“I bought a ticket to the world
But now I’ve come back again
Why do I find it hard to
snort write the next line?
Oh, I want the truth to be said”
Monthly Archives: July 2014
“I bought a ticket to the world
Always believe in your soul
You’ve got the power to know
Always believe in, because you are
(not satire – it’s George Osborne!)
Former escort agency owner and Dominatrix Natalie Rowe has posted a new photograph of George Osborne completely off his head and apparently dancing to Spandau Ballet in her flat:
This comes just hours after Natalie was arrested (but not charged) after she posted another previously unpublished photograph of George on Twitter:
Doesn’t look like the intimidation’s working guys!
Please feel free to comment. And share:
Question: How did paedophile Jimmy Savile sneak a young girl into Buckingham Palace without her parents ?
Pssst! the answer is, in plain sight!
It was reported last night that detectives had examined Prince Philip’s official diaries covering the period from January 1972 to January 1974.
It is not known if police have interviewed the Prince or other members of the Royal Family, but they are believed to have taken statements from former Palace staff.
Don’t blink or you’ll miss this tiny story in the Mailonline today.
Born: January 01, 1934 (age 80)
Biography: Lieutenant-Colonel Benjamin John Herman, LVO (born 1934), was Private Secretary to The Princess Royal 1974-1976. He was educated at Bedford School. He joined the Royal Marines in 1953, and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1954, receiving a regular commission in 1955. Herman served with 40 Commando, Royal Marines, and was Military Assistant and Aide-de-Camp to the Commandant-General Royal Marines in 1964. He attended the Royal Naval Staff College in 1966. He was promoted to Major 1971. He joined the Office of the Princess Royal in 1974, having been Equerry to the Duke of Edinburgh 1971-1974. After his service in the Royal Household he returned to the Royal Marines, and did the Senior Officers War Course in 1976, and joined the staff of the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command, Commando Training Centre (1976-). He was Chief Training Officer 1977-1978, and was a Lieutenant-Colonel by 1981. The Household of The Princess Royal provides the administrative support to the Princess Royal, daughter of Queen Elizabeth II. It is based at Buckingham Palace, and is headed by the Private Secretary. The Household is separate from the Royal Household and is funded from the Civil List
A former aide to the Duke of Edinburgh has been accused of sexually abusing a girl in the early 1970s.
Benjamin Herman, 79, is charged with three indecent assaults against the youngster, who was about 12, between 1972 and 1974.
During this time Herman served as the Philip’s equerry, or personal assistant.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Benjamin Herman, 79, will appear at Wimbledon Magistrates Court on Monday. He is charged with three counts of indecent assault between 1972 and 1974 on a girl aged around 12.”
Timothy Wentworth Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley (22 November 1928 – 8 April 2008)
Liberal and Green politician, Anglican clergyman, advocate for lowering the age of consent to 14, legalising incest and contributor to a ‘pornographic magazine’.
Seems like an interesting chap…
The full original article from The Times 22nd January 1976 is below (click on image to enlarge).
Who Really Wants A Change In The Age Of Consent ? – by Ronald Butt
Students of the working of our representative democracy should savour the appointment by the Home Secretary of a body called the Policy Advisory Committee which is to advise the Criminal Law Revision Committee in reviewing the law on sexual offences. They should particularly ponder the brief which this group of people little known to the public (with one or two exceptions) has been given. Mr Jenkins has made the first reference to it the question of the age of consent.
How did it come about that Mr Roy Jenkins decided to set this inquiry going in the first place, and under what sort of prompting? Who chooses its subjects and, in particular, who chose this first subject?
Lord Carr, the last Conservative Home Secretary, made it unambiguously clear that the age of consent was not in question. Why does Mr Jenkins differ in thinking that it may be? Should he not have made his full reasons and thinking public?
Is a wave of insanity sweeping the public, particularly parents, that the age of consent which protects young girls from exploitation is too high at 16? Is there public indignation at the lack of equal opportunities for homosexuals because of the “discrepancy” (as one civil servant urbanely put it) between the higher age of consent that relates to them and the legal age for heterosexual relations?
Or has the public seen the light being held up by the lobby of the child-molesters, who are now euphemistically called paedophiles? Is the nation urging the Government to heed the call of the pressure group calling itself the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which is campaigning for the removal from the statute book of the ”unjust laws” which “define mutual end loving relationships as assaults”?
Is Mr Roy Jenkins perhaps impressed by the attention given to this movement by Mind Out, (the journal of the National Association for Mental Health), which recently listed PIE as one of the “organizations to write to” for sexual minorities, and printed the plea of a “paedophile”: “Society makes it almost impossible for our relationships to exist… We are warm and gentle people. What has to change is attitudes to children’s sexuality and parents’ attitudes to their children.” (Mind Outwhich quoted this from a “two-day workshop”, did, it is true, record the opposing view that children “could be” harmed and, most bizarre of all, it cited as an argument against the claims of the paedophiles, that they might well cease to be attractive to a paedophile, once they reached a certain age, and their incomprehension as to why could affect later relationships”.)
Sick though society may now be, I do not notice any demand for any of these things from the public hypnotised into silence though it tends to be by any self-appointed ”expert” who stands up to testify, as though to a revealed and absolute truth, that even the most unspeakable beastliness is therapeutically ”good ” for somebody. So what is it all about? What has happened that the Home Secretary feels a need to respond to?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not invariably a fallacy, and when one thing follows another there may be cause and effect. The only explanation that I can suggest for Mr Jenkins’s decision is a willingness (and the views of certain Home Office officials in this as in other matters are not to be disregarded) to heed the pressure groups campaigning in these fields. Their activities reached their apogee with the report more than a year ago of the working party of the Sexual Law Reform Society, whose members included that exemplar of moral thinking, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Among other recommendations of the Sexual Law Reform Society’s working party was the reduction of the age of consent for girls and boys to 14, legalizing incest for people over 14, “notwithstanding the strong but irrational revulsion that may be felt against it” and the legalization of brothels.
No doubt incest too will eventually be in the Criminal Law Revision Committee’s brief, and that of its policy advisory committee. Fortunately, the CLRC is a responsible body, and more fortunately still its chairman, Lord Edmund-Davies is also chairing the work of the Policy Advisory Committee.
It is important for the politicians who represent the people to be vigilant in face of the subtlety with which the law can be changed, and the standards of a growing generation manipulated, by the activities of self-styled experts. The fact that the House of Lords last week devoted some seven hours to discussing sex education in schools-which is in many ways the other side of the coin being studied in the Home Office- is a sign that the politicians themselves are increasingly aware of the problem.
As Lady Elles expressed it in a brilliantly documented speech which opened the debate, what is called sex education differs from other subjects in that it may determine the immediate and future behaviour of children and change the whole climate of society. There was a remarkable consensus among the majority of those who spoke about the need to teach it in a moral context, and about the reasons for fear that this is often not done.
Significantly, the only peer with a sharply different approach was Lord Beaumont, who wanted the teaching of sexual mechanics to be considered as a completely separate subject from moral teaching, which he regarded as teaching children to make their own moral judgments. Since Lord Beaumont is a contributor to a pornographic magazine, we might not take his views on moral education too seriously. But what he is saying is precisely what is happening in too many cases.
Children are often given the facts about contraception in a way which could suggest to some of them that it would not be unreasonable, if they chose, to make use of it. There is also the practice of teaching contraception in terms of girls and boys rather than men and women.
Lady Elles was surely right to argue that parents should be told how the subject is taught and allowed to withdraw their children if they disapprove. The danger is that we shall first allow children’s behaviour to be changed by the assumptions that are communicated to them as a captive impressionable audience and then change the law on the grounds that it does not fit the facts of behaviour. The Government, which provides grants for the sex education work of the Family Planning Association, a body much criticized in the debate, also has a responsibility. Where there is public money, there must be political responsibility.
“Angry Americans” ??
22nd August 1983 – Press Council upholds complaint against The Sun by Sir Michael Havers re Geoffrey Prime and PIE
Press Council rulings
The Sun produced no evi-dence for its allegation that at the trial of the spy, Geoffrey Prime, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, held back mention of the accused man’s involvement with a child-sex organization to avoid embarrassing security chiefs, the council said in another ruling. The council upheld Sir Michael’s complaint that the editor refused to withdraw the false allegation and declared that the editor should either have substantiated it or have withdrawn it. The adjudication said in part: The Sun, has failed to produce any evidence at all that the Attorney General held back at the trial mention of a link between Mr Prime and the Paedophile Information Exchange to save embarrassing Britain’s security chiefs, or that angry Americans were convinced that he had done that. The published suggestion that they were so convinced was a serious and damaging one. The editor should either have substantiated it or withdrawn it. The complaint against The Sun is up held.
A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording
Since Saturday. July 19th, 2014, there have been a large range of heated exchanges online (though not in the mainstream media), primarily between the Exaro online news agency and the Needle blog, in particular following interventions from the veteran journalist and film-maker Tim Tate, who has made various features relating to the abuse of children over a period of almost three decades. This has also spilled over into social media.
See these links for the recent Exaro article relating to the tape (David Hencke, Mark Conrad and Alex Varley-Winter, ‘Audio file set to blow lid off paedophile scandal at Westminster’, Exaro News, July 19th, 2014 (do note the extensive comments underneath)) and the following for the responses on the Needle blog (including from Tim Tate) and a first transcript of the tape (‘Exaro Audio Tape Story’, July 19th, 2014‘ ‘Tim Tate Comments on the Exaro…
View original post 8,657 more words
It wasn’t an email that was sent recently but a comment left on The Needle (copied below). No wonder I couldn’t find it. I thought I was going mad!
Left by Card2
What should happen now is a review of DHSS Minister Sir Keith Joseph’s refusal of inquiry 1972 re deaths of disabled children in Hackney Social Services care at the Beeches Ixworth Suffolk in the period 1966 to 1972.
The Commons requests for a public inquiry were from two Labour MPs Michael O’Halloran and Clinton Davis. It is possible that O’Halloran was influenced to ask his question by shadow minister Barbara Castle who had already been refused her request for a care inquiry into death and poor care standards at the Sue Ryder Home Cavendish West Suffolk 1972.
The lady who had been ignored by Sir Keith Joseph, in her complaints about Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire, went to Barbara Castle who then raised Commons questions. The lady was document burgled at some point in the 70s. The lady had not discovered the role of Special Branch secretly reporting and monitoring police inquiries into Sue Ryder/Leonard Cheshire.
The various inquiries re Savile are all failing to weigh the implication. In the 1970s Welsh Regional Crime Squad discovered the covert MI5/Special Branch liaison exercise undermining their inquiry.
The charity was being protected from lawful police inquiry by unlawful secret activity orchestrated through Special Branch compliance. Now what are the chances Special Branch did not know about Savile abuse at the Sue Ryder child hospice Leeds 1970s ?
Dominic Grieve when Attorney General did not dispute the affidavit asserting the above facts.
I was aware, as a rural beat Pc in West Suffolk, that OIRA asset(s) in Suffolk were taking a then unexplained interest in the Sue Ryder/Leonard Cheshire
HQ at Cavendish. I first suspected a special branch involvement when a duty DI was contacted, prior to my reporting to him, after the sudden death of volunteer Mary McGill January 1972. The DI tried to order me to destroy the footwear and clothing on the body to prevent it ever being forensically tested.
I defied the order and was taken off the case. I resigned a couple of months later. 17 years after that in 1989 by pure chance I met a retired Welsh Regional Crime Squad detective and he told me their case history of the time.
I then tried to resurrect the Matron McGill case and periodically apply to Attorneys General for consent to access High Court to quash the suicide verdict. Consistently AGs use secret public interest custodianship to deny access to justice. In spite of 42 years ignoring the significance of bruising on the body consistent with anal rape or attempted anal rape. The secret inquest into Matron MacGill’s death left the final 19 hours of her life unaccounted. But after the suicide verdict Leonard Cheshire gave a statement to New Zealand press admitting that he was with Matron McGill during that final 19 hours.
IE I feel sure that a charge, of perjury and conspiracy to pervert justice, if brought properly against Cheshire in 1972 would have succeeded in securing conviction.
Imagine the furore if a conspiracy thriller like Utopia had featured the charity activity of Airey Neave (Founding trustee Sue Ryder Homes) and revealed that his charity was being spied on by OIRA (later off shoot INLA) 7 years before his assassination at the Commons.
Maybe rationalising about “Powerful paedophile networks” the better explanation resides on avoidance of a domino effect ??
More information from the same source can be read HERE in the comments section.
This is a little embarrassing…
Could the person who contacted me about Keith Joseph blocking an inquiry into abuse at a care home (I think in Suffolk) please contact me.
You contacted me first early last year and again recently but I can’t find any of the emails concerning this and so I can’t contact you privately.
I’d really like to look into this matter as the situation has moved on.
Dear Theresa May
Re the proposed government inquiry into organised child abuse
As Butler-Sloss stated, the proposed government inquiry into organised child abuse needs to have the confidence of care and abuse survivors. It is for this reason that the view of many survivors and leading specialists in the area of child protection is that the most suitable candidate to chair the announced ‘Child Abuse Inquiry’ is Michael Mansfield QC.
The chair of this inquiry will need fearlessness, to be prepared to challenge the authorities and to ask and get answers to very difficult questions. This is a role that can only be undertaken by someone clearly seen as outside the establishment.
Mr Mansfield has shown with his work on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the current Hillsborough inquiry that he has the respect of survivors and professionals to undertake this inquiry.
In addition to the need to have the…
View original post 397 more words
I wonder what the names are of the ‘all-party group of MPs’ who campaigned for the release of paedophile William Pate ? Convicted of horrific crimes against children, and despite doctors at Broadmoor believing him to be ‘a danger and not fit for release’, the campaign was successful. In 1984 he was convicted yet again for paedophilia and ‘sadistic homosexual practices’ after imprisoning a young boy for 12 hours and abusing him.
I think it is a reasonable question to ask which MPs campaigned for his release, don’t you ?
From The Glasgow Herald
It’s time for this senior police officer from Chester and local journalists to come clean about what they knew about Sir Peter Morrison.
In an exclusive interview with The Sun on Sunday, ex-detective chief inspector Barry said he first heard rumours about Morrison from a senior Cheshire Police officer.
He knew Mrs T was considering appointing Morrison, the MP for Chester, as deputy party chairman to replace disgraced Jeffrey Archer — who had stepped down over prostitute allegations in 1986.
So he immediately dashed to Downing Street and had an evening meeting with the PM and her private secretary Archie Hamilton, who took notes of what was said.
Barry recalled: “A senior officer in Chester had told me there were rumours going around about underage boys – one aged 15 – attending sex parties at a house there belonging to Peter Morrison.
“After we returned to No10 I asked to go and see her immediately. It was unusual for me to do that so they would have known it was something serious.
“When I went in Archie Hamilton was there. I told them exactly what had been said about Peter. Archie took notes and they thanked me for coming.
“There was no proof but the officer I spoke to was certain and said local press knew a lot more.
“This was just after the Jeffrey Archer scandal and I knew she needed to know about it because they were deciding on the appointment of the next deputy chairman.
“I always told her things straight, as I saw them. She listened and thanked me.
“I assumed Archie Hamilton would have spoken to Peter Morrison following that.
“When he was appointed I assumed there had been nothing to the claims — as there was no way on earth she would have given him the job otherwise.”
I don’t have a ‘Judge-Ignorant’ category, so, I’ll have to stick this in The Needle’s ‘Judge Mental’ category.
There are a lot of ‘allegedlys’ in the stories this morning about this.
He ‘allegedly’ fell asleep.
But the undeniable fact remains that Judge Philip Cattan couldn’t be bothered to give the impression that he was awake regardless of whether he slept or not and as a consequence a schoolgirl looks likely to have to give her harrowing evidence again in the child sex abuse trial that Judge Philip Cattan was presiding over.
What kind of message does that send out ?
He should retire!
A young girl faces having to repeat her harrowing evidence of alleged sex abuse.
And taxpayers must pick up a bill for thousands of pounds – all because a judge is accused of falling asleep.
The jury was sent home as a probe was launched into claims Recorder Philip Cattan snoozed as the girl gave evidence via video link.
Worried he had nodded off during a crucial point in the case, barristers raised a “point of law”.
And while the jury was out of the room, the judge was confronted with the claim he had slept during part of the cross-examination.
Kama Melly, a leading criminal barrister who specialises in child sex crime , said: “If these allegations prove to be correct then they are extremely serious.
The Friday Night Song.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Sorry to disappoint everyone.
A source close to the investigation said that the customs officer was originally approached over claims that a known paedophile had been stopped with a videotape showing the MP at a sex party with underage boys. The customs officer said the report was false, but told police he had stopped the MP in question and seized child pornography videos from him.
The source said: “He viewed the tapes on a video recorder at the border control, and found them to contain pornography involving both underage girls and boys together. He said the children were clearly under the age of 12.
“Unfortunately he can’t remember the exact date when it happened, but he had no doubt about the identity of the MP because he checked his passport. He said he had passed the details of the seizure up the chain of command and had no knowledge of what happened after that.
It seems that if Exaro run a story on Operation Fernbridge it must be the truth but if another MSM outlet does one it must be a ‘black flag’ operation run by MI5 and the Met.
If it doesn’t fit the conspiracy narrative then it’s part of an establishment cover-up
Deus Ex Machina.
“From Latin, meaning “god from the machine”; plural: dei ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object.”
What would we do if we didn’t have MI5 to blame for all of the inconsistencies in the conspiracy narrative ?
Five days ago on the 19th July Exaro posted this story to its usual grand fanfare HERE. I pointed out that this was not a new story, that the audio was from an interview done by The Express newspaper (their story appeared on 23rd February), I pointed out that the police were already aware of the details and that they had talked to the customs officer Solanki and that he had denied the suggestion that a video he had seized from Russel Tricker in 1982 contained footage of a former cabinet minister abusing young boys.
I felt the story was misleading as it implied that there was new evidence.
As a consequence, many people asked Exaro to clarify whether this was true or not. They refused to answer indicating that they could not as they needed to protect the names of the customs officer and the MPs. This was at best disingenuous as they had already named Solanki HERE and the MPs have been named in connection with many stories by Exaro in the past.
My suspicion was that they did not wish to name Solanki, for fear of revealing that the story was unoriginal, the product of another journalist’s endeavour, and that they did not want to name the MPs because they did not have permission to do so.
Exaro responded to these legitimate questions with a new story HERE which made it look even more like these were two separate audio tapes.
Why is this important ?
As I made clear, my own view is that the Russel Tricker/ Cabinet Minister abuse video story is untrue but if a second customs officer were to confirm that story, or if Solanki went on the record to confirm it then I, and many others, would have no alternative but to reappraise that view.
The purpose of posting the transcript of the audio tape was to demonstrate that the Exaro stories were misleading and the audio tape did not represent new evidence that the police did not have already.
If this were an isolated incident I may not have been so quick to publicly dispute it but it is sadly not and I am not alone in this knowledge, not by a long shot.
I should have been more surprised by Exaro’s next reaction but unfortunately I’m not. I’m told that the private smears and slurs made about me behind the scenes for daring to suggest that their story was misleading, far exceeded the public innuendo.
I’m pretty sure that if someone working for MI5 or the Met saw this they would have a very good laugh.
As everyone knows MI5 is the Deus Ex Machina of conspiracy theorists. I’ve seen it so many times on places like the David Icke forums but increasingly we’re seeing Exaro News adopt it whenever anyone disagrees with them. Very sad.
So, the purpose of posting the audio transcript was to demonstrate exactly what the audio discussed in the Exaro story was.
That was done. That point is now proven.
However, I took the transcript on faith without having listened to the tape myself and the transcript was not accurate. I should just say that the rest of The Needle Team, Daedalus, Greenlight, and Topaz urged me not to do so until we’d listened to the tape and so any responsibility for this mistake is solely mine. I knew full well that once the transcript was published it wouldn’t be long before the audio gained a wider circulation and so there was no point in trying to hide anything, in fact it was essential that as much information as possible be put in the public domain.
As my primary argument is that Solanki and the reporter are at cross purposes throughout the interview, both discussing different incidents (one true, one false) involving the same cabinet minister it was extremely important that I present every remark in the correct context of the conversation.
Having to make a correction, as I did at the soonest possible opportunity, was completely counter-productive as I effectively had to take that section out of context and as a consequence it now has a greater prominence than I think it deserves.
Anyway, I’ll carry on doing as I’ve always done.
I’m searching for the truth, I am not seeking to validate a conspiracy theory.
We have now had a chance to listen to the tape ourselves and we are aware that there is a difference to the transcript we were given.
This is our interpretation of this passage.
At about 10.20 into the recording;
EX CUSTOMS OFFICER
[inaudible] [REDACTED NAME] Yeah
So it was [REDACTED NAME], wasn’t it [brief cross-talk – inaudible] he was part of the EC at the time
It might be worthwhile asking your MP to sign it.
INQUIRY INTO CHILD ABUSE AND THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES
- Session: 2014-15
- Date tabled: 21.07.2014
- Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
- Sponsors:That this House, being conscious of the numerous cases of previously concealed child abuse in which individuals have been able to use their status as public figures to deter victims and to prevent or disrupt investigations of their crimes, and being conscious that in some cases abusers, and those who have concealed abuse, have been able to use their positions in public office and the institutions of the state such as Parliament and Government to shield them and their wrongdoing from proper, lawful scrutiny, recognises that the dangers of such cover-ups occurring are even greater in small, quasi-self-governing communities than at national level, where, even though checks and balances are more extensive, child abuse and cover-ups by the well-connected have still occurred; notes that a local public inquiry in Jersey into child abuse, the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry, has not gained the confidence of all victims and witnesses; and calls on the relevant UK authorities, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Crown and the Privy Council, in exercise of their responsibilities and powers to ensure good governance, the rule of law and proper administration of justice in the Crown Dependencies, to empower the overarching UK inquiry into child abuse to include the Crown Dependencies.