Child abuse scandal

Child abuse scandal raises disturbing questions about UK establishment

http://rt.com/op-edge/180616-british-home-secretary-child-abuse/Get short URL = Published time: August 15, 2014 14:14

Britain has been known for many things, from being the bullies of the world, to its language, pop music, film and drama.

But as Churchill’s “finest hour” in World War II fades to a distant memory and proud post-war industries have been dismantled, one scandal has come to sum up everything that has turned our so-called leaders sour.

The UK’s child abuse scandal, rooted in the media, Westminster and the Royal Family and personified by serial abuser and BBC personality Jimmy Savile, has been shocking enough. But far more insulting to the victims, the nation and the world is the Cameron government’s attempt, in early July, to institute two separate child abuse inquiries led by establishment figures who, due to family and work connections, immediately faced suspicions of possible conflicts of interest.

This is a side to human nature which it suits most of us to think does not even exist. Those that sexually abuse defenseless children hope that few police, journalists or, ultimately, readers and viewers, have the stomach to scrutinize the depths of their depravity. Abusers also know the last thing most victims want to do is to relive their abuse by giving evidence in a courtroom. They appear to be protected by the intelligence services, who keep an eye on anyone who might expose them, and have the resources to engage the most expensive lawyers and spike any rumors.

Much of the hard graft of unearthing recent evidence of historical abuse has been down to a little known “old school” London news agency. Ear News has shown the rest of the London media up with their simple mission to expose wrongdoing. Their fearless pursuit of these criminals, particularly at the notorious Elm Guest House in southwest London, carries on despite a general lethargy by the police.

However well Exaro can stand these stories up, nervous national newspaper editors seem too often reluctant to print what a self-respecting press should, to launch the odd torpedo at the establishment battleship.

The response of the London press to the latest Westminster abuse revelations has for the most part been to look the other way. As they did the first time round, when another tiny outfit, Simon Regan’s Scallywag magazine, was sunk without a trace for daring to dish the dirt in the 1980s and 1990s. Crucial unasked questions now are whether either of these latest enquiries announced by Home Secretary Theresa May into state-sanctioned child abuse are likely to attract the trust and cooperation of even a single victim.

2 child abuse inquiries, both set up to fail

An extraordinary admission was made by the Home Office's top civil servant, Mark Sedwill, on Saturday July 5, that his department had “lost” 114 files relating to Westminster child abuse investigations handed to them in the 1980s by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens. The files allegedly included allegations against more than 10 current and retired politicians.

The next day former Tory party chairman, cabinet minister and survivor of the 1984 IRA Brighton bomb, Sir Norman Tebbit, confessed on TV that there "may well have been" a political cover-up of child sex abuse in the 1980s. He explained: "People thought that the establishment was to be protected." On Monday July 7, Home Secretary Theresa May announced two national inquiries into allegations of child abuse linked to Westminster.

The first inquiry was, conveniently, slated to deliver its report after the May 2015 general election but this one lasted less than a week before it was revealed to the public, though May already knew that the enquiry's head, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's late brother Sir Michael Havers was Attorney General when Geoffrey Dickens' allegations were made, and covered up. Even without that, her previous selection as inquest coroner in the death of Princess Diana, a role she also relinquished, should have made her connections with the establishment so tight as to have taken her out of the running.

Tapped by May to head the second inquiry into the police losing the evidence, due to report mid-September, is Sir Peter Wanless. He is the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), a national charity for which Britain’s most prolific pedophile, Jimmy Savile, was one of the most high-profile “fundraisers.”
Post-Savile, no organization is beyond reproach. It has become clear that organizations like the NSPCC have actually been the perfect “hiding place” for nests of abusers. NSPCC also runs the national Childline support phone service for the abused which some believe may also have been compromised.

Before his latest role at the NSPCC, Wanless was a “highly respected” civil servant, permanent secretary to cabinet minister Michael Portillo during the 1990s when Portillo was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and crossing departments with him when Portillo became Secretary of State for Employment. Again – an establishment civil servant investigating his own. A recipe for a cover-up.

More serious, though, are the persistent rumors about Wanless' close friend and confidant Michael Portillo, now like Savile, a BBC TV personality, being allegedly involved in a Westminster sex scandal himself. Rumors circulated in 1994 that Portillo and another Tory Secretary of State, Peter Lilley, had got sexually involved with Britain's first openly gay footballer, Justin Fashanu.

Unfortunately for the two secretaries of state though, a disgruntled Fashanu supposedly decided to“blow the lid,” threatening to “bring down the government” by leaking evidence of these affairs to the Daily Express. When MI5 allegedly threatened Fashanu, Tory MP Stephen Milligan, a part-time journalist, is said to have weighed in on the footballer's behalf on a mission to get to the bottom of it all and “clean up the Tory party.”
Within days, however, Milligan was found hanged in his London flat, naked, with an orange in his mouth in an apparent suicide, made to look like he was a sexual deviant. Fashanu was swiftly sacked by his football club and got on the first flight to the United States. Several years later Fashanu was also tragically found hanged, this time in a garage in Shoreditch, London.

Whether or not there is any truth to the original allegations, the mysterious deaths surrounding them should have prohibited any senior civil servant associated with Portillo from taking up a job heading the NSPCC, and totally exclude Wanless from heading any inquiry into the Whitehall child abuse scandal. Would anybody who has been abused, or with evidence of abuse, and is capable of doing an internet search, be likely to confide in him?

Journalist Phil Frampton has pointed out these and other flaws in May’s fanfare announcement of 7th July, explaining in an open letter signed by 28 child protection professionals to May: “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.”
Correct link to Open Letter
http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/an-open-letter-to-theresa-may-calling-for-michael-mansfield-qc-to-chair-the-child-abuse-inquiry/
Rather than simply “cursing the darkness” of the Home Secretary’s perverse appointments, Frampton has suggested Michael Mansfield QC to replace Butler-Sloss on the leaderless first inquiry. He, along with the “revised Terms of Reference” Frampton suggests, “is the only way to secure justice for survivors and protection of our children.” Mansfield, who represented the Al Fayed family at Princess Diana's inquest, is both sufficiently qualified and, crucially, far more likely to be trusted by the abused.

Blackmailing politicians in Brussels and London

Perhaps child abuse is sanctioned at high levels simply because the ease of blackmailing those involved suits the security services, bankers, royalty and others behind the scenes that want weak, pliable politicians? If that's so, it’s no surprise then that Brussels, one of modern Europe's other main centers of power, has also been the scene of the most horrendous child abuse.

Back in 1996, the arrest of Marc Dutroux in Belgium eventually led, eight years later, to his 2004 trial for the murder of four young girls he had imprisoned as sex slaves for the rich and powerful. The Dutroux scandal has many of the characteristics of the Westminster scandal: A judicial cover-up, initial reluctance of the press to take it seriously, persistent police inaction and diligent police officers being inexplicably removed from the case.

Only Belgium's biggest-ever anti-paedophile public protest of 300,000 people in October 1996 appeared to concentrate the minds of the Belgian establishment to actually do something. Exactly the same perversions of the course of justice have been seen in several child abuse inquiries in the UK, including the Jersey inquiry where campaigning Senator Stuart Syvret and police chief Lenny Harper were both removed from their posts.

In London, though, the present child abuse lies are just part of the furniture. Scattered in disarray around Downing Street you’ll find Afghanistan lies, Iraq lies and Libya lies, not to mention the daily racist lies of Islamaphobia making a bid to rival Hitler’s hatred of the Jews.

As the late Nicol Williamson, playing King Arthur's magician Merlin in John Bormann’s 1981 feature film “Excalibur” put it, “It must be truth. When a man lies, he murders a part of the world.” These constant lies also have the effect of smashing national morale and disengaging most of the population from the entire political process. Lowering voter expectations and making the population much easier to manage in a “soft fascist” kind of way.

May’s Britain is recognized up and down the nation and around the world as introducing some of the most brutal policies imaginable, punishing disabled people for the crimes of the bankers, sending innocent British Muslims off to rot in US jails. Coalition Britain is exhibiting all the worst signs of misrule, of a dying empire in denial.

One figure you won't find stalking the Downing Street corridors any more though is Prime Minister David Cameron’s deputy head of policy, Patrick Rock. Despite having worked as a top Brussels civil servant for many years and being put in charge of the coalition government's internet child porn filter, he was arrested earlier this year and charged with three offences of making child abuse images and one of possession of 62 child pornography pictures.

Downing Street kept Rock’s initial arrest secret, though, for several weeks, while a political counter-story was prepared about the opposition Labour party deputy leader Harriet Harman historically belonging to the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE). This effectively “softened the political blow” of the far more serious Downing Street child porn arrest story.

More recently it transpired that PIE was given offices under the Tories actually within the Home Office itself and that PIE also got substantial funding from the Metropolitan police Special Branch (MI5). This obsession, not with striking the root of the Whitehall abusers, but with spinning the stories as far away from the Tory party as possible, characterizes the entire Westminster abuse scandal since the 1980s.

As West German rock band Propaganda thundered out in the chorus of their 1985 hit, “Duel”: “The first cut won’t hurt at all. The second only makes you wonder. The third will have you on your knees. You start bleeding, I start screaming.” Lead singer Claudia Brücken heightens the slow pulverizing effect of government lies and media collusion made infamous by Hitler’s propaganda minister Josef Goebbels.

Enough of the dead, time to jail the living pedophiles

Pedophiles Jimmy Savile and his friend Liberal MP Cyril Smith have both been exposed as such after their deaths, putting them beyond justice. Several other celebrities have been arrested and charged with relatively minor offences, creating the illusion of “something being done,” while the living establishment pedophiles still go free.

Britain's libel laws make it difficult for establishment paedophiles to be accused as such, while they're still alive, unless the police act. In Savile's case he worked hand in glove with Leeds police. Left bleeding and screaming on the paedophile scandal's Whitehall marble floors lie the unavenged abused, battered and broken. Offered nothing by May so far this year, but another poison spoonful of saccharine.

The future for the campaign against this evil at the heart of state criminality in Britain is by no means certain. Will the London press be prepared to at last name the living establishment abusers? Will the police be prepared to pursue the evidence wherever it leads? Or will these blackmailed zombies continue oozing slime and further lies, leaving yet more blood and screams in their wake?

The power of truth in time though is relentless. When the police once more lose the files they might pop up, miraculously, on the internet for all the world to see. All the world must act on them, too, because the ultimate test in putting these vile state sanctioned abusers behind bars will be of a few good men and women. The police, politicians and journalists who take the bull by the horns and, despite the threats from unprincipled lawyers, nail and jail these vile creatures. Get them off the streets of London, once and for all.

Then our leaders, free from the foul air of paedophilia and blackmail, can resume the task of serving us, doing credit to the nation. Pick themselves up by their bootstraps and Britain can begin again a more honest and more confident stride into the 21st century.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
1.4K3751

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Tony Gosling  

Why UKIP?

Why UKIP? The Answer Is In History – Not Bigotry

• Politics
• International

By: Robin Koerner Jun 2, 2014

7

Many people regard Magna Carta as the first Constitutional guarantee of the basic liberties of the English-speaking world.

Fewer people know that Magna Carta wasn’t imposed on King John just because he abused his power (which after all has been true of most kings and governments throughout history), but because he had handed away the sovereignty of England to a foreign governing institution in Europe. That institution was The Holy Roman Empire.

John had unilaterally handed England to Pope Innocent because earlier arguments with Rome had left England under an interdict (a kind of nationwide ex-communication), so John was facing the possibility of an invasion from a strong, Catholic France with a papal blessing that would have made finding allies impossible and inevitably led to John’s defeat. To split his enemies, and peel away the Church from France, John gifted the pope sovereignty over his entire country and leased it back as the pope’s vassal. For a time, Britain was ruled from Europe.

For the barons at Runnymede, that was the last straw: they responded to the fundamental transfer of power out of their country and forced Magna Carta on John.

More than 500 years later, the (British) founders of the USA, in the very tradition of which Magna Carta was an early part, would make explicit the intuitive principle on which the Barons had acted then, and many have acted since: that the power to govern is delegated by the people governed, in whom it entirely resides. But that principle is so deep in the Anglo cultural psyche that even the barons who faced King John at Runnymede were not the first to state it in some way or another: the Charter of Liberties of Henry I had already formally established in the year 1100 that the rule of the king was by consent and that those who made the Law were not above it.

By this long-standing principle, power is lent by the people, in whom it resides, for a limited time to those in government for the purpose of protecting the rights of those people. A British prime minster today has not more right to give his country away to a foreign power than King John had to give the country away to a pope, and it makes no difference how the prime minister is chosen. And no king or prime minister has any more right to do either than a tenant of my house has to sell or give my house away just because he is temporarily living in it. Power to govern is no more possessed by those who are allowed temporarily to exercise it, than my house is possessed by the person temporarily allowed to live in it.

The argument today for moving power further away from the people upward to a trans-European super-state is wrong on its face: it rests on the idea that legitimacy follows from the fact that the representatives who gave away that power are democratically elected, as if democratic election gives them something they can never possess, or the right to give away something that can never be theirs.

Since that idea is false, the European Union as currently conceived is anti-democratic and anti-liberal by definition.

Moreover, as has been said many times, since democracy is the exercise of kratos (power) by thedemos (people), there can be no democracy without a demos . Britain, France, Spain etc. all have their own demos . Europe does not. Setting up an election and putting lots of people from many countries in one building on fat salaries does not make it so.

A weaker claim to self-justification made EUrophiles is that the “important” decisions in the EU are made by unanimous consent … indeed, they point out, didn’t Prime Minister Cameron recently veto some proposed regulation that would hit London’s financial center?

The response from principle is two-fold. First, the British government retains a veto only in some areas of policy that affects Britons. In the rest, Britain carries a weight of about 8% in the making of decisions, so if the British want control over their waters for the purposes of fishing, for example, even if every single Briton and every single British representative voted in Europe to keep what is theirs by international law and convention, then it would make no difference if most of Europe would rather keep taking it. This is exactly why the demos is important: lack of demos is what turns a situation in which five sheep or five wolves are voting on what to eat for dinner into one in which four wolves and a sheep are taking exactly the same vote.

In this fishing example, if the British had 0% of the decision-making power in the EU, because it was out of it, it could keep 100% of the rights to its waters and its fish. The British people know this, even if many cannot articulate it in those terms: they know they don’t need to be “in Europe” to persuade the European masters with only 8% representation, to stop doing things that hurt them – when the only reason for the discussion in the first place is that their government gave away their national resources and right to properly demo(s)cratic representation.

Evidently, based on the results of elections throughout Europe last weekend, the demos of other nations feels just the same way – as they should.

The drawing of a line at the giving away of governmental power is a very basic, human and healthy self-protective instinct, which has been evident at many more points in history than just 1215. In 1258, for example, the Provisions of Oxford against Henry III, which established parliament, was also a response to the King’s giving away power to a foreign European aristocratic class. Hundreds of years later, the Glorious Revolution would follow the exiling of a king on account of his desire to bring French law and religion to England. And as the normal, healthy act of a real demos , UKIP’s victory in the UK’s European elections is a similar reaction to a similar travesty.

UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, was recently called a bigot on account of his remark about being able to understand people’s discomfort at a group of Bulgarians or Romanians to move in next door, and many have sought to insult his supporters with the same accusation.

I have traveled much of the world and I am convinced Britain is one of the most tolerant nations in it. What Nigel was getting at, albeit clumsily, was that the lack of power of the people to control even who comes into their country is a very serious thing indeed. Bulgarians and Romanians are the current placeholders because they are the latest groups who non-British politicians have determined should be allowed into the British nation, regardless of any consequences for the people who are already there. It is the latest, highly visible symbol of just how completely thekratos of the British demos has been given away.

Britain has welcomed foreigners and diversity for as long as I have been alive. It’s not that Bulgarians and Romanians aren’t welcome there. To use the metaphor of the rented house again, it’s not that the owner doesn’t welcome guests: it’s that basic fairness and common sense demands that the owner should be the one to choose whom he welcomes and on what terms – rather than the current situation in which the person who chooses who enters the house and on what terms is some foreign chap who got hold of it in a fraudulent sale by a recent tenant who never owned it.

With respect to Farage’s notion that Britons might be more concerned about an influx of Bulgarians than of Germans: as history shows, it’s human nature to feel more concerned when the uninvited people in one’s house are less familiar, appearing, rightly or wrongly, to have very different house rules and fewer means to support themselves – especially when the owner is no longer allowed to decide who may or may not take out of the family’s rainy-day fund that has been carefully built up over generations.

In summary, none of this is about ethnicity or race. It is about fairness, rights and their flipside, responsibility .

Kipling said it best.

The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.

But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.

When he stands like an ox in the furrow, with his sullen set eyes on your own,

And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing,” my son, leave the Saxon alone.

Voting UKIP doesn’t make someone a bigot. It makes him human, with a wish to protect his fellow countrymen, what is good in his culture, and what has been earned by a demos at great cost over a long time. A UKIP voter is likely drawing the line exactly where it has always been drawn throughout history: where those who are temporarily delegated power by one demos give away thekratos that is not theirs, to those who are part of another demos altogether.

It’s not bigoted to resist that. It is right. Moreover, in historical time, liberty and democracy both depend on it.

No. A bigot is someone who, as a result of their own prejudices, treats members of a group with fear, distrust or hatred. A much better example of one would be a person who treats those who vote differently from himself as inferior based not on knowledge of them as individuals, or of the reasons why they see their country as they do, but on a simplistic assumption about them made only because of the political party they support – allied, perhaps, with a poor sense of history or, for that matter, democracy.

Those who enjoy irony, or historic parallels, or both, will appreciate the following.

King John, after signing the Magna Carta, immediately appealed to the Pope to annul that pesky referendum on, and limitation of, his power. Pope Innocent gladly obliged; he would have made a good President of the European Union today, refusing to accept any of the national referendums that rejected the European Constitution.

That act of bad faith by John, rejecting the will of his people in favor of the will of his European overlord, caused the barons to revolt, and open war to break out in England …

By that standard, and the standard of most of history, UKIP’s electoral victory seems like a very minor protest indeed.

Bankrupt Govt

Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:57:11 +0100
From:	michael watson
Reply-To:	michael watson
To:	ecg@wewantourcountryback.co.uk

The United Kingdom Corporation Ltd, company number 05853448 that was dissolved in 2008, and which now trades under the new name of “Her majesties’ Government Ltd” company number 00000000, is a bankrupt insolvent corporation, along with all the other government corporations of the world.

Bankrupt insolvent corporations cannot operate within the commercial world, and those that do, operate unlawfully; which means ALL.

The Magna Carts is a Treaty between the Monarch and the people; a Treaty that can only be altered with the agreement of both parties.  The British people never agreed to join a communist EU. www.eutruth.org.uk . We have not agreed to codify the Magna Carta either.

The bankrupt insolvent bankers’ puppets within Westminster cannot gift this nation to another power as the Magna Carta expressly forbids it; so, ALL treaties signed with the Communist EU were null and void the instant they were signed. We do not need a referendum to leave the EU. Under our constitution, we have never lawfully been a part of it. We can just tell the commies to fuck off.

On the other hand, any insolvent select committee of bankers whores within the bankrupt insolvent UK Corporation is likewise in receivership of an anonymous receiver; the “CROWN” banking administrator (Rothschild), so cannot codify anything, as, in law,  it will be null and void the moment it is “codified” because of the state known as bankruptcy.

The House of Rothschild though, through their strong arm UK bankrupt corporation, will try to push their agenda through with the usual force and violence usually exhibited to any that resist.

But all is not doom and gloom on the horizon. The BRICS Nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, have set up their own world bank now to oppose that of the bankers of the WEST. It is my understanding that Germany have stated that they are to join the BRICS Nations too with mutterings from France also. The EU WILL collapse if this is to happen.

The BRICS Nations are refusing to buy oil or gas using the American Petro dollar, so stifling the Bankers of the west from billions of dollars of revenue. The idea is to topple the bankers by starving them of their life blood, Fiat currency, backed by nothing but fresh air, and bring in gold and silver backed currencies to a level playing field instead of being enslaved by the bankers Fiat currency system; as happens at present.

When the bankers fall, as they must if humanity is to be truly free, then so will the US and UK ‘government’s’; So will their puppets in Westminster.

This is when Treason allegations will be taken seriously by the police forces; most of the leaders of whom have been gagged or compromised in some way. I do believe we have a great, bright future ahead of us. We just have to keep on keeping on.

Mike

Corruption at the Met

Corruption' at the Met
100-250 corrupt Scotland Yard 'Untouchables'http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=167807#167807 Documents show how organised crime networks were able to infiltrate the force 'at will'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-files-reveal-endemic-corruption-at-the-met-9644667.html Tom Harper   -   INVESTIGATIONS REPORTER - Sunday 03 August 2014                

Scotland Yard holds an astonishing 260 crates of documents on police corruption in one corner of London alone – and very few of the rogue detectives have ever been successfully prosecuted.

A review led by one of Britain's most senior police officers has unearthed a mammoth amount of intelligence spawned by Operation Tiberius, a secret police report written in 2002 that concluded there was "endemic corruption" inside the Metropolitan Police.

The file found organised crime networks in north-east London were able to infiltrate the Met "at will" to frustrate the criminal justice system.

The huge number of crates, revealed in a letter by Craig Mackey, the Met's deputy commissioner, indicates the scale of criminality inside Scotland Yard's north-east London units, which appears to have gone almost unchallenged since Tiberius was compiled 12 years ago.

Research suggests that only a tiny number of the scores of then-serving and former police officers named as corrupt by Tiberius have been convicted.

In a letter to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, Mr Mackey warned that the mountain of evidence against his officers is likely to continue growing. He said: "This number [of crates] is likely to expand as linked operations are identified."

Following a series of scandals surrounding the Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan murders, the news will renew fears that the Met remains unwilling to confront corruption in its ranks.

 Daniel Morgan
 In correspondence published quietly on the parliamentary website, it emerged that Scotland Yard had handed only six heavily redacted pages of Operation Tiberius to the committee, following a request from MPs for the controversial report. Its full length extends to about 170 pages.

None of the sheets released to the committee mentioned the "endemic corruption" inside Scotland Yard – or any of the shocking details of how organised crime syndicates bribed scores of former and then-serving detectives in order to access confidential databases; obtain live intelligence on criminal investigations; provide specialist knowledge of surveillance, technical deployment and undercover techniques to help to evade prosecution; and take part in criminal acts such as mass drug importation and money laundering.

In his letter, Mr Mackey said: "In my view, the release of the documents held for … Operation Tiberius at this time would not be in the public interest."

Mr Vaz said: "I am deeply concerned by the sheer amount of evidence relating to corruption in the Met. While I understand the need for sensitivity regarding current investigations, I find the amount of redaction in the reports sent to the committee baffling.

"London's police force are seen as the gold standard for the rest of the UK. It is vital that we understand the full facts in order to root out corruption in the police. I look forward to receiving the information on the numbers of officers who have been convicted in relation to these operations, as promised by Mr Mackey."

The police chief also revealed that the Met's discredited 2012 review of the Stephen Lawrence murder had "input" from the Scotland Yard press office prior to publication, but was "ultimately endorsed as suitable for public release" by the former head of the anti-corruption command, deputy assistant commissioner Patricia Gallan.

 Stephen Lawrence
 In March, a major review of the Lawrence case concluded that Scotland Yard had provided "misleading reassurance" over police malpractice in the Lawrence inquiry and found the 2012 Met report to be "ill judged".

The memo detailed that intelligence was inexplicably shredded by the Met in 2001, including evidence that officers stole and trafficked illegal drugs, shared rewards with informants, faked applications for more payouts, sold confidential information to criminals and accepted bribes to destroy and fabricate evidence.

However, the Met was criticised earlier this year when it emerged that the review, written by Detective Superintendent David Hurley, had not made it clear that it could not find the intelligence as it had been destroyed – triggering amazement from a senior police officer who had presided over the original £8m investigation, codenamed Operation Othona.

In a statement released following Mr Mackey's appearance in front of MPs, Scotland Yard said: "In hindsight, the MPS accepts Mark Ellison's view that this report was produced in too tight a timescale, which was unrealistic and ill judged, leading to the view that the MPS was attempting to provide false reassurance to the Lawrence family."

+44 (0)7786 952037

http://rt.com/op-edge/authors/tony-gosling/

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/video-report-axed-2.htm

www.thisweek.org.uk

www.dialectradio.co.uk

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

The parliament in Europe is toothless

PLEASE SPREAD FAR AND WIDE.

Extract from http://www.theunituk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5492&Itemid=22

ThEUnit (http://www.th-eu-nit.com) have approached 48 Eurosceptic MEP's, who are either newly appointed or on a returning term. We approached them with a series of 3 emails, each of which was tracked by our iSAM systems and links to our website monitored.  On reflection of the results we think the message is pretty clear. We're on our own !
One of the people who influenced me the most on the topic of the EU, gave me grave warning. He said to me,
"The parliament in Europe is toothless, and has no power what so ever. You can enact nothing, and nor can you change anything. Indeed the only thing that your attendance in the parliament achieves is to validate its existence, and to be complicit in authorising illegitimate consent, to which you have no mandate from the people of Britain."
If we are to return sovereignty, liberty and the full democratic rights of the British people to a body of elected representatives with true authority to enact law, provide and protect the interests of the British people, then I believe this will have to be done by us ( meaning: us the people of UK ) alone.
Take a look on YouTube and see for yourself your body of Eurosceptic MEPs dispensing their sermons on EU policy to an empty hemicircle. They can cry foul, and chatter and voice about how the British people are affected by EU Law, Directive and Regulation, but no one in Europe is listening, and nor do they even care. Their activity might just about appease the uninitiated, who watch with glee their hapless prose, on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, but it matters not one jot.
As we reported in our Free E-Book, in November 2014, the full gamut of powers under the Lisbon Treaty will be enacted by Qualified Majority Voting, and then my friends your mainly Eurosceptic representatives will have just 8% of an EU wide vote with which to save our sorry backsides from the totalitarian state with it's 111,000 (and counting) laws and directives, and under a Judicial system (Corpus Juris) in which there is no presumption of innocence and that YOU have the responsibility to prove your innocence.
Good Luck !

Isn’t it time the British people woke up and learned the truth ?

Isn’t it time they got ANGRY ?  (and sacked all the British MPs for doing this to us ?)