishment) to approximate that of whore to her pimp master.

Sonia here rasies some salient questions which are being ignored by the Enemies of the People cited in the title of this article:

1)  Why did Ken Clarke, as justice minister, halve sentences of ­paedophiles last year in a controversial announcement? 

2) Why did the Cabinet Office ­issue threatening letters last week to internet bloggers ­ warning that they must not repeat allegations of a child actor ­claiming to have been touched by a member of the Coalition?”

However, perhaps curtailed by her column space, Sonia’s piece is uncomprehensive. The issue of paedophilia in politics has a long, dark, and extensive history –as seen here in the three pages charting dozens of incidences  (look out for the big names, the prominent figures, included herein):

Page 1: http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/

Page 2: http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/2/

Page 3: http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/3/

Furthermore, The hands of the B.B.C. are far from clean

In addition, what is the State –police and “Social” “Services”– really up to? (Several pages)  

This outrage of systemic paedophilia and child abuse occurring in a “liberal” “democracy” sheds a whole new light on the sexualisation of children (sex education for children) and the push for the age of consent to be lowered –especially that for little boys to be buggered at the age of 14. Also, take a look at the television and its soft porn directed at children. 

Now ask yourselves, who in their right mind would be pushing these issues and debasing the innocence and safety of children? What kind of people would they be? Objectively, your answer must follow logically to arrive at the same conclusion: PAEDOPHILES.

You would do well to remember this when you’re at the ballot box. 

Essential Further reading: http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.com/#

 

Hat tip: Sonia Poulton: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354945/Sex-abuse-is-guilty-secret

IN THE weeks that have ­followed Jimmy Savile ­being revealed as a paedophile his carefully crafted charitable reputation has been obliterated. The ­national treasure decorated by the Queen and given keys to ­hospitals has been laid bare and described by one investigating ­officer as “the most prolific serial sex abuser in history”.

Increasingly, though, rather than being the solitary pervert operating with impunity, Savile may be the tip of a large iceberg.

As more victims reveal abuse at the hands of Savile, or his ­extensive circle of friends, it ­appears the silence that ­surrounded him may say less about his celebrity status and more about whom he may have implicated had his crimes been exposed. Certainly we know that Savile was subject to at least five police probes over five decades. All were quashed. Why? We have yet to be told.

For many it reeks of an establishment cover-up, though for years detractors referred to it as “conspiracy theory”.

Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.

Icke claimed Savile supplied children from Jersey’s infamous Haut de la Garenne care home to a senior British MP. Savile denied knowing the home, the scene of a police investigation in 2008 that uncovered widespread child abuse. He lied. There is pictorial evidence of him there.

ì
    Savile may be the tip of a large iceberg
                                                             î

Last week, during Prime Minister’s Questions, Labour MP Tom Watson raised the issue of a paedophile ring in Parliament and alluded to a former PM. David Cameron, all perplexed, said he would look into it. Minutes after PMQs, Tory MP Rob Wilson was on Sky News appearing to laugh off Watson’s claims.

This cannot go on. It was these sorts of hasty dismissals that helped Savile get away with it. People laughed it off and claimed “nutters” were saying it.

Well I can tell Mr Cameron that this claim is not sensational, anything but. In fact Tom Watson has barely scratched the surface.

I have compiled a list of 132 ­utterly shameless establishment child abusers. These include MPs, lords and local councillors. A ­similar list for members of Her Majesty’s Constabulary exists.

I don’t believe these lists are complete. This is not conjecture or media gossip but people, ­primarily men, who have been prosecuted for child sex offences throughout the UK.

Many of these abusers still ­represent constituents and are “serving the public”. At the very least we should know who they are, where they are and if their public decisions are influenced by the greater good or their own twisted perversions.

As a journalist, and in light of the Savile revelations, people have contacted me desperate to share their abuse stories.

Some accuse powerful members of the establishment. Several household-name MPs are said to have committed acts of degradation against children as young as six.

Yes, some of these callers may be jumping on the bandwagon but not many are, as independent ­corroboration of their stories has already confirmed.

So let’s not be under any ­ illusion that this is only about Savile. I fear it is far from it.

The Government must immediately announce an independent inquiry. It must be public and transparent and it must leave no stone unturned. The credibility of Parliament is at an all-time low and serious questions must be answered.Why did Ken Clarke, as justice minister, halve sentences of ­paedophiles last year in a controversial announcement?

Why did the Cabinet Office ­issue threatening letters last week to internet bloggers ­ warning that they must not repeat allegations of a child actor ­claiming to have been touched by a member of the Coalition?

Then there is the question that overshadows the whole Savile ­inquiry: why was he allowed to ­become so close to royalty and government? Surely it is the job of the security services to investigate the lifestyle of those who have access to our figureheads?

Yes, this is a dark time in our nation’s history but we must face it head on and keep going until we know the full, unexpurgated truth, no matter how unedifying future revelations may be.

Judging by some of the testi­monies I have heard it is likely to be very shocking indeed. There is no alternative. The ­victims need the truth to be told, no matter how powerful or con­nected their ­abusers may prove to be.

Read on: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354945/Sex-abuse-is-guilty-secret

ARTICLE: Public Figures Named in Paedophile Ring

Please read on for much, much more:  http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/

PUBLIC FIGURES NAMED IN PAEDOPHILE RING

Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales.

The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.

The Guardian today publishes for the first time detailed evidence about the alleged ring, which is said to have been based in Wrexham, and to have infiltrated local children’s homes over a 20 year period.

Witnesses claim that members of the ring used their connections with police and social services to conceal their activities. All of the accused have denied the allegations.

Those named to the tribunal include:

A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.

The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-age boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.

A powerful public official who has previously been cleared of abuse. Six witnesses have given separate accounts to the tribunal of his alleged rape of young boys. Another has reported him attending parties in Wrexham which were supplied with boys from a children’s home.

Two social workers and two police officers, one of whom was accused of abuse on four separate occasions and exonerated each time, another of whom has since been jailed in another part of the country for gross indecency with a child.

More than a dozen other local men, including an executive with a local authority, a senior probation officer and a director of a major company.

All those named as members of the alleged ring have denied the charges, either in evidence to the tribunal or through their lawyers.

When the tribunal was established last year, it had been assumed that the press could report its proceedings, using the laws of privilege which allow them to name names from court cases and public hearings without fear of libel actions.

However, Sir Ronald then ruled that the media could not report the name of any living person who was accused or likely to be accused of abusing children in the North Wales homes unless they had previously been convicted of such an offence.

Since then he has extended his ruling twice: he has granted anonymity to one man who died 16 years ago and to another who has twice been convicted of sexually assaulting boys from a North Wales home.

Sir Ronald has argued that his ruling will encourage alleged paedophiles to come froward and give honest evidence without fear of retribution. Critics say this is unnecessary, since he has the power to compel witnesses to attend, and that those who have come forward have done so to deny the allegations and not to make a clean breast of their alleged offences.

One lawyer who has been involved with the tribunal said he feared that the anonymity ruling was actively discouraging witnesses. “Newspaper readers may well have information of potential value to this tribunal. They may themselves have been the victims of abuse, or they may have worked with the alleged abusers. But if the press is not allowed to inform them of the names of those against whom allegations are made, they will not learn that their information is important. So they will not come forward.”

The tribunal was ordered by the last Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, William Hague, after Clwyd county council decided not to publish the report of an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse in its children’s homes. The tribunal, which has been hearing witnesses for eight months, is expected to continue to take evidence until January.

 

(2012) Liberal Democrat Would-be M.P. Vincent McKee -GUILTY OF 25TH FRAUD OFFENCE

A MAN who stood as an MP in Coventry has been found guilty of another fraud offence.

Vincent McKee, 54, of Hanbury Place, Little Heath, Coventry, had already been found guilty of 24 counts of fraudulently taking money from students and families.

The jury returned again yesterday afternoon to find him guilty of one further similar charge.

A trial at Coventry Crown Court has heard McKee took thousands of pounds from students or parents while running a firm offering private lessons to students.

The jury will continue deliberating today on nine more fraud charges and a separate charge of perverting the course of justice.

McKee – who stood for the Lib Dems in Coventry North west in the 2010 general election – had denied all 34 charges of dishonestly obtaining nearly £30,000 from 34 clients’ accounts using their bank card details.

The charges relate to when McKee was the boss of city student tuition firms.

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2012/10/18/would-be-coventry-mp-vincent-mckee-guilty-of-25th-fraud-offence-92746-32056390/#ixzz2B45wZ7vO

(2012) Senior Liberal Democrat Cllr Simon Arthur -JAILED FOR BEATING HIS FRAIL 87-YEAR-OLD MUM “LIKE A DOG”

A senior Lib Dem councillor has been jailed for attacking his frail 87-year-old mother.

Simon Arthur, 44, was sentenced to four months after a court heard he treated his mother Isabelle “like a dog” for years.

Arthur admitted punching pensioner Mrs Arthur who uses a walking stick to get around.

Magistrates heard Arthur – a Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate in the 2010 General Election – told his mother: “I hope you have an awful death”.

Arthur was finally arrested when a neighbour called police after seeing him assault his mother on the driveway of their home.

Prosecutor Sharon Anderson said: “Mrs Arthur had been out for the day but said she was too scared to return home, choosing to wait in a car park.

“She regularly went to the car park to avoid going home and had even slept there overnight previously.

“Around 8pm she did go home and parked in the driveway but her son had locked all the doors to their home.

“At around 11.30pm he came out of the house and began the attack.”

Mrs Arthur’s statement read: “He came over, opened the driver’s side door, grabbed hold of my hair and tried to pull me out of the car. It was like he was possessed.

“He tried to grab me a second time shouting ‘You’ll burn, you’ll suffer in the after life’.”

Swansea magistrates heard Mrs Arthur tried to make her way down the driveway to get help but her son grabbed her walking stick from her to block her path.

Ms Anderson said: “Mrs Arthur fell to the ground and dragged herself along the floor.

“She crawled out of the drive and her son followed, eventually trying to pick her up but she told him to leave her alone.”

Police arrived and took Arthur into the kitchen where he opened a drawer and grabbed a knife.

Arthur lunged at Pc Greg Bowen who dodged the blade before disarming the Lib Dem councillor.

The court heard Mrs Arthur did not support the prosecution against her son and asked police and social services for help instead.

Her statement said: “I now realise he will hurt me if he carries on – I don’t know what I have done to deserve this.

“I want him out of my house, I want him to get the help he needs.”

The court heard Mrs Arthur told police her son treated her like a dog saying she was terrified of him and “living on eggshells”.

In her statement Mrs Arthur said her son had never had a proper job and had always relied on her for financial support.

She said: “He has a nasty temper and has got more controlling since my husband died 22 years ago.

“Simon’s behaviour escalated last year after my twin brother Peter died.

“He told me ‘It should be you that’s gone, not Peter. I hope you have an awful death’.”

In her statement Mrs Arthur said: “I try and let it go over my head but when it’s physical, I can’t excuse it.”

Magistrates were told widow Mrs Arthur was advised by social services to write a letter to her son asking her son to leave the premises but he responded by laughing and throwing it away.

Arthur admitted to police in interview that he had punched his mother on a number of previous occasions.

Officers asked him to indicate the force he had used on a scale of one to ten. He replied “two”.

Arthur, a Lib Dem councillor for the Newton ward on Mumbles Community Council, admitted common assault and assault by beating.

Magistrates imposed a restraining order on Arthur after hearing his mother no longer wants to share her home with him.

He was ordered to move out and only to visit on her instructions.

JP Eliot Griffiths said: “Your mother is now very much in charge and you have to do what she tells you to.”

Peter May, Chairman of Swansea Lib Dems, said after the case: “Mr Arthur has been suspended and we have taken steps to permanently expel him from the party.”

Isabelle Arthur, Age Cymru’s Safeguarding Manager Louise Hughes said: “Elder abuse in any way, shape or form is completely unacceptable, and this case is one of the worst examples of elder abuse that we ever have heard of.

“Age Cymru commends Mrs Arthur’s neighbour for contacting the authorities – that one single act helped bring an end to the abuse that was being dealt out by Simon Arthur, and his eventual jailing.

“We hope that the publicity generated today by this case will raise awareness of elder abuse and send out a strong message that society does not tolerate cruelty towards older people.”

Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/08/06/senior-lib-dem-councillor-jailed-for-beating-his-own-mother-like-a-dog-91466-31561348/#ixzz2AV7ZMA86

ARTICLE: What did Hague know? Former Minister says Thatcher aide was paedophile who preyed on boys’ home

Hat tip:  http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/29/what-did-hague-know-former-minister-says-thatcher-aide-was-paedophile-who-preyed-on-boys-home/

  • An ex-Tory minister has claimed Sir Peter Morrison was implicated in the child abuse scandal that engulfed children’s homes in North Wales
  • An inquiry discovered up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally in the 1970s and ’80s
  • Rod Richards, a former Tory MP, said he had seen evidence linking the former aide to Baroness Thatcher to the scandal

By Glen Owen

A former Tory Minister last night made incendiary claims that one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest aides was implicated in one of the most harrowing child abuse scandals of recent times.

William Hague: what do he know, and when did he know it?

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and ex-leader of the Welsh Tories, made the shocking allegation that he had seen evidence linking Sir Peter Morrison to the North Wales children’s homes case, in which up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at homes including Bryn Estyn and Bryn Alyn Hall, both near Wrexham.

He said official documents had identified the pair as frequent, unexplained visitors to the care homes.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: ‘What I do know is that Morrison was a paedophile. And the reason I know that is because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.’

He added that William Hague, who was Welsh Secretary at the time of the inquiry, ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’.

Morrison was Lady Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party.

The claims prompted Labour MPs to call for the files to be reopened to ensure that there had not been an ‘establishment cover-up’.

Mr Hague called the inquiry into the scandal in 1996 after care homes boss John Allen was convicted of child abuse. It concluded that a  paedophile ring around Cheshire and Wrexham had caused ‘appalling suffering’ to children in care in the Seventies and Eighties.

Mr Richards said he received detailed briefings about the case while junior Welsh Office Minister for health and social services.

He said: ‘It fell to me to decide  initially whether to hold a public inquiry. So I saw all the documentation and the files. Morrison was linked. His name stood out on the notes to me because he had been an MP. He and [the other man] were named as visitors to the homes.’

Mr Richards could not offer anything to substantiate his claims against Morrison, who died in 1995 at the age of 51. But he said that as the MP for Chester, he would have no obvious reason to visit care homes in other MPs’ constituencies.

The claims have emerged amid growing public revulsion over the institutional failures revealed by  the Jimmy Savile scandal. Savile was a regular guest of Lady  Thatcher’s at Chequers.

Mr Richards added that he was frustrated that the £13 million, three-year inquiry headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC had not uncovered any evidence to link Morrison to the  abuse. He said: ‘It would seem that there are some parallels with Savile in that Morrison got in under the radar, and his activities did not appear in the final report’.

However, he said that as Welsh Secretary, Mr Hague ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’ in the preliminary files.

 

ARTICLE: The Tory Party Paedophile Cover-up

Of course, it’s not just the Tories: the whole tripartite hydra is at it. 

Paedophilia (page 1):http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/

Paedophilia (page 2): http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/page/2/

POLICE probing an underage sex ring at the heart of Maggie Thatcher’s government were warned: “Stop investigating if you want to keep your jobs.”

Officers in London were ­ inquiring into allegations made by a teenage rent boy that a Cabinet minister had been abusing him.

The youth claimed to be one of a number of boys regularly having sex with rich and powerful men in the 1980s – some of whom would fly to the illegal orgies from Europe.

As well as the Cabinet minister – who is still alive – he pointed the finger at judges, European bigwigs and senior civil servants.

He told his story to detectives, who are understood to have received other allegations against the minister.

But a former detective who worked on the case revealed they were ­suddenly told to halt the probe.

The furious ex-policeman said: “It wasn’t that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.

“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to ­continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”

There is no suggestion that Mrs Thatcher – who is now 87 and suffering from dementia – knew about the ­investigation or the fact it was stopped.

As Britain’s first female PM, she held power from 1979 until 1990.

The accused top Tory was never arrested and no one was ever charged over the rent-boy ring.

The vulnerable teen who spoke to ­detectives vanished just weeks after blowing the whistle.

The dropped probe was carried out by the Metropolitan Police – the same force now investigating six decades of abuse by telly star Jimmy Savile. It ­discovered high-profile men were ­paying the boys to attend sex parties at “millionaire properties” in London and the Home Counties.

A “network” of boys, including ­runaways, were used – many of whom were said to have been recruited around the then notorious rent-boy haunt of Leicester Square.

Some of the VIPs were said to have flown in via RAF Northolt on the outskirts of London.

One boy told police wealthy men from Belgium attended the parties, which were described as “high class” and featured top-notch food and booze.

The detective said the whistleblower was petrified about the repercussions.

He said: “The boys had been trapped in a cycle and were scared stiff about what might happen if they were found to have spoken.” The married Cabinet minister the boy named held a series of high-level posts in government.

A Whitehall security source said he received extra vetting from MI5 prior to taking up high office after rumours about his private life.

“The security services looked at him with special care,” the source said. “When you are nominated for a key Cabinet post it doesn’t matter what background you are from, you have to be vetted.

“Any weaknesses have to be disclosed to the Cabinet Secretary and Prime Minister

“But suspicions are not evidence. He’s a clever man – he would have ­dismissed it with a laugh.

“Mrs Thatcher may have suspected he was bisexual but that’s not a crime.”

Police sources in the minister’s home region said there are other unsubstantiated allegations that he was once found trying to abuse the son of a friend.

Last week Labour MP Tom Watson said he had been told of evidence ­linking another child sex ring to ­Parliament and Downing Street.

He said case files from 20 years ago involving convicted paedophile Peter Righton contained evidence of links to Number 10.

He said there was “clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring”, ­adding: “One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.”

Mr Watson said the leads were not followed up. And he said he had been contacted by someone who claimed the police “held a vast quantity of ­material suggesting Jimmy Savile was a ­predatory paedophile”.

Last week it emerged at least seven police investigations into Savile while he was alive did not result in charges.

Scotland Yard, now probing the claims of up to 300 victims, investigated the TV presenter in the 1980s over claims he attacked a girl in a caravan at BBC Television Centre in London.

Last week we asked Scotland Yard about the dropped investigation into the Cabinet minister in the 1980s at the time of going to press they had not ­responded.

A spokeswoman confirmed it was aware of Tom Watson’s claims.

Read on: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/279380/TORY-PAEDO-COVER-UP/

ARTICLE: Tom Watson M.P. MP Suggests Paedophile Ring at the heart of UK Government

London - Yesterday, Tom Watson MP asked the British Prime Minister about a possible paedophile ring that may have had connections to parliament and even 10 Downing Street.

Speaking from the backbenches, Tom Watson, the Deputy Chairman of the Labour Party, called for the police to re-open a closed case into paedophilia. Referring to the case of Mr Peter Righton, who was convicted in 1992, Watson expressed anxiety that there may have been an establishment cover up.

As the Independent points out, Righton, a former consultant to the National Children’s Bureau and a lecturer at the National Institute of Social Work, was convicted of importing obscene material and fined £900.

According to Watson’s sources, the investigation at the time revealed a paedophile ring that extended to the heart of the government itself. Mr Watson’s blog says:

Within the material seized at Righton’s home were letters from known and convicted paedophiles. The contact, who has seen the letters, claimed that one paedophile in particular was of great concern. He said that the paedophile, who worked with children, boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get hold of indecent images of children.

According to Mr Watson, the material provided clear evidence of a widespread, powerful paedophile ring, but the leads were not followed up.

Watson’s blog post also hints at a connection with the current police investigations into the allegations that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. This is supported by the Daily Mirror, which claims that it has confirmation that the officers investigating the Savile allegations are also investigating a possible paedophile ring at the heart of government. According to the Mirror, that investigation was launched a week ago.

BBC News reports, Prime Minister David Cameron told Mr Watson that he was not sure which former prime minister he was referring to, but assured him that the allegations would be looked into.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335485#ixzz2AKaPbLwz

 

VIDEO: UK Government Complicit in Massive Paedophile Cover-Up 2012

Hard-hitting and distressing news from the front line. If you vote for the Lib-Lab-Con-men then you inadvertently vote for this outrage.

ARTICLE AND QUESTION FOR YOU: You thought the whole ‘EUSSR’ thing was over the top? Have a look at this poster

A “EUROPE4ALL”? Where then is the swastika? Keen observers will also note that the Hammer and Sickle appears the most times on this poster. 

Question: Why is it illegal to fly the Nazi swastika flag but is more than acceptable to fly the flag of the Soviet Union, the Hammer and Sickle?

Answers below, please.

Take a close look at this promotional poster. Notice anything? Alongside the symbols of Christianity, Judaism, Jainism and so on is one of the wickedest emblems humanity has conceived: the hammer and sickle.

For three generations, the badge of the Soviet revolution meant poverty, slavery, torture and death. It adorned the caps of the chekas who came in the night. It opened and closed the propaganda films which hid the famines. It advertised the people’s courts where victims of purges and show-trials were condemned. It fluttered over the re-education camps and the gulags. For hundreds of millions of Europeans, it was a symbol of foreign occupation. Hungary, Lithuania and Moldova have banned its use, and various  former communist countries want it to be treated in the same way as Nazi insignia.

Yet here it sits on a poster in the European Commission, advertising the moral deafness of its author (I hope that’s what it is, rather than lingering nostalgia). The Bolshevist sigil celebrates the ideology which, in strict numerical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ever devised by our species. That it can be passed unremarked day after day in the corridors of Brussels is nauseating.

By Daniel Hannan M.E.P.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100185609/you-thought-the-whole-eussr-thing-was-over-the-top-have-a-look-at-this-poster/

ARTICLE / VIDEO: Expenses scandal: MPs block details of new expenses

The Speaker of the House of Commons is attempting to block the publication of MPs’ expenses that are believed to show that some rent their taxpayer-funded homes to each other.

John Bercow has written to the expenses regulator warning him not to disclose official documents that show the identities of MPs’ landlords for “security” reasons.

Publication of the names, which was supposed to take place today, would expose the extent to which MPs are exploiting a loophole in the rules that allows politicians to rent their homes to one another. The loophole means that MPs can still effectively build up property nest eggs at taxpayers’ expense, despite official attempts to stop the practice following the expenses scandal.

Sources at the expenses regulator confirmed that “some MPs” were engaged in the practice.

In a letter released last night, it emerged that Mr Bercow had written to the regulator claiming that publication of details of MPs’ landlords jeopardised their security and had led to “grave concerns” in the House of Commons.

“The processing of the data … could involve causing unwarranted damage and distress,” the Speaker wrote in the letter to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). “I should be grateful if you and your colleagues would reconsider such a plan.”

Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9615992/Expenses-scandal-MPs-block-details-of-new-expenses.html

ALAS! The British Army Finally Recognises its True Enemy in Parliament as 400 Soldiers Descend on Westminster

 

 

  • Serving soldiers will join march despite being threatened with court martial
  • First time soldiers have demonstrated on streets of London since 1649

More than 400 serving and retired troops will this week descend on Parliament to  confront David Cameron in a  protest unprecedented in the  history of the British Army.

Officers and soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will mount the Army’s first picket of the Palace of Westminster on Thursday after the Government axed its second battalion.

Despite being threatened with court martial, serving soldiers are due to join their retired colleagues on the march, which coincides with a Parliamentary debate about defence cuts.

The Army forbids their participation in any anti-Government demonstration.

It is the first time soldiers have demonstrated on the streets of London since the Bishopsgate Mutiny of 1649, when 300 members of the New Model Army launched a protest against Oliver Cromwell’s order that they be sent to Ireland.

It is also the first time the British Army has taken to the streets in protest since it was formed in 1707.

The Fusiliers claim Mr Cameron forced through the disbandment of 2RRF to save the Royal Regiment of Scotland  because he feared cutting soldiers north of the border would boost nationalists in an independence referendum due in 2014.

Captain Joe Eastwood, a former Regimental Sergeant Major of the Fusiliers, said: ‘There is a lot of anger because we know the Government did a deal to save the Jocks and to cut 2RRF.

‘I am sure that serving soldiers will join us on the protest, but given the risks to their careers, the arrangements for their participation are under the radar.

‘The MoD is threatening to use Section 69 of the 1955 Army Act. Pressure is being applied, with courts martial promised for  those who defy orders. So some arrangements must remain cloak-and-dagger.’

During Thursday’s protest, the Fusiliers, led by retired Colonel Brian Gorski, will march through Whitehall wearing their black berets, and red and white hackles. As they pass the Cenotaph, they will salute fallen comrades before  proceeding to Downing Street where petitions against 2RRF’s disbandment will be handed in.

Afterwards, they will watch a debate on the cuts from the Commons public gallery. A motion opposing the scrapping of 2RRF– so far signed by 30 MPs – has been brought by Tory John Baron, an ex-Fusiliers officer.

Colonel Gorski said: ‘The Army marching on Parliament is unique. The MoD is making enquiries and it may well have people out monitoring the march.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217318/Soldiers-risk-court-martial-march-Houses-Parliament-Cromwell-More-400-troops-protest-axeing-Fusiliers.html#ixzz29UgSK4VQ

MUST-SEE VIDEOS: Jimmy Savile Paedophile? What about the Paedophilia, Child Abuse, and Child Kidnapping by the State and Government?

ABOVE: A young lady by the name of Hollie Greig has key evidence against leading figures in the British Establishment.

The Establishment wants to separate mother and daughter by putting daughter into “care” so it will shut her up. Then the evidence against the paedophiles in the Establishment is silenced.

A gagging order of 70 years has been put on the evidence found by U.S police in Operation Ore. They unearthed evidence of 350-400 paedophiles at high levels of British society.

The Establishment and Social Services are actively involved in child trafficking.

(13 mins in) “Sarah Tether [Lib Dem] minister for Families and Children won’t reply to [simple questions] nor answer Freedom of Information requests…because the British government is stealing, abusing, and trafficking children”.

Neutrality is complicity.

(13 mins,17 secs in) “…politicians condone [child abuse] by the fact they will not take action.”

“Every MP has been informed about [child abuse]”

(13 mins, 19 secs) “David Cameron condones the abuse of children because he has done nothing.”

(13 mins, 20 secs) “[Ed] Miliband is the same” and “Clegg has got a big foot in the camp becase…Sarah Tether [fellow Liberal] is now covering up the trafficking of children through this system”.

All this and much, much more.

ABOVE: Today’s [Thursday 11th October, 2012] UK Column Live features a hard hitting interview with Bill Maloney, long time campaigner on childrens issues, and owner of Pie’n’Mash films. Bill discusses Jimmy Savile’s links to Broadmore and Peter Sutcliffe one day before the mainstream media – coincidence?

___________________________________________________________________

Further reading:

At a Glance: A Snippet of the Many Paedophiles and Perverts in Power

Blast from the Past: Are Paedophiles Running Tony Blair’s War Machine?

Link to all recorded entries on this site of paedophilia 

ARTICLE: We are on the Road to Serfdom

The final paragraph is most worthy of your attention. 

Authored by Detlev Schlichter; originally posted at DetlevSchlichter.com,

We are now five years into the Great Fiat Money Endgame and our freedom is increasingly under attack from the state, liberty’s eternal enemy. It is true that by any realistic measure most states today are heading for bankruptcy. But it would be wrong to assume that ‘austerity’ policies must now lead to a diminishing of government influence and a shrinking of state power. The opposite is true: the state asserts itself more forcefully in the economy, and the political class feels licensed by the crisis to abandon whatever restraint it may have adhered to in the past. Ever more prices in financial markets are manipulated by the central banks, either directly or indirectly; and through legislation, regulation, and taxation the state takes more control of the employment of scarce means. An anti-wealth rhetoric is seeping back into political discourse everywhere and is setting the stage for more confiscation of wealth and income in the future.

War is the health of the state, and so is financial crisis, ironically even a crisis in government finances. As the democratic masses sense that their living standards are threatened, they authorize their governments to do “whatever it takes” to arrest the collapse, prop up asset prices, and to enforce some form of stability. The state is a gigantic hammer, and at times of uncertainty the public wants nothing more than seeing everything nailed to the floor. Saving the status quo and spreading the pain are the dominant political postulates today, and they will shape policy for years to come.

Unlimited fiat money is a political tool

A free society requires hard and apolitical money. But the reality today is that money is merely a political tool. Central banks around the world are getting ever bolder in using it to rig markets and manipulate asset prices. The results are evident: equities are trading not far from historic highs, the bonds of reckless and clueless governments are trading at record low interest rates, and corporate debt is priced for perfection. While in the real economy the risks remain palpable and the financial sector on life support from the central banks, my friends in money management tell me that the biggest risk they have faced of late was the risk of not being bullish enough and missing the rallies. Welcome to Planet QE.

I wish my friends luck but I am concerned about the consequences. With free and unlimited fiat money at the core of the financial industry, mis-allocations of capital will not diminish but increase. The damage done to the economy will be spectacular in the final assessment. There is no natural end to QE. Once it has propped up markets it has to be continued ad infinitum to keep ‘prices’ where the authorities want them. None of this is a one-off or temporary. It is a new form of finance socialism. It will not end through the political process but via complete currency collapse.

Not the buying and selling by the public on free and uninhibited markets, but monetary authorities – central bank bureaucrats – now determine where asset prices should be, which banks survive, how fast they grow and who they lend to, and what the shape of the yield curve should be. We are witnessing the destruction of financial markets and indeed of capitalism itself.

While in the monetary sphere the role of the state is increasing rapidly it is certainly not diminishing in the sphere of fiscal policy. Under the misleading banner of ‘austerity’ states are not rolling back government but simply changing the sources of state funding. Seeing what has happened in Ireland and Portugal, and what is now happening in Spain and in particular Greece, many governments want to reduce their dependence on the bond market. They realize that once the bond market loses confidence in the solvency of any state the game is up and insolvency quickly becomes a reality. But the states that attempt to reduce deficits do not usually reduce spending but raise revenues through higher taxes.

Sources of state funding

When states fund high degrees of spending by borrowing they tap into the pool of society’s savings, crowd out private competitors, and thus deprive the private sector of resources. In the private sector, savings would have to be employed as productive capital to be able repay the savers who provided these resources in the first place at some point in the future. By contrast, governments mainly consume the resources they obtain through borrowing in the present period. They do not invest them in productive activities that generate new income streams for society. Via deficit-spending, governments channel savings mainly back into consumption. Government bonds are not backed by productive capital but simply by the state’s future expropriation of wealth-holders and income-earners. Government deficits and government debt are always highly destructive for a society. They are truly anti-social. Those who invest in government debt are not funding future-oriented investment but present-day state consumption. They expect to get repaid from future taxes on productive enterprise without ever having invested in productive enterprise themselves. They do not support capitalist production but simply acquire shares in the state’s privilege of taxation.

Reducing deficits is thus to be encouraged at all times, and the Keynesian nonsense that deficit-spending enhances society’s productiveness is to be rejected entirely. However, most states are not aiming to reduce deficits by cutting back on spending, and those that do, do so only marginally. They mainly replace borrowing with taxes. This means the state no longer takes the detour via the bond market but confiscates directly and instantly what it needs to sustain its outsized spending. In any case, the states’ heavy control over a large chunk of society’s scarce means is not reduced. It is evident that this strategy too obstructs the efficient and productive use of resources. It is a disincentive for investment and the build-up of a productive capital stock. It is a killer of growth and prosperity.

47 percent, then 52 percent, then 90 percent…

Why do states not cut spending? – I would suggest three answers: first, it is not in the interest of politicians and bureaucrats to reduce spending as spending is the prime source of their power and prestige. Second, there is still a pathetic belief in the Keynesian myth that government spending ‘reboots’ the economy. But the third is maybe the most important one: in all advanced welfare democracies large sections of the public have come to rely on the state, and in our mass democracies it now means political suicide to try and roll back the state.

Mitt Romney’s comment that 47% of Americans would not appreciate his message of cutting taxes and vote for him because they do not pay taxes and instead rely on government handouts, may not have been politically astute and tactically clever but there was a lot of truth in it.

In Britain, more than 50 percent of households are now net receivers of state transfers, up 10 percent from a decade ago. In Scotland it is allegedly a staggering 90 percent of households. Large sections of British society have become wards of the state.

Against this backdrop state spending is more likely to grow than shrink. This will mean higher taxes, more central bank intervention (debt monetization, ‘quantitative easing’), more regulatory intervention to force institutional investors into the government bond market, and ultimately capital controls.

Eat the Rich!

In order to legitimize the further confiscation of private income and private wealth to fund ongoing state expenditure, the need for a new political narrative arose. This narrative claims that the problem with government finances is not out-of-control spending but the lack of solidarity by the rich, wealthy and most productive, who do not contribute ‘their fair share’.

An Eat-the-Rich rhetoric is discernible everywhere, and it is getting louder. In Britain, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wants to introduce a special ‘mansion tax’ on high-end private property. This is being rejected by the Tories but, according to opinion polls, supported by a majority of Brits. (I wager a guess that it is popular in Scotland.) In Germany, Angela Merkel’s challenger for the chancellorship, Peer Steinbrueck, wants to raise capital gains taxes if elected. In Switzerland of all places, a conservative (!) politician recently proposed that extra taxes should be levied on wealthy pensioners so that they make their ‘fair’ contribution to the public weal.

France on an economic suicide mission

The above trends are all nicely epitomized by developments in France. In 2012, President Hollande has not reduced state spending at all but raised taxes. For 2013 he proposed an ‘austerity’ budget that would cut the deficit by €30 billion, of which €10 billion would come from spending cuts and €20 billion would be generated in extra income through higher taxes on corporations and on high income earners. The top tax rate will rise from 41% to 45%, and those that earn more than €1 million a year will be subject to a new 75% marginal tax rate. With all these market-crippling measures France will still run a budget deficit and will have to borrow more from the bond market to fund its outsized state spending programs, which still account for 56% of registered GDP.

If you ask me, the market is not bearish enough on France. This version of socialism will not work, just as no other version of socialism has ever worked. But when it fails, it will be blamed on ‘austerity’ and the euro, not on socialism.

As usual, the international commentariat does not ‘get it’. Political analysts are profoundly uninterested in the difference between reducing spending and increasing taxes, it is all just ‘austerity’ to them, and, to make it worse, allegedly enforced by the Germans. The Daily Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard labels ‘austerity’ ‘1930s policies imposed by Germany’, which is of dubious historical and economic accuracy but suitable, I guess, to make a political point.

Most commentators are all too happy to cite the alleged negative effect of ‘austerity’ on GDP, ignoring that in a heavily state-run economy like France’s, official GDP says as little about the public’s material wellbeing as does a rallying equity market in an economy fuelled by unlimited QE. If the government spent money on hiring people to sweep the streets with toothbrushes this, too, would boost GDP and could thus be labelled economic progress.

At this point it may be worth adding that despite all the talk of ‘austerity’ many governments are still spending and borrowing like never before, first and foremost, the United States, which is running the largest civil government mankind has ever seen. For 5 consecutive years annual deficits have been way in excess of $1,000 billion, which means the US government borrows an additional $4 billion on every day the markets are open. The US is running budget deficits to the tune of 8-10% per annum to allegedly boost growth by a meagre 2% at best.

Regulation and more regulation

Fiscal and monetary actions by states will increasingly be flanked by aggressive regulatory and legislative intervention in markets. Governments are controlling the big pools of savings via their regulatory powers over banks, insurance companies and pension funds. Existing regulations already force all these entities into heavy allocations of government bonds. This will continue going forward and intensify. The states must ensure that they continue to have access to cheap funding.

Not only do I expect regulation that ties institutional investors to the government bond market to continue, I think it will be made ever more difficult for the individual to ‘opt out’ of these schemes, i.e. to arrange his financial affairs outside the heavily state-regulated banking, insurance, and pension fund industry. The astutely spread myth that the financial crisis resulted from ‘unregulated markets’ rather than constant expansion of state fiat money and artificially cheap credit from state central banks, has opened the door for more aggressive regulatory interference in markets.

The War on Offshore

Part and parcel of this trend is the War on Offshore, epitomized by new and tough double-taxation treaties between the UK and Switzerland and Germany and Switzerland. You are naïve if you think that attacks on Swiss banking and on other ‘offshore’ banking destinations are only aimed at tax-dodgers.  An important side effect of these campaigns is this: it gets ever more cumbersome for citizens from these countries to conduct their private banking business in Switzerland and other countries, and ever more expensive and risky for Swiss and other banks to service these clients. For those of us who are tax-honest but prefer to have our assets diversified politically, and who are attracted to certain banking and legal traditions and a deeper commitment to private property rights in places such as Switzerland, banking away from our home country gets more difficult. This is intentional I believe.

The United States of America have taken this strategy to its logical extreme. The concept of global taxation for all Americans, regardless where they live, coupled with aggressive litigation and threat of reprisal against foreign financial institutions that may – deliberately or inadvertently – assist Americans in lowering their tax burden, have made it very expensive and even risky for many banks to deal with American citizens, or even with holders of US green cards or holders of US social security numbers. Americans will find it difficult to open bank accounts in certain countries. This is certainly the case for Switzerland but a friend of mine even struggled obtaining full banking services in Singapore. I know of private banks in the UK that have terminated banking relationships with US citizens, even when they were longstanding clients. All of this is going to get worse next year when FATCA becomes effective – the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, by which the entire global financial system will become the extended arm of the US Internal Revenue System. US citizens are subject to de facto capital controls. I believe this is only a precursor to real capital controls being implemented in the not too distant future.

When Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote that “none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” he anticipated the modern USA.

And to round it all off, there is the War on Cash. In many European countries there are now legal limits for cash transactions, and Italy is considering restrictions for daily cash withdrawals. Again, the official explanation is to fight tax evasion but surely these restrictions will come in handy when the state-sponsored and highly geared banking sector in Europe wobbles again, and depositors try to pull out their money.

“I’ve seen the future, and it will be…”

So here is the future as I see it: central banks are now committed to printing unlimited amounts of fiat money to artificially prop up various asset prices forever and maintain illusions of stability. Governments will use their legislative and regulatory power to make sure that your bank, your insurance company and your pension fund keep funding the state, and will make it difficult for you to disengage from these institutions. Taxes will rise on trend, and it will be more and more difficult to keep your savings in cash or move them abroad.

Now you may not consider yourself to be rich. You may not own or live in a house that Nick Clegg would consider a ‘mansion’. You may not want to ever bank in Switzerland or hold assets abroad. You may only have a small pension fund and not care much how many government bonds it holds. You may even be one those people who regularly stand in front of me in the line at Starbucks and pay for their semi-skinned, decaf latte with their credit or debit card, so you may not care about restrictions on using cash. But if you care about living in a free society you should be concerned. And I sure believe you should care about living in a functioning market economy.

This will end badly.

 

Hat tip: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-11/we-are-road-serfdom

‘Politicians keep British soldiers in Afghanistan as human shields for their reputations’ -SAYS PAUL FLYNN M.P.

 

Question of the day: Why don’t we see essential ground-breaking news like this from Western mainstream media? Why do we have to look to Russia to lift the lid on the crooks in office? 

This interview MUST be viewed.

British MP Paul Flynn, who was suspended from the House of Commons for voicing his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, told RT there is absolutely no reason to keep UK soldiers in the warzone any longer, other than to save ministers’ reputations.

A British Labour Party politician, Flynn was recently suspended from the House of Commons after he accused ministers of lying over military policy in Afghanistan. Below is an extract from his speech:

“The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers is being prolonged by those on that bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area where they’re not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Isn’t this very similar to the end of the First World War, when it was said the politicians lied and soldiers died and the reality was as it is now – that our brave soldier lions are being led by ministerial donkeys!”

Speaking with RT, Paul Flynn has said that politicians have been making the wrong decisions concerning the Afghan war for many years. What’s more, the current war has not changed things in Afghanistan. It even made them worse, while Britain has wasted lives and huge sums of money – and continues to do so.

RT: Paul Flynn, after that you were disciplined by the speaker and barred from parliament for five days. Presumably, you knew that would happen, but you thought it was worth it.


Paul Flynn: 
Oh, it’s very well worthwhile. It’s a very rare event and the result is being that my words have been seen almost all over the world. There’s been an extraordinary effect. And I believe this may well be a turning point in public opinion. I believe 80 per cent of public opinion would like to see [the] boys home by Christmas, and the government have their heads in the sands, and they are ignoring it.

RT: You’ve been a long-standing critic of the war in Afghanistan. So what brought on this specific outburst?

PF: This one was about the futility of the deaths in the last few days and the utter imbecile lying ministers who come before us and made idiotic excuses for continuing the war. There is only one reason why the war is continuing and that is to protect the reputations of politicians. Our soldiers are there as human shields for ministers’ reputations. What they are trying to do is to keep the war going on to the best moment that would reflect on the reputations of politicians.

Absolutely no reasons why we shouldn’t bring our troops home now. The only reason is that we are tied in with the politics of the United States. We are an independent state. We have to remind us of that. We can take our own decisions and what we are going to see in the future is deepening the trouble. There will be more slaughter. Because of this whole of these fictitious aims of the war we seem to collapse. And what’s happening now there is no possibility that we can train the Afghan people and army and their police that will fight their own people that will kill brother-Afghans, for what? For a corrupt election-rigging depraved president or to defend the interest of a foreign country? It can’t happen.

RT: You say that ministers are keeping soldiers in Afghanistan to protect their own reputation. But how does the death of more soldiers protect anyone’s reputation?

PF: The official attitude is we must protect our reputations against our previous mistakes and in the war so that history will judge the politicians made the right decisions. In fact, we’ve been making the wrong decisions for many years.

RT:
You maintain that what Britain is doing is arming and training its future enemies. And I suppose there is a historical precedent for that.       

PF: There is a very powerful precedent that the Americans trained and armed the Mujahideen. And the Mujahideen are the worst government that Afghanistan has had in a hundred years. And the Taliban were a great reforming improvement in a Mujahideen. But we’ve done this in the past and we are going to do it again. There is no way that a Taliban army or police are going to risk their lives, kill their brother-Afghans in the service of a foreign country when we’ve gone over the service of a corrupt president. They are going back to their tribal loyalties, the Uzbeks and the Pashtuns will be divided as they always have been divided. And the likelihood is that there will be disorder when we leave.  We went there, civil war was going on, and the country was bitterly divided. After we’ve left, a few years, the situation will be very similar. There’ll be more civil war and the likely future rulers will be the Taliban.

RT:What lessons, then, should have been learnt from both Britain’s own colonial past and the Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan?  

PF: In 2001 in Strasbourg a very ebullient member of the Duma tapped me on the back and said: “You British have gone into Afghanistan and you captured it in a few days. I’m saying that we Russians did that. And we were there for 10 years. We killed a million Afghans, we spent billions of rubles. And we lost 16,000 of our own soldiers. And when we came out, we left a puppet government there, but there were 300,000 Mujahideen in the hills who eventually took over.” And he said to me: “It will happen to you.” And he was absolutely precisely right.

We deluded ourselves. We told ourselves fairy stories about what was going to happen. But we could change things and we couldn’t. There was a benign cause that the Russians would have been taken up in Afghanistan of taking people at a bottom life, giving them a chance to improve materially. I mean, nothing really happened in the end. And we went in, we were going to get rid of the drugs trade, we were ending corruption, we were going to give women a better deal. And nothing has changed.

The corruption is exactly the same, possibly worse. Drugs’ trade is… 90 per cent of the drugs in Britain come from Afghanistan, Tony Blair told the House. 90 per cent! Twelve years later 90 per cent of the drugs still come from Afghanistan. There is a difference. There is more of them now and they are cheaper on the streets. And more people corrupted.

In 2001 Afghanistan was the second-worst place in the world for a woman to live. Now it’s the second-worst place in the world of a woman to live. But the objectives of the war were hopeless, were utopian. And we’ve wasted lives and huge sums of money and we’ll end up in two or three years’ time with a situation just as bad as the one that was there before we invaded.

RT: Let’s talk a bit about the logistics and message that pulling out now would send. What about the soldiers who are serving in Afghanistan at the moment, those, who’ve already served and the families of the soldiers who’ve died. Wouldn’t pulling out now send the message that everything they’ve done has been essentially for nothing?

PF: It’s certainly a tragedy that those families must go through this trauma, have realized that this was a war in which nothing has been achieved. But certainly they have to face that eventually. What would be immoral and cruel is to tell other people the same lies and that more lives should be lost. In order to comfort the bereaved or to comfort politicians that they made the right decisions, at the moment now there’s no conceivable reason why we shouldn’t start telling the truth to people and say that there isn’t this mythical threat of terrorism in Britain that we somehow are ending by being in Afghanistan. If we say to the Taliban “Why are you killing our soldiers?” would they say “When we’ve killed all your soldiers, we are coming over to Newport and to Cardiff and London and we’re going to blow up your streets?” They’ve got no interest in that.

The reason the Taliban are killing British soldiers is because we are the foreigners, we are the infidels. And we occupy, by force of arms, their country. It’s their sacred religious duty to kill us. If we are not there, they don’t kill us. It’s a fairly simple argument to understand.

RT:
So what you are saying is that pulling out of Afghanistan right now wouldn’t affect the security situation in the rest of the world?

PF: 
No, not in the slightest. There are security threats. They come from Pakistan. They come from Yemen. They come from Somalia. They come from Bradford. We had an attack by Al-Qaeda that was from English people brought up in England.

RT: Is it not the better to have the US as friends rather than enemies? What kind of message would leaving now send to America which at the moment is supposedly a trusted friend and ally?

PF: We have a claim that we are an independent country and we spend billions on an independent nuclear weapon. We should be independent as far as Afghanistan is concerned. We’ve already seen countries that we greatly respect and admire assembling themselves pulling out of the conflict. Quite rightly, honorably they’ve given huge contributions in blood and treasure. We should take our own decision. We know that at least 80 per cent of the population is saying: “For Goodness sake, bring our boys home by Christmas!”

RT:
Paul Flynn, thank you.

PF:
 My pleasure.

 

Hat tip:  http://rt.com/news/war-afghanistan-flynn-opposition-740/

(2012) New Labour Cllr. Abdul Patel -INVESTIGATED FOR FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

Abdul Patel

Kirklees Council is investigating allegations about the running of a Muslim burial ground which is partly operated by a newly-elected Dewsbury councillor.

Coun Abdul Patel this week hit back at claims about the amounts paid by bereaved families to himself and former Batley councillor Ghulam Maniyar, who together run the Muslim Mosque Burial Committee.

It has been alleged that the men may have taken up to £1m from families during the 25 years they have leased the private plot near Dewsbury Cemetery.

It is also claimed the burial committee may have questions to answer about tax and accounts and that there is no record of where bodies are buried.

But Coun Patel – who won his Dewsbury East seat for Labour this year – says the allegations are untrue.

“I don’t think this will affect my work as a councillor at all,” he said.

“The community is behind me and I am not worried about the outcome of any investigation.”

Mr Maniyar – a Batley East Labour councillor until 2004 – also insists: “None of this is true. I won’t be losing any sleep.

“We have a lease on the land and pay to Kirklees Council. And we have a record of every grave. If we didn’t pay our rent the council would follow it up.

“There are more than 400 graves there and if we didn’t keep up records there would be an investigation.”

He said the committee was an open organisation, and payments for burials differed because some people wanted more than the basics which pushed up the cost.

“I have no fear about this at all,” said Mr Maniyar. “Our operation is an open book.”

Kirklees Council’s audit team has begun an investigation after a former councillor raised concerns about the committee.

A spokesman said: “The investigation is more than 50 per cent complete. So far there has been no police or tax authority involvement.

“The site in question is privately leased and Kirklees Council does not have statutory requirements regarding the registration and disposal of bodies at the site .”

But he said graves in the Muslim cemetery were not the council’s responsibility.

He added that there was nothing apparent at this stage to stop Coun Patel continuing as a councillor.

(2012) Liberal Democrat Cllr. Simon Arthur -GUILTY OF ASSAULTING HIS 87-YEAR-OLD MOTHER

Simon Arthur (Liberal Democrats)
Councillor Simon Hugh Arthur has admitted assaulting his 87 year-old mother who said she was “terrified” by her son after he subjected her to a catalogue of assaults.
Simon Hugh Arthur, 44, admitted trying to drag his elderly mother, Isabelle Arthur, from her car.
Arthur, who represents Newton ward on Mumbles Community Council, also admitted grabbing a knife and lunging towards a police officer.
Mrs Arthur said she was “terrified” by her son, who had stood as Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 General Election.
Sharon Anderson, prosecuting, read a statement to Swansea Magistrates Court from Mrs Arthur in which she said her son “treats her like a dog”, and that she is living on eggshells.
The prosecutor added that Arthur had admitted to police in interview that he had punched his mother on a number of previous occasions.
Mrs Arthur — who was described in court as “frail” — had been out for the day on July 21 but said she was too scared to return to the home they share, instead choosing to wait in a Mumbles car park.
She said she regularly went to the car park to avoid going home, and had even slept there overnight previously.
Around 8pm she did go home and parked in the driveway but her son had locked all the doors to their home in Summerland Lane, Newton.
The court heard that at around 11.30pm Arthur came out of the house and began the attack.
Mrs Arthur’s statement read: “He came over, opened the driver’s side door, grabbed hold of my hair and tried to pull me out of the car. It was like he was possessed.”
He tried to grab her a second time, but failed, before shouting “You’ll burn” and “You’ll suffer in the after life”.
The court was told Mrs Arthur, who uses a walking stick, then tried to make her way down the driveway to get help but her son grabbed her stick from her, using it to block her path.
Mrs Arthur fell to the ground and dragged herself along the floor.
She crawled out of the drive and her son followed, eventually trying to pick her up — but she told him to leave her alone.
A neighbour saw what was going on and called the police.
Mrs Arthur escaped serious injury in the assault.
In her statement she said her son had never had a proper job and always relied on her for financial support.
He had a “nasty temper,” and he had got “more controlling” since Mrs Arthur’s husband died 22 years ago.
Last year, after Mrs Arthur’s twin brother, Peter, died Arthur’s behaviour “escalated,” she said.
Ms Anderson said after his uncle’s death, Arthur told his mother: “It should be you that’s gone, not Peter” and “I hope you have an awful death”.
In her statement Mrs Arthur said: “I try and let it go over my head but when it’s physical, I can’t excuse it.”
When police arrived on the night of the attack, they took Arthur into the kitchen where he opened a drawer and grabbed a knife.
A statement by PC Greg Bowen which was read out to the court described how Arthur raised the knife above his head and lunged at the officer.
PC Bowen and another officer managed to grab the knife.
“If he’d have been given a split second more than allowed he would have brought the knife down on me,” the constable’s statement said.
Arthur later told police he had he locked the doors to the house “out of spite”, and said he did not remember most of the incident and had drunk more than a bottle of wine.
In his interview, he said he did not intend to hurt the police officer, but wanted to commit suicide.
The court heard Mrs Arthur did not support the prosecution against her son and would not make a formal complaint but wanted him to get help.
Her statement continued: “I now realise he will hurt me if he carries on, I don’t know what I have done to deserve this. I want him out of my house, I want him to get the help he needs.”
Magistrates were told she had contacted social services who had advised her to write a letter, asking her son to leave the premises — but he had responded by laughing and throwing it away.
Arthur had been involved in six domestic violence incidents against his mother since August last year, the court heard.
After he admitted having previously punched his mother, officers asked him to indicate the force he had used on a scale of one to ten. He replied “two”.
Laura Sherwood, representing Arthur, said she did not plan to mitigate until a pre-sentence report had been prepared.
Arthur, who admitted two charges of common assault, was remanded in custody until August 6.

ARTICLE AND VIDEO: “British” Zionists Plot Attack on Iran

Matthew Gould (above right)

By Brit Dee

Meet Matthew Gould, Britain’s ambassador to Israel.

Gould is the first Jew to hold the position – before his appointment, the British government had a policy of appointing non-Jewish ambassadors, to prevent conflicts of interest. This policy was overturned as discriminatory during Labour’s time in government, when Gould served as private secretary to Jewish and strongly pro-Israel former Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Gould has made no secret of his staunchly pro-Israel beliefs. In May of this year the Jerusalem Post reported that whilst visiting a Kibbutz “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism”, and The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”.

Unwavering support for Israel naturally goes hand in hand with the demonisation of Iran. In May 2010 IsraelNationalNews.com reported Gould as stating “My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it. Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.”

Gould’s conflict of interest is made all the more alarming by his connections to Zionists within the British government, and specifically with the former Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. Fox was recently forced to resign following revelations about his relationship with close friend and unofficial adviser Adam Werritty – for more details please watch my video Israeli Influence Over British Government. Werritty and Fox ran a fake charity called Atlantic Bridge, a Neocon, Zionist front group, and Werrity received funding via a front company named Pargav – half of Pargav’s funders were ultra rich Zionists associated with such pro-Israel lobby groups as the British Israel Communications and Research Centre.

Fox, Werritty and Gould are known to have met on six occasions, both before and after Fox became Conservative Defence Secretary, and even whilst Gould was working for the Labour party. The British government has tried to dismiss these meetings as private social events, but former British ambassador and whistleblower Craig Murray says that a trusted source claims “co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings”.

These meetings include attending the Zionist Herzilya conference in Israel, at which Gould, Fox and Werritty sat together, as well as the “We believe in Israel” conference in London, at which Gould and Fox were pictured together.

Murray alleges that the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell’s recent investigation into the Werritty-Fox affair is a whitewash, and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are also attempting to cover up Gould’s association with the pair. Asks Murray, “Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?”

Hat tip:  http://www.resistradio.com/updates/british-zionists-plot-iran-attack

Watch the video:   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xn0he5_british-zionists-plot-iran-attack_news

The REAL migrant scandal? Politicians still pretend we control our borders – when the truth is Brussels won’t let us

Yesterday, yet again, we saw headline news being made by a shocking  tale of incompetence and mismanagement by the UK Border Agency, the body set up in 2008 to control immigration to this country.

The backlog of cases piled up in the agency’s labyrinthine system, we are told, amounts to 276,000, equivalent to the population of Newcastle. Most of the migrants are here illegally and should have been sent home years ago.

They include 150,000 foreign workers and students still in Britain even though they were refused extensions to their visas; 101,000 untraced ‘asylum seekers’ left over from when 450,000 ‘forgotten files’ were discovered in 2005; and 3,900 foreign offenders released by the courts to protect their human rights.

Shambles: The UK Border Agency was established in 2008 to control immigration to this countryShambles: The UK Border Agency was established in 2008 to control immigration to this country

Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, calls the Border Agency ‘a Bermuda triangle’ for immigrants who find it easy enough to get into Britain from anywhere in the world, but then vanish off the radar because there is no way of tracing them, let alone deporting them because they entered illegally or have broken our laws.

Scandals surrounding our immigration policy are so commonplace that we all accept it is completely out  of control.

MPs like Mr Vaz — whose committee is so exasperated it is now reporting on the Border Agency’s performance every three months — regularly jump up and down asking for something to be done.

But even though it is officially predicted that within eight years Britain’s population will have increased by another five million, nothing ever happens.

Keith Vaz has called the Border Agency 'a Bermuda triangle' for immigrantsKeith Vaz has called the Border Agency ‘a Bermuda triangle’ for immigrants

Home Secretaries from Labour’s John Reid and Charles Clarke to the Coalition’s Theresa May have faced a torrent of criticism — to which they reply with limp bureaucratic statements, promising action.

But things just go from bad to worse.

Behind this dismal picture, however, lies a much bigger story and one we are simply not being told about. The reason why our immigration policy is in such a shambles is that we do not have any control over it.

The real explanation for almost everything we find so horrifying about this mess is that virtually every aspect of our policy is no longer decided here in Britain at all, but is dictated by a morass of international rules and, above all, by those emanating from the EU.

We are familiar with the fact that, since ten more countries joined the EU in 2004, including Poland and those of formerly Communist eastern Europe, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU, giving them the right to live and work here and to enjoy a wide range of benefits such as our NHS and schools.

But if you examine the section of the EU’s ‘Europa’ website headed ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, you will see three pages of headings covering every  conceivable aspect of immigration policy, from visa rules to our duties to asylum seekers.

As these headings make clear, the rules, many based on UN and other international agreements, cover not just the way we must treat EU citizens but how we deal with immigrants from the rest of the world.

The scandal of this is twofold. It is not just that successive governments have handed over to the EU the power to dictate every aspect of who we must admit to live and work in Britain, it is also the extent to which politicians such as Mrs May will not honestly and openly admit this.

Ministers and MPs continue to pretend that we at least have some control over immigration by what they slyly call ‘non-EU citizens’.

Benefits: Since ten more countries joined the European Union in 2004, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU - giving them the right to work and liveBenefits: Since ten more countries joined the European Union in 2004, we have had to admit anyone from the 28 countries of the EU – giving them the right to work and live

But the truth is that we have signed up to a vast system of international rules about how we must treat migrants, no matter where they come from — which mean that our politicians and officials, like those of the UK Border Agency, no longer have any choice but to obey them.

The reason why the Border Agency is faced with this horrifying backlog of cases involving immigrants, most of whom should no longer be here, is that in everything it does the agency tries to follow more zealously than any other country in Europe the procedures of the system we signed up to, a system so tortuously complex that it is unworkable.

And on top of this we have all the absurdities piled on us by the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights, into British law.

ARTICLE: The Government’s War on the British Army: Five Army battalions Set to be axed

Five infantry battalions are expected to be axed and other units merged or turned into reservists in the biggest overhaul of the Army in more than a century, under plans due to be announced.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will set out how the regular Army will be cut from 102,000 troops to 82,000 by the end of the decade – its lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars.

The plan – known as Army 2020 – is expected to see it split into two, with a reaction force, ready to respond to emergencies around the globe, and an adaptable force capable of carrying out a range of tasks and commitments.

Mr Hammond has said the changes – drawn up by Lieutenant General Nick Carter – will provide the basis of a smaller, more flexible and agile Army into the future. But the prospect of losing historic units has been the cause of intense anguish within the service.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed this week that one officer, Brigadier David Paterson of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, had written to the head of the Army expressing his bitter disappointment at plans to axe one of its two battalions. In his letter to General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, Brig Paterson said the proposal “cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option”.

Other units under threat are reported to include the Yorkshire Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Welsh and the Mercian Regiment.

Mr Hammond, who will set out details of the proposals in a statement to the House of Commons, has acknowledged that they have involved some “difficult” decisions. But he said that cuts could not be avoided, with the demands for strict financial discipline under the Government’s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Under the plans, reductions in regular Army strength would be offset by increases in part-time reservists, with the Territorial Army doubling in numbers from 15,000 to 30,000.

Colonel Bob Stewart, a Conservative MP and former commanding officer with the Cheshire Regiment who sits on the defence select committee, said cutting troops was not the right way forward but the Government had been left with no option.

Asked if the Defence Secretary was putting the nation at risk, he told BBC Breakfast: “Every defence secretary has to balance exactly what the risk is. We just don’t know what the risk is. If you reduce the numbers available you have less options, you have less flexibility, you have less power, that’s a fact.”

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/five-army-battalions-set-to-be-axed-16181260.html#ixzz20mm40GM0

ARTCLE: Met Police Say M,P.s Can Claim for Fake Offices

Denis MacShane has had his police investigation dropped. It was triggered in October 2010 after the Parliamentary authorities suspected him of fraud due to the £125,000 in rent that he claimed for a constituency office that turned out to be the grotty garage at the end of his garden. He also put in a plethora of invoices for translation services, paid in cash. To his brother Edmund Matyjaszek. 

Guido suspected this announcement would be coming after he was tipped that the specialist crime cops that investigated MPs expenses had all been transferred to Operation Weeting and the associated investigations. MacShane will not get the opportunity to ever clear his name in court, instead the enduring image that remains in the public mind will be this:

No further questions Your Honour…

URGENT BREAKING NEWS -ROGER HAYES ARRESTED, TRIED AND CONVICTED IN SECRET COURT AND IMPRISONED FOR 3 MONTHS

Please call 01216 262773 urgently to voice your disquiet. 

The first his family heard of him was at 18:30 this evening via a telephone call from a Warder in Liverpool prison, to say that Roger had been tried and sentenced to prison.

At no time were the family or any other members of the public informed of his arrest, and it is understood that he was tried in a secret court without a Jury.

Denied the right to argue his case, denied the right to a Jury, denied the right for the public to see justice being done, Roger was imprisoned in the secretive gulag system that Britain has become in 2012.

Roger’s “crime” is that he has been refusing to pay his Council tax, because along with other state taxes, a proportion of the tax revenue gathered is being sent to the European Union, used to fund unlawful wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, and promote terrorism right around the world. To pay tax under these circumstances is, at the very least, unlawful under Section 15(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

As such the present government of UK in Westminster is complicit to terrorist action and war crimes and therefore the payment of taxes to an unlawful, criminal regime is itself a criminal act – one in which Roger refused to participate.

The state has never forgiven him for the arrest of Judge Peake at Birkenhead court as part of this campaign.

In addition to his stance on taxes for unlawful purposes, Roger has also been campaigning for the Lawful Bank – a monetary initiative in which money can be issued to the public as credit, rather than as crippling debt under the existing corrupt and fraudulent International Monetary System.

As Chairman of the British Constitution Group, Roger Hayes has been an outspoken public speaker warning the British public that their rights and freedoms under Common Law and the Constitution are being stripped away and replaced by a dictatorship of secret courts operating under Administrative and Statute Law.

There is no doubt that his success in alerting ever more people to the dangers of the British / EU dictatorship being built by a criminal element now masquerading as British politicians, has caused the state to imprison Roger. His challenge to the fraudulent banking system, as evidenced by the criminal acts of Barclays bank and todays resignation by arch Bilderberger and BBC advisor Marcus Agius, will also have made Roger enemies within Britain’s wide criminal banking cabal.

Roger’s family is shocked both at his arrest, and at the realisation that Britain is now sliding into a police state, where husbands, fathers and other good people can be lifted off the streets and imprisoned. There is now no doubt that Britain is further under the control of domestic terrorists in Westminster.

We ask that all those who value their freedoms and liberty call Merseyside Police for further information and an explanation of their actions, and also call Liverpool prison to establish Roger’s physical safety and well-being.

Hat tip:  http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/roger-hayes-arrested-tried-secret-court-imprisoned

ARTICLE: British Government Child Trafficking for Profit at Hands of Clegg’s Lib Dems?

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather is Minister for Children and Families, and is responsible for some 14 areas listed on the government’s education website. These include childcare, children’s centers, health issues, school food disabled children and more. One of her key responsibilities is “Children’s services commissioning and market development”.

To most people this phrase reeks of commercial activity, money and profits – yes, the commissioning of contracts and the development of markets. Is the British government really involved in making money from the protection and care of children and families? The answer is you bet, and what’s more they don’t like talking about it.

Sarah Teather was recently sent a simple email by the UK Column:

I note that included in your responsibilities as Minister of State for Children and Families is the responsibility of: ‘Children’s services commissioning and market development.’ Please could you explain exactly what this responsibility involves, particularly with regard to how children and the related services are a commercial enterprise requiring ‘market development’.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, Ms Teather was slow to reply. The UK Column therefore emailed the Liberal Democrat press team headed by James Holt. In due course a reply was received not from Mr Holt, but from Sarah Derwent, Chief Press Officer for the Department of Children and Families. She replied, copying her email to Matt Saunders of the Cabinet Office:

Local Authorities are responsible for commissioning services for children and young people.  As part of their commissioning process, they need to effectively manage markets to ensure provision (public, voluntary or private) meets needs in order to improve outcomes for children and young people.

Her reply was of course waffle. The UK Column replied directly to Ms Teather herself:

Sarah [Derwent’s] reply is woefully inadequate and written in nu-speak. Having spoken to Sarah she either does not have the necessary mental acumen or is totally unaware of the huge growth in commercial activity around children and children’s services, and does not know her subject – I therefore return to my original question which is directed at your personal ministerial role and not that of Local Authorities.

Shirking ministerial and personal responsibility and accountability, Ms Teather MP relied once again on Sarah Derwent to give a better response:

A DfE spokesperson said – The well being of children is our priority, the Department for Education wants to make sure all children are safe and receive the best possible services. Across the country, the statutory, voluntary and private sectors all deliver a wide variety of high quality children’s services. The decision of who to commission to provide services is a matter for local authorities.

The UK Column would like to point out that Ms Teather has still not answered the original question which simply asked what her actual ministerial responsibilities are. Neither has a response come from Francis Maude’s Cabinet Office – part of a government which was to be as transparent as possible. Could the unease at this question be due to Memorandums of Understanding between the Family Law Division and Cafcass, or the vast fees paid to Judges, Courts, barristers, solicitors, psychiatrists, psychologists, care centres, contact centres and charities estimated at £20 billion per year?

Or could it be because British children are now being trafficked to the ‘care’ of foreign parents world wide under new ‘child protection’ procedures in partnership with Cara India? Kent County Council alone spent £104,748 during 2010/11 on adoption matters in Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Thailand. Commissioning and Markets in children – Just why is the British Government child trafficking Ms Teather?

Read on:  http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/children%E2%80%99s-services-commissioning-and-market-development

ARTICLE: M.P.s Demands Free Food

PAMPERED MPs want free meals after complaining of MICE and “stinking” cut-price grub in the Commons.

They want taxpayers to pick up the entire bill for all they scoff.

Many complain of “weird” menus served up in “Soviet-style” restaurants INFESTED with mice — and say the food is not worth paying for. But taxpayers fork out£5.8MILLION a year to subsidise their meals.

One MP wrote: “I saw a mouse in the Members’ Tea Room about which I made comment to a member of staff. The member of staff was pretty matter of fact — to the point that I got the impression that the sight of a rodent was par for the course!”

Scores moaned about the standard of their heavily-subsidised food in a survey of politicians and their staff.

They whinged about the wine waiters and complained that coffee bar staff did not know the difference between a cappuccino and a latte.

The complaints about the cheap meals and wine at Westminster come in a survey of MPs and their staff conducted by private pollsters — costing taxpayers another £27,790.

Details obtained under Freedom of Information laws lay bare the full extent of the dissatisfaction. A typical meal — rib-eye steak with hand-cut chips and Béarnaise sauce — costs two quid — £7.80, less a taxpayers’ subsidy of £5.92.

But one MP whinged: “The restaurants are Soviet-style. Vegetables are horrendously overcooked, meat is often raw.

“Sandwiches taste like they have been frozen for three months. It’s a shocker.”

Another blasted: “The food is really starting to stink.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/article4391212.ece

(2012) Liberal Democrat M.P. Danny Alexander -TAX CHEATING

 

Following the Jimmy Carr crash last week Danny Alexander took to our screens to attack tax avoiders. That’s the very same Danny Alexander who conned the Treasury out of over £100,000 by flipping his home back during the expenses scandal. Beaker shamelessly registered the property as his second home when he became an MP in 2005, despite admitting to Revenue and Customs that it was in fact his main residence. The trick allowed him to claim over £37,000 of taxpayers’ money doing up the London pad over the following two years. In 2007 Danny then sold up for £300,000, using a tax loophole to avoid paying the then 40% capital gains tax. His accountant certainly earned his – or should that be our – money. 

Now Alexander is laying into the likes of Carr and Gary Barlow, lambasting tax avoiders as the moral equivalent of benefits cheats. People in flipped houses…

Hat tip:  http://order-order.com/2012/06/25/tax-cheating-danny-alexander/

State Seeks to Kidnap UNBORN Child from Mother Whose Views it Disagrees With

Could this be the reason why the State is so keen on stealing people’s children?

SOCIAL workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s violent links to the English Defence League.

Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she would pose a “risk of ­significant harm” to the baby. Social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.

Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner.

However, her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who, despite his loathing for the EDL, raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.

He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

“I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.”

Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.

Social workers have told her husband Martyn he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan.

VIDEO: 12-year-old Girl Eloquently Lifts Lid on the Global Enemies of the People

VIDEO: Paedophilia, Child Abuse, and Child Kidnapping by the State and Government -MUST SEE

A young lady by the name of Hollie Greig has key evidence against leading figures in the British Establishment.

The Establishment wants to separate mother and daughter by putting daughter into “care” so it will shut her up. Then the evidence against the paedophiles in the Establishment is silenced.

A gagging order of 70 years has been put on the evidence found by U.S police in Operation Ore. They unearthed evidence of 350-400 paedophiles at high levels of British society.

The Establishment and Social Services are actively involved in child trafficking.

(13 mins in) “Sarah Tether [Lib Dem] minister for Families and Children won’t reply to [simple questions] nor answer Freedom of Information requests…because the British government is stealing, abusing, and trafficking children”.

Neutrality is complicity.

(13 mins,17 secs in) “…politicians condone [child abuse] by the fact they will not take action.”

“Every MP has been informed about [child abuse]”

(13 mins, 19 secs) “David Cameron condones the abuse of children because he has done nothing.”

(13 mins, 20 secs) “[Ed] Miliband is the same” and “Clegg has got a big foot in the camp becase…Sarah Tether [fellow Liberal] is now covering up the trafficking of children through this system”.

——————————————————————————————————

Further reading:

At a Glance: A Snippet of the Many Paedophiles and Perverts in Power

Blast from the Past: Are Paedophiles Running Tony Blair’s War Machine?

Link to all recorded entries on this site of paedophilia 

STATE CRIME: Foreigners Allowed to Buy-up British Assets and Make the People Suffer

ABOVE: Deregulation: Former Tory Chancellor Geoffrey Howe made it easier for foreigners to snap up British companies

Just for a moment, imagine being a tourist in search of the full British experience. Where would you start? Well, you might take a sight-seeing trip around London on a red double-decker bus.

You’d possibly visit a quintessentially British store, such as Boots the chemist, Selfridges or Harrods, before having a proper English tea at the Savoy, Fortnum & Mason or the Dorchester.

You’d almost certainly go home, via a British airport, thinking you’d seen a slice of the real Britain. But, in one sense at least, you’d be totally wrong.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129507/Britain-sale-Uniquely-world-Britain-sold-half-companies-foreigners-And-paying-price.html#ixzz1tMrlmzhk