30px; border: solid 2px #333; color: #000; background-color: yellow; padding: 5px; width: 400px; z-index: 5; font-family: verdana, geneva, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
My blog has moved!
You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit redirectLink" href='http://blendz72.wordpress.com/'> http://blendz72.wordpress.com and update your bookmarks.


Friday, November 30, 2012

Accused pedophile Sir Robert McAlpine sued for blacklisting union workers...

 Via CE

A group of blacklisted construction workers have launched a High Court claim against Sir Robert McAlpine, which could potentially soar to £600m. 

They claim Sir Robert McAlpine was involved in an unlawful conspiracy to amass a database of information against them, which robbed them of their livelihoods.

The initial claim involves 86 of 3,400 workers in the files of the Consulting Association, the shadowy organisation paid by major contractors to collect damaging information about individuals trade union membership and political views.

The workers are being represented in the High Court by Sir Hugh Tomlinson QC celebrity barrister to the stars in the News of the World phone hacking cases.

The group alleges McAlpine had the worst record of blacklisting, which is why it is being targeted in the legal action.

The conspiracy charge means McAlpine would also be responsible for the actions of more than 40 other contractors that systematically blacklisted workers simply for being members of a trade union.

Many of the workers said they were repeatedly dismissed from major construction projects and in some cases suffered years of unemployment.

The average claim has been estimated at £20,000 bringing the value of the first wave of compensation claims for loss of earnings and damages to around £17m.

Many more of the blacklisting victims are expected to add their names to the action in the coming months, raising the potential total pay-outs building firms could face to more than £600m.

Mick Abbott, 74 year old ex-scaffolder said: “This nearly ruined my marriage and it meant that my children were on free meals at school.
“My file goes back to 1964 and the last entry says that I rekindled the campaign for justice for the Shrewsbury picketers in 2006.

“They have been watching me all these years and passing this information around, blighting my life over four decades.”

Steve Kelly, electrician and spokesperson for the Blacklist Support Group said: ”I was blacklisted because I was a union member and because I raised issues about safety.

“Over the years I suffered severe financial strain. The blacklisting firms should be made to pay compensation for years lost and years in future.”

A spokesman for Sir Robert McAlpine said: “As legal proceedings have been issued it would be inappropriate for Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd to make any comment at this stage.”

"A recent Discovery Channel documentary proved that individuals can be mind controlled into carrying out murder, proving the so-called “conspiracy theory” that it is possible to create brainwashed assassins"...


A recent Discovery Channel documentary proved that individuals can be mind controlled into carrying out murder, proving the so-called “conspiracy theory” that it is possible to create brainwashed assassins.

The documentary, part of the Discovery Channel’s Curiosity series, is particularly relevantgiven the recent claim by an alleged inmate of ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes who contends that Holmes told him he was “programmed” to carry out the Aurora theater massacre by an “evil” psychotherapist.

Entitled Brainwashed, the experiment was overseen by Harvard University’s Dr. Cynthia Meyersburg and Oxford University’s Dr. Mark Stokes. Certified hypnotherapist Tom Silver was called upon to hypnotize dozens of subjects to test the depth of their hypnotic state and how suggestible they were.

After a series of tests, the sample size was eventually whittled down to four participants, all of whom were hypnotized to withstand near freezing temperatures in an ice bath. Only one of the subjects was able to stay in the ice bath for longer than 18 seconds, and he was chosen as the final participant to be brainwashed into carrying out an “assassination” he was hypnotized into believing was real.

36-year-old corrections officer ‘Ivan’ was told that he was no longer needed on the show and was free to leave. However, during an exit interview, Tom Silver hypnotized Ivan and ordered him to assassinate a foreign dignitary outside a hotel. Ivan was then given a fake gun that had the same blast and recoil of a real firearm.

As Ivan was in the hotel lobby preparing to leave, he was given a trigger signal that the hypnotist had created earlier as a command to carry out the assassination.

As the Discovery Channel website for the show explains, “The experiment was a success, and Ivan carried out his instructions: removing the gun from a red backpack, waiting near the velvet rope line and “assassinating” his target.”

The documentary therefore clearly illustrated that individuals can be brainwashed into carrying out an assassination using hypnosis and other mind control techniques.

A similar documentary was also aired on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom last year. Entitled The Assassin, the show revolved around British illusionist Derren Brown’s attempt to turn an ordinary member of the public into a mind controlled assassin via hypnotism and neuro-linguistic programming, and have that person “assassinate” a celebrity in public while retaining no knowledge of the act afterwards.

The man chosen by Brown was successfully mind-controlled to “shoot” actor Stephen Fry in front of a live audience and was later subjected to a polygraph test which revealed he had no memory of the incident. Despite the fact that the show set out to debunk “conspiracy theories” surrounding the notion that Sirhan Sirhan was a mind-controlled assassin, it actually ended up bolstering their veracity.

In a similar vein to Sirhan Sirhan, who many now consider to be a patsy in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the individual involved in the Channel 4 show later recalled that he felt like he was in a “shooting range” while he was carrying out the assassination. ‘Batman’ killer James Holmes similarly described how he felt like he was in a “video game” during the Aurora massacre, according to Stephen Unruh, the inmate who claims he talked with Holmes.

Holmes allegedly told Unruh that the programming was only broken when he returned to his car after the massacre was over. Media reports later emerged confirming that Holmes had no memory of the actual massacre.
Holmes’ behavior in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, including his claim that he couldn’t remember what happened, is identical to that displayed by Sirhan Sirhan as well as the mind-controlled assassins created in the two recent television documentaries.

The fact that Holmes was involved in mind control is not up for debate. During his time at Salk Institute of Biological Studies, Holmes designed a computer program to alter mental states using flicker rates. Suspicion has also surrounded a package which included a notebook full of violent details that Holmes sent to his his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, who was disciplined in 2004 for prescribing herself and others psychotropic drugs.

Fenton, who formerly worked with the U.S. Air Force, was treating Holmes via “medication and psychotherapy” at the The University of Colorado before the Aurora massacre. However, the judge in Holmes’ trial ordered defense attorneys to black out this information. CBS News reported that Holmes had been seeing at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre.

The question of whether or not James Holmes was brainwashed or manipulated through hypnosis into carrying out the Aurora massacre remains unknown. However, his behavior both during and after the ‘Batman’ shooting is identical to Sirhan Sirhan as well as the two individuals who were mind-controlled into becoming “assassins” as part of the two television documentaries.

What can be confirmed is the fact that numerous experiments have proven that it is possible to create a mind-controlled assassin, which is precisely what the CIA did across three decades from the 50′s to the 70′s under a program called MKUltra according to the sworn testimony of direct participants given at the 1975 Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations. That testimony went largely unsubstantiated but only because CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKUltra files destroyed two years previously.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Dark side of Medical Intelligence gathering...

Intelligence agencies routinely gather medical intelligence on the world’s political leaders. Officially, this information is used to ascertain the viability for continuation in office for leaders. However, there is a dark side to such intelligence collection.

Medical intelligence also contains data on the status of a leader’s immune system and his or her susceptibility to a number of diseases or other external health threat. Such information can be useful in devising “natural” assassination weapons, such as cancer, radiation poisoning, and food poisoning.

The collection of information on medical factors is known as “medical intelligence.” MEDINT, as it is also known, is defined by the US Department of Defense as “That category of intelligence resulting from collection, evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of foreign medical, bio-scientific, and environmental information that is of interest to strategic planning and to military medical planning and operations for the conservation of the fighting strength of friendly forces and the formation of assessments of foreign medical capabilities in both military and civilian sectors.”

Intelligence agencies take MEDINT one step further. The Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s Mossad, in particular, use MEDINT to analyze the medical conditions of foreign leaders, as well as their treatment regimen and schedules, to determine the best methods for administering toxic dose of medicines, pathogens, or other deadly agents to cause death, in other words, medical assassination.

Eight years after his death, the body of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is to be exhumed. After researchers at a Swiss institute discovered high levels of radioactive polonium on Arafat’s clothes and other personal effects and a French court ordered an inquiry into Arafat’s death, an autopsy will be conducted on Arafat’s body. Arafat fell seriously ill while being held as a virtual hostage by the Israelis at his Ramallah, Palestine headquarters. Arafat was flown to hospital in Paris and died a month later in November 2004. Mossad is believed by many to have carried out a “medical assassination” of Arafat.

At the same time that Arafat’s exhumation and autopsy was scheduled, Turkish investigators discovered high levels of DDT, strychnine, and polonium in the body of Turkish President Turgut Ozal.

Ozal died suddenly from a heart attack in 1993 but the new information from a recent autopsy suggests he may have been assassinated through poisoning. Ozal’s widow said her late husband died after drinking a glass of lemonade. Ozal made enemies of the Turkish military and its secret “deep state” network known as “Ergenekon.” Ozal was also an opponent of George H. W. Bush’s “Desert Storm” invasion of Iraq and he made enemies inside the CIA as well as in Mossad.

Two other leaders, known for their nationalist policies, may have also fell victim to CIA medical assassins. Indonesian President Ahmed Sukarno, confined to house arrest after his overthrow in 1965 in a CIA coup, died in 1970. There is evidence that the CIA may have altered Sukarno’s kidney medication. Sukarno was confined to Bogor Palace and his level of medical treatment was dictated by the Suharto regime and their CIA interlocutors. After falling seriously ill, Sukarno died in the Jakarta Army Hospital.

After Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s sudden death from what was believed to be a heart attack in 1970, there were reports that he may have been poisoned. An aide to Nasser, who was close to Vice President Anwar Sadat, reportedly hid from forensic examiners nail clippings and hair samples taken from the body of Nasser for later testing. Upon becoming Egyptian president, Sadat reversed many of Nasser’s policies, including ejecting Soviet military advisers, opening relations with Israel, and steering Egypt into the Western camp.

In 1961, the CIA station in Leopoldville, Congo tried to poison nationalist Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Eventually, Lumumba was killed by a Belgian mercenary firing squad in the employment of the CIA. There were also many attempts by the CIA to poison Cuban President Fidel Castro. In 1976, the former leftist president of Brazil, Joao Goulart, died from a sudden heart attack in exile in Uruguay. A former Uruguayan intelligence agent later revealed that Goulart’s heart medication pills were altered in order to have a "contrary effect." The Goulart family’s cook in Uruguay was later discovered to be a Brazilian intelligence agent with links to the CIA. Goulart was ousted in a 1964 CIA-led coup.

After cases of cancer began to affect several Latin American progressive leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, himself battling cancer, suggested the CIA had dusted off its old medical assassination program. The day following Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s announcement that she was being treated for thyroid cancer, Chavez stated, “Would it be so strange that they've [the Americans] invented the technology to spread cancer and we won't know about it for 50 years?" Cancer also plagued Paraguay’s President Fernando Lugo (later ousted in a CIA-backed coup), former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Brazilian incumbent President Dilma Rousseff.

To Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ecuadorian leader Rafael Correa, Chavez had a dire warning, “Evo, take care of yourself. Correa, be careful. We just don't know.” After the revelations about the deaths of Arafat and Ozal, Chavez has every right to be concerned.

Key neo-cons went directly to banksters to block Wikileaks donations...


Two “hard right” politicians, Joseph Lieberman and Peter King, went directly to the transnational credit card corporation MasterCard and arranged an extrajudicial financial blockade of Wikileaks, according to heavily redacted European Commission documents.

Although the exact nature of the deal between Lieberman, King and MasterCard are unknown, the two congressmen have actively worked against Wikileaks in the past.

King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, sought to classify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization and said the organization should be prosecuted for violating the Espionage act. Lieberman, the former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, introduced the SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) in 2010. The legislation would have made it a federal crime to publish information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” if the publication opposed U.S. foreign policy.

Both Lieberman and King are vocal proponents of the neocon clash of civilizations agenda and are key figures in the war on terror.

“It is concerning that hard-right elements in the United States have been able to pressure Visa and MasterCard, who together hold monopoly over the European market, into introducing a blockade that the US Treasury has rightly rejected,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in response to the revelation. “These unaccountable elements are directly interfering in the political and economic freedoms of EU consumers and are setting a precedent for political censorship of the world’s media.”

In October, Wikileaks filed a formal complaint with the European Commission accusing MasterCard, American Express and VISA of violating EU antitrust laws when the financial corporations moved to block donations to the whistle-blowing website.

“On the basis of the information available, the Commission considers that the complaint does not merit further investigation because it is unlikely that any infringement of EU competition rules could be established,” a spokesman for the Commission told Reuters.

The redacted Commission papers also reveal that “VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe is a fiction,” writes John Glaser.
The papers reveal that the instructions to blockade WikiLeaks’ operations in Europe came directly from VISA and MasterCard in the United States. Ownership would normally imply control, but VISA and MasterCard Europe are essentially controlled by confidential contracts with their U.S. counterparts, a hidden organizational structure that the Commission calls an “association of undertakings.”

University professors to conduct research into "extinction-level risks" posed to humanity by robots...


Experts at the prestigious University of Cambridge will conduct research into the “extinction-level risks” posed to humanity by artificially intelligent robots.

The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk is dedicated to “ensuring that our own species has a long-term future” by studying the risks posed by AI, nanotechnology and biotechnology.

“The scientists said that to dismiss concerns of a potential robot uprising would be “dangerous,” reports the BBC.

The project was co-founded by Huw Price, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge, Martin Rees,
Emeritus Professor of Cosmology & Astrophysics at Cambridge, and Jaan Tallinn, the co-founder of Skype.

It also counts amongst its advisers Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics, MIT and George M Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School.

An article written by Tallinn and Price warns that artificially intelligent computers or robots could take over “the speed and direction of technological progress itself,” and shape the environment of planet earth to their own ends while displaying about as much concern for humanity as we do for a bug on the windscreen.

Far from being resigned to works as science fiction such as in the Terminator films, the threat posed by a potential future “rise of the robots” has never been closer to reality.

The study echoes the predictions of respected author, inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, renowned for his deadly accurate technological forecasts.

In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines, Kurzweil predicted that after 2029, the elite would come closer to their goal of technological singularity – man merging with machine – and that by the end of the century, the entire planet will be run by artificially intelligent computer systems which are smarter than the entire human race combined – similar to the Skynet system fictionalized in the Terminator franchise.

Amidst the debate, the fact that the US military under DARPA is already developing robots for the express purpose of of killing people has been largely overlooked by futurists.

As we have previously highlighted, the whole direction of drones and automated robot technology being developed by the likes of DARPA is all geared towards having machines take the role of police officers and soldiers in pursuing and engaging “insurgents” on American soil.

Experts like Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, have warned that DARPA’s robots represent “an incredible technical achievement, but it’s unfortunate that it’s going to be used to kill people.”

The Department of Defense recently issued a new policy directive attempting to “reassure” people that artificially intelligent cyborgs wouldn’t be used to murder people after Human Rights Watch called for an international ban on “killer robots”.

Policy directive 3000.09 states: “Semi-autonomous weapon systems that are onboard or integrated with unmanned platforms must be designed such that, in the event of degraded or lost communications, the system does not autonomously select and engage individual targets or specific target groups that have not been previously selected by an authorised human operator.”

'Opt out & Film' activists visit Albany airport (Video)


Sunday, November 25, 2012

Child abuse scandal in Westminster covered up to avoid 'political crisis'...

Via DM

For a monthly newspaper published from a cellar by two idealistic young college lecturers, the scoop on the front page of the tiny Rochdale Alternative Press in May 1979 was truly sensational. Known as RAP, the newspaper, which cost nine pence and was distributed by volunteers in pubs, devoted its entire cover to a story headlined: Strange Case of Smith the Man. Inside, across two pages, the report detailed — in harrowing, graphic terms — the systematic sexual abuse of young boys at a children’s home set up by local dignitaries and funded by the Lancashire town’s Rotary Club.

But what really created a stir was the man identified as the chief paedophile: Cyril Smith. Elected as the local Liberal MP in 1972, a position he held for the next 20 years, the 29-stone 50-year-old was as famous for his weight as his political views. A regular on the chat-show circuit of the time, he even appeared with Jimmy Savile, the now disgraced BBC disc jockey, on a celebrity edition of the DJ’s TV programme Clunk Click.

Smith died from cancer two years ago but remains, officially, the fattest man ever to be an MP. Known nationally as ‘Big Cyril’, the unmarried politician had first come to prominence when he bizarrely named his mum as First Lady of Rochdale after he became mayor in 1966, saying he wanted to ‘thank her’ for everything. He later explained that he was a lifelong bachelor because politics meant ‘he hadn’t had a lot of time for courting women’.

The politician’s predilection for young boys, however, was already the stuff of gossip and jokes in pubs around Rochdale, a close-knit community where secrets did not remain secret for long. The investigation published in the Rochdale Alternative Press grew out of saloon-bar chat at the Golden Ball, the local pub used for meetings by David Bartlett and John Walker, joint editors of the alternative newspaper, which was printed from a cellar in Bartlett’s home.

With rumours circulating about Smith and young boys for years, and the MP standing for election under the strange banner ‘I am the Man’, the pair had decided to see whether there was credible evidence to back up such allegations. There was. After interviews with staff and former residents of the children’s home, and senior police officers aware of the allegations, at the end of a six-month investigation the newspaper had discovered nine victims willing to talk, and had four signed affidavits. With the backing of a prominent lawyer in London, who studied the evidence, the tiny newspaper published its damning conclusions, revealing how the local MP liked to carry out perverted ‘medical examinations’ of young boys in the care home and fondle them inappropriately. So what was the reaction to this extraordinary allegation? At first, there was mayhem.

Other newspapers and television crews descended on Rochdale, buying up copies of the newspaper. Bartlett and Walker were interviewed. Photographs were taken. But then Smith, a famous, powerful figure, swiftly announced that he was taking out an injunction against RAP and backed up the threat by claiming he was also suing for libel. Private Eye published a follow-up story repeating the allegations — but that was it.

‘It was a gagging action [on Smith’s part] — to prevent anyone else writing about this,’ David Bartlett, now 74 and living in retirement on the Isle of Wight, told me this week. ‘Smith never did sue. He increased his majority at the next election. The whole thing died down and just faded away.’ Now, more than three decades later, the same claims about Big Cyril are finally being made at the highest level. With fresh impetus to uncover sexual abuse following the Savile scandal, police this week revealed that they have launched an investigation into the allegations.

This development came after Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, raised the matter in the House of Commons after victims contacted him to tell their stories. He described Smith as a ‘29st bully who imposed himself on his victims, leaving them humiliated, terrified and reduced to quivering wrecks’. If what the MP says is true, why were Smith’s victims ignored for so long? Did someone cover up for Smith, and if so, could he have been protected by figures in the government of the day? The question we must now consider is this: was Smith’s depravity indeed known about at the very highest levels of the Establishment, including the security services — and the plight of his victims ignored on the grounds of ‘political expediency’ at a time when he was key to a weak Labour government’s relationship with the Liberals?

Raised by his mother, along with a brother and sister, in a two-room house, Cyril Smith had, apart from a brief spell working for the tax office, been involved in local politics for much of his life. In 1962, aged 34, he began taking a keen interest in youth matters in Rochdale — sitting on committees in charge of the Rochdale Youth Theatre, the Rochdale Youth Orchestra, the Youth Employment Committee, as well as the governorship of 29 local schools. As well as these duties, Smith also directed his energies into setting up a hostel for boys from deprived families in Rochdale, approaching poor parents and explaining that their child would be better off in care.

Funded with council cash, as well as donations from prominent businessmen and the local Rotary club, Cambridge House opened in 1962. Crucially, Smith kept his own set of keys for the hostel, meaning that he could come and go as he pleased. Barry Fitton was a 15-year-old resident when he first had the misfortune to encounter Smith. Fitton was placed in the home because he was from a disadvantaged background — the son of a single mother — and had problems at school.

‘Everybody knew Cyril Smith,’ he told me. ‘He was very famous in Rochdale — he was very involved in things concerning young kids, boys’ clubs and things like that.’ Fitton says he was sexually abused a number of times by Smith. ‘I was embarrassed, of course,’ he says. ‘I felt this was not right, but what could I do? He was an authority figure and I had to do what he said. He was such an important guy, and I was 15 and scared to death.’ Once, he was told he was to have a medical examination at Cambridge House. ‘I thought it would be a doctor, but it was Cyril Smith.

He told me to take my pants down and he started to fondle me. I thought it was odd and not right, but as far as I was concerned, he was completely powerful.’ Other victims have also come forward, describing almost identical abuse, as well as ‘spanking’ sessions when the gargantuan Smith would arrive to discipline boys accused of breaking rules — and then ‘comfort’ them after physically abusing them. When he discovered that Barry Fitton had gone one day to hang around in Manchester, Smith summoned him to his office at the home for punishment, ordering the teenager to take his trousers down and bend over his knee. He then hit the boy. ‘He was big and heavy. You’ll have seen the size of his hands in pictures. Imagine how that would feel slapping you around,’ added Mr Fitton, now in his mid-60s and living in Amsterdam.

‘I was crying and he said “oh, there, there” and he stroked my bottom and fondled my buttocks. ‘There are still people in Rochdale who don’t believe that Cyril Smith was capable of doing these things. I think it should be brought out into the open, not just for my peace of mind but for other people’s peace of mind.’ So why did this not come out at the time? Our investigation has established that there were at least three separate police investigations into Smith — he became Sir Cyril after being knighted by the Queen in 1988 for public services — during the late 1960s and early 1970s. We can also reveal that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also sought outside opinion from a prominent barrister over whether charges should be brought in the 1970s. The barrister advised that there were sufficient grounds for prosecution. But the DPP still refused to act. Could the Home Office have blocked the charges?

But the biggest issue of all is this: If there was a conspiracy that allowed Smith to evade justice, was it founded on the cynical political calculations of the day? For the fact is that throughout the years that his perversions were investigated by police, from 1974 until 1979, first the Conservatives and then Labour wooed Smith’s Liberal Party. The first General Election of 1974, in February, saw Labour win the most seats, but no overall majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, opened negotiations with Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe about forming a coalition government. Thorpe was himself the subject of squalid rumours that would culminate in his trial for the attempted murder of his homosexual lover (he was later acquitted). When the Heath-Thorpe talks broke down, Labour’s Harold Wilson formed a minority government.

Although Wilson was returned with a slender majority in an election eight months later, that soon collapsed and in 1977 his successor, Jim Callaghan, and Thorpe’s replacement, David Steel, forged a Lib-Lab pact. Wilson was aware of the scandal around Thorpe long before his trial shortly in 1979, and had asked Special Branch to keep him informed. Any decision to prosecute Cyril Smith over allegations of homosexual child abuse could have proved just as devastating to Labour as to the Liberals.

The question of who ran the country — so finely balanced because of the lack of a large majority — was at stake. Throughout these years, Smith, popular throughout the land on account of his bluff Northern manner, was even touted as a government minister, and had served as his party’s chief whip. According to police and legal sources with knowledge of these historic investigations, there was little appetite in Westminster for a high-profile trial. The source says: ‘With the Jeremy Thorpe scandal hanging over the political scene, it may have been politically expedient to sit on the matter. It appears Sir Cyril’s influence politically was just too great, and the issue was quashed.’ This would explain one of the murkiest episodes of all in the Smith scandal: the removal by MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence wing, of police files containing reams of documents and sworn statements from victims of the MP.

In what serving officers of the time believed was part of a sinister cover-up, these police files — ‘thick’ with allegations from boys abused by Smith — were seized by MI5 and have never been seen since. According to Tony Robinson, an officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, the files disappeared after an MI5 agent told him they needed to be sent to intelligence officials in London. After being taken out of the safe at Special Branch headquarters in Preston for despatch to the capital, the files vanished. ‘I looked through Sir Cyril’s file, which was kept in a safe in our office,’ he told a newspaper last week. ‘It was full of statements from young boys alleging abuse. It had been prepared for prosecution. Written across the top of it were the words: “No further action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].”’

To add to the stench of a cover-up, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), having initially claimed to have ‘no knowledge’ of any police investigation, admitted this week that it had now ‘unearthed’ its own file about allegations against Smith from as long ago as the 1960s. Simon Danczuk MP told the Mail yesterday: ‘I am absolutely convinced there was a cover-up of Smith’s abuse. The question now is why, and why are ministers refusing to answer questions about police files full of allegations of abuse that were seized by Special Branch and buried?

‘Smith set a tone in Rochdale that made people like him think they could get away with this stuff, and I’ve no doubt that he was emboldened to carry on abusing children, all the time thinking that he was above the law. ‘The daughter of a victim who’s now passed away has told us her father went to his grave angry and ashamed about Smith having abused him.’ Despite persistent inquiries by the Mail over the past fortnight, the CPS has repeatedly refused to say who took the decision not to prosecute the MP, and why. Officials have also refused to answer any questions about specific allegations against the MP, or whether they will be made public.

The truth is that, as in the Savile case, the authorities seem to have been woefully reluctant to prosecute a high-profile figure, despite investigating the steady swirl of allegations against him. And many of those involved in the case — police, victims, lawyers — believe the orders not to press charges came from the top, with Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, Labour Prime Ministers during different parts of the police probe, being involved in signing off decisions not to press ahead with charges so as not to upset their Liberal allies.

Recent events prove that such allegations must be treated with all due caution — which is why the contents of those police files take on such great significance. So where are the police documents now? Nobody knows — yet. But what is certain is that, if there was an Establishment cover-up on behalf of Big Cyril, it is slowly but surely starting to unravel.

Former government minister under Margaret Thatcher wrote about serial pedophile in her administration...


This was an 'open secret' serial paedophile who abused boys in North Wales 'care' homes and elsewhere and no one in the Thatcher government and her inner-circle of aides of which Morrison was a key part for 15 years did anything.

Currie wrote: 

One appointment in the recent reshuffle has attracted a lot of gossip and could be very dangerous: Peter Morrison has become the PM’s PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary].

Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast”, with a liking for young boys. He admitted as much . . . when he became deputy chairman of the party but added: “However, I’m very discreet” — and he must be!

She [Thatcher] either knows and is taking a chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move. It scares me, as all the Press know, and as we get closer to the election, someone is going to make trouble very close to her indeed.’

Thatcher didn’t know? Are you having a laugh? Clearly everyone knew, including many in the media, and what was that Currie said about Chester MP Morrison? – He admitted as much when he became deputy chairman of the party, but said he was very discreet??


So I repeat my mantra question of the last few weeks. Why did Jimmy Savile’s close friend, Margaret Thatcher, and her inner circle and senior ministers like Willie Whitelaw, Leon Brittan, Lord McAlpine and others do nothing about a known paedophile at the centre of Thatcher’s circle of close aides for 15 years?

Morrison was right in there from 1975 to 1990 and not only was he not exposed, fired and reported to the police, he was made Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary as late as 1990 – her last year as Prime Minister.

There is an absolute bloody scandal staring the media in the face here, but they are looking the other way. 

Why was a known paedophile ‘who admitted as much’ allowed to stay in Thatcher’s closest inner circle for her entire 15 years as Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister?

This was Thatcher’s Cabinet in 1983: What the hell were they doing and the others who came later? What were those doing who were with Thatcher for the entire period that Morrison was?

They didn’t know what was an ‘open secret’ about Morrison who was just allowed to go on abusing more and more young boys with impunity year after year?

My goodness, there is so much to come out and it is going to.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

"For more than a year the CIA has been trafficking 300 kilos of cocaine a month from Ecuador to Chile for export on to Europe...Proceeds from the 300 kilo-a-month business have been used to create a war-chest to finance a Cocaine Coup in Ecuador that was scheduled to be “green-lighted” after the expected win in the just-concluded U.S. Presidential election—expected, at least, by some Agency officials—of Mitt Romney"

Via MC

For more than a year the CIA has been trafficking 300 kilos of cocaine a month from Ecuador to Chile for export on to Europe, according to recent credible media reports from Santiago, the Chilean capital.

Proceeds from the 300 kilo-a-month business have been used to create a war-chest to finance a Cocaine Coup in Ecuador that was scheduled to be “green-lighted” after the expected win in the just-concluded U.S. Presidential election—expected, at least, by some Agency officials—of Mitt Romney.

It's a CIA “Ay, there’s the rub” moment.

He's a leftist. Isn't that enough?

The machinations were part of a plan to topple current Ecuador President Rafael Correa, who is unpopular in Washington.

An unexpected side effect of the revelation of the plan, which has received little publicity, has been to focus an observer's attention on what's going on in the drug trade in Ecuador lately. The country's history in the drug business, almost as rich as Switzerland's with banks, goes back a long way.

When it comes to efficiently moving drugs, this is far from Ecuador's first rodeo, and the drug network there is one of long-standing, (Wikileaks PDF).

So too is its relationship with both the the CIA and DEA.

For example, when famous CIA drug pilot Barry Seal was first caught smuggling cocaine way back in 1979, he picked up his huge load of cocaine—it was 45 kilos; those were more innocent times—in Guayaquil, one of Ecuador’s three major seaports.

The Americans recently convicted of laundering money for the Ecuador-based network are no parvenus, either. One is a prominent Louisiana attorney; the other an aviation broker in Oklahoma. And both took direction from a drug pilot with his own long pedigree in the drug trade.

Jorge Arévalo Kessler has been flying drugs out of Ecuador since 1989, he states in an affadavit at his trial. He is the nephew of a long-time Mexican Secretary of Defense, and was the personal pilot of disgraced former Mexican President Carlos Salinas.

His American connections are visible too. When finally arrested, Arévalo Kessler was flying a former U.S. military plane that was part of the 1990’s Forest Service scandal, involving planes intended for firefighting diverted into CIA covert drug running operations, the most spectacular result being the C-130 busted on a runway at Mexico City’s Intl Airport carrying cocaine worth $1 billion.

Or maybe the most spectacular result was this: 14 firefighters burned to death in an out-of-control forest fire in Colorado in August of 1994. No planes were available to help. They'd all been leased out on more lucrative assignments.

Why no "Drug Money Times?"

News in the drug trade is almost always surprising, and there's a good reason why: Imagine the world’s huge automobile industry without “Auto Week.”

Or the even more massive weapons business—the death trade—without “Jane’s Defense Weekly.”

Why drug traffickers don’t have a slick weekly magazine reporting on current events—whose head is still screwed on straight, whose not so much anymore—is a question better left unasked by those with no relish for being tagged “conspiracy theorists.”

Because there is no trade publication chronicling the drug business—by any measure one of the world's largest industry—current events come as a surprise.

Example: the current kerfuffle concerning Ecuador led to a belated discovery:

The same drug trafficking network active in Ecuador was also behind the doomed flights of two American planes from St. Petersburg Fl. seized in Mexico carrying almost 10 tons of cocaine. Evidence can be seen in Kessler's indictment, whose 'headliner' is Alejandro Flores-Cacho. Both men worked for Colombian Pedro Antonio Bermudez Suaza, "The Architect, now called the mastermind behind the St Petersburg flights by no less an authority than the DEA.

Bermudez Suaza is one of the world's richest and most sophisticated drug lords, worth perhaps a half-billion dollars. In law enforcement recordings he can be heard talking with the frantic pilot in the cockpit of the second of the two American planes busted in the Yucatan, a Gulfstream II (N987SA) which went down in the jungles of the Yucatan.

Tracing the provenance of the two planes led the Mexican Atty. General's office to where the money was being laundered; the startling discovery that $378 billion in drug money had been laundered through Wachovia Bank in Charlotte, NC…in just six years.

It was a “faux pas” from which Wachovia never recovered, and the cause of the bank’s demise in a forced sale to Wells Fargo.

Nepotism, bane of the drug trade

One of the Americans convicted of laundering money and buying planes for the Ecuadorian drug network is prominent Louisiana attorney Hugh Sibley. A glance through his court case shows his trial produced more questions than answers, and enough sealed documents to raise questions about the privatization of justice.

Apparently, rank has its privileges.

The other convicted American owned an aviation brokerage in Broken Arrow. Lee R Snider, (PDF) the son of a respected local football coach, admitted to laundering drug money and arranging the purchase of eight planes, including a 727, in court documents.

Both Sibley and Snider worked under the direction of a 43-year-old drug pilot, Gustavo Jorge Arévalo Kessler(PDF), who testified he had been smuggling drugs through Ecuador since 1979.

As already reported, Kessler is the nephew of a long-time Mexican Secretary of Defense, who served under Miguel de Madrid, President of Mexico between 1982 and 1988.

After that he became the personal pilot of disgraced former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, now living in exile in Ireland.

Kessler, busted in Mexico several years ago, was flying a Gulfstream II (former registration N914MH) that was one of the "mis-placed" airplanes in the US Forest Service scandal during the 1990′s. Briefly, that scandal involved U.S. government airplanes intended for firefighting that were diverted into CIA covert drug running operations; the most spectacular of which was, as stated, the C-130 busted on a runway at Mexico City’s Intl Airport carrying $1 billion dollars worth of cocaine.

Kessler's "ride" had been "exported" to become a drug plane by an Arizona company called INTERNATIONAL AIR RESPONSE INC said to be deeply–deeply!–involved in the CIA operation.

The jig was finally up after 14 firefighters burned to death in an out of control forest fire in Colorado in August 1994. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration subsequently cited the Forest Service for "inadequate use of aviation resources." Where were all the planes?

Out of the country, many of them, doing anything but fighting fires.

A personal note: I knew the courageous man who broke that scandal. Gary Eitel was a former military pilot in Vietnam, who went on the become a CIA pilot and then later a lawyer for the Agency. Now deceased, Eitel was fearless in pursuit of the truth.

“Prepping” for the next Iran Contra Scandal

The story of the CIA-DEA's earmarked 300 kilos a month in support of an alleged CIA cocaine coup begins with Fernando Ulloa. Ulloa was an Inspector in the Chilean Federal Police (Policia de Investigaciones, or PDI). Over a year ago, he uncovered a drug ring operating out of the local CIA and DEA stations; with assistance and support from Chilean political authorities and the Chilean Army, the ring trafficks 300 kilos of cocaine a month.

Most cops see the world in black and white. So Ulloa immediately took his evidence to the Chilean Minister of the Interior in Santiago’s La Moneda Palace, mostly remembered for having been destroyed by the Chilean Air Force in the coup which took Socialist President Salvador Allende’s life in 1973.

No investigation was launched, however, and no action was taken.

When 10 Chilean police officials were recently charged with assisting a much smaller drug smuggling ring, the resulting public scandal gave Ulloa the opening (and the media coverage) to publicly accuse the Interior Minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, of covering up the much larger—and still active—CIA cocaine trafficking.

"He must be a leftist, too. Put him on the list"

Chilean intelligence sources confirmed Ulloa’s allegation to Chilean reporter Patricio Mery Bell of Panorama News in Santiago: the CIA is using proceeds from the monthly sale of 300 kilos of cocaine to fund opposition to Rafael Correa in next year’s Ecuadorian election.

“An anonymous source from the Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia (ANI) told Panoramas News that the smuggling of 300 kilos of cocaine was in fact a highly sensitive CIA/DEA operation to raise money to topple the government of Ecuador,” reported Mery.

“The operation is similar to the one carried out by the Agency in Central America during the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980’s, the source said.”

Also offering corroboration for the charge (but not proof) was the controversial former British diplomat Craig Murray, who alleged the CIA has invested $87 million for a campaign to bribe and blackmail media and government officials to prevent Correa’s reelection.

Location, location, and…logistics

The answer to what makes Ecuador important enough to merit its own CIA cocaine coup emphasizes the point made by UPS commercials: Logistics.

Ecuador, strategically situated between the two major drug producing nations of Colombia and Peru, has long been an important transshipment point for cocaine, a fact not lost on previous generations of drug traffickers.

States a U.S. Congressional Research Service report, “The country’s lengthy maritime and land borders have long provided an attractive and relatively unregulated environment for drug trafficking.”

That means—translating the reports Congressional-ese—fewer people to pay off.

According to numerous reports Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s President, stirred the ire of the U.S. when he ordered the eviction of the U.S. military and CIA-DEA presence at a large military base in Manta, one of Ecuador’s three main ports.

So what was at Manta that made it so valuable? On Wednesday, we'll tell you.

Stay tuned.

Military emails show that no U.S. sailors witnessed Osama bin Laden's secret burial at sea...

Via DM

Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no American sailors watched Osama bin Laden's burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson, and traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the secret ceremony.

The emails, obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, are heavily blacked out, but are the first public disclosure of government information about the al-Qaida leader's death. The emails were released Wednesday by the Defense Department.

Bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011, by a Navy SEAL team that assaulted his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

One email stamped secret and sent on May 2 by a senior Navy officer briefly describes how bin Laden's body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet, and then placed in a weighted bag.

According to another message from the Vinson's public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship's leadership was informed of the burial.

‘Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was followed,’ the May 2 email from Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette reads. ‘The deceased's body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag.

‘A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea.’

The email also included a cryptic reference to the intense secrecy surrounding the mission.

‘The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of the emphasis placed on operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation,’ Gaouette's message reads.

Recipients of the email included Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. James Mattis, the top officer at U.S. Central Command. Mullen retired from the military in September 2011.

Earlier, Gaouette, then the deputy commander of the Navy's Fifth Fleet, and another officer used code words to discuss whether the helicopters carrying the SEALs and bin Laden's body had arrived on the Vinson.

‘Any news on the package for us?’ he asked Rear Adm. Samuel Perez, commander of the carrier strike group that included the Vinson.

‘FEDEX delivered the package,’ Perez responded. ‘Both trucks are safely enroute home base.’

Although the Obama administration has pledged to be the most transparent in American history, it is keeping a tight hold on materials related to the bin Laden raid.

In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Vinson.

The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed.

The Defense Department also refused to confirm or deny the existence of helicopter maintenance logs and reports about the performance of military gear used in the raid.

One of the stealth helicopters that carried the SEALs to Abbottabad crashed during the mission and its wreckage was left behind. People who lived near bin Laden's compound took photos of the disabled chopper.

The CIA, which ran the bin Laden raid and has special legal authority to keep information from ever being made public, has not responded to AP's request for records about the mission.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Armed drones to patrol highways by 2025...


Autonomous vehicles and flying drones that would disable a suspect’s car remotely with an electromagnetic pulse are set to patrol highways by 2025 according to a number of concept vehciles designed by major manufacturers such as Honda, BMW and General Motors.
The 2012 LA Design Challenge asked companies to come up with a concept for “Highway Patrol Vehicle 2025,” with the winner set to be announced next week.

Most of the entrants for the competition have responded with designs that overwhelmingly suggest “patrol cars and motorcycles would be replaced by computerized drones,” within the next 10-15 years, reports the New York Times.

Honda’s entry, the Honda CHP Drone Squad, includes both a four wheeled drone vehicle and a two-wheeled motorcycle-style drone, both of which would hunt down suspects without the need to be manned.

General Motors’ concept, named the Vault Squad, includes three futuristic vehicles designed to “observe, pursue or engage.” The NY Times noted that the term “engage” was “left menacingly undefined.”

BMW’s DesignworksUSA studio came up the E-Patrol (Human-Drone Pursuit Vehicle), which would allow the operator to deploy an airborne armed surveillance drone which would have the capability to disable a suspect’s vehicle using an electromagnetic pulse.

“The main structure can deploy three drones. The top drone sits above the main structure and is a flying drone, while the other two are one wheel vehicles attached to the rear,” according to BMW. “In the case of a pursuit during heavy traffic areas, the patrol officer sitting in the two passenger main structure can deploy either the flying drone or one of the single wheel drones to chase the suspect and report back data to the main structure. When all drones are deployed, the main structure can continue to function. All drones have added protection benefits in that they can send an impulse to another vehicle and disable it.”

One of the concept drawings for the BMW design shows a license plate scanner within the vehicle which automatically brings up a photograph of every driver on the road, whether they are a suspect or not.

“By coincidence or destiny, designers at several companies came up with concepts for robotic, autonomously driven vehicles on ground, water and air. These future police cruisers — usually presented as story boards rather than actual vehicles — recall today’s Predator and Global Hawk drones, stars of the anti-insurgency efforts. They may give new meaning to those signs that read “Speed limit enforced by aircraft,” writes the Times’ Phil Patton.

As we have previously highlighted, the whole direction of drones and automated robot technology being developed by the likes of DARPA is all geared towards having machines take the role of police officers in pursuing and engaging “insurgents” on American soil.

Technology experts have warned that removing the human element from law enforcement could lead to people being summarily executed.

Although Boston Dynamics and DARPA claim the robots are ostensibly being designed to help conduct humanitarian and relief missions, Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, recently warned that the true purpose of the machines is less benign.

Speaking about the Cheetah, a robot currently being perfected by Boston Dynamics, Sharkey said the device represented, “an incredible technical achievement, but it’s unfortunate that it’s going to be used to kill people.”

“It’s going to be used for chasing people across the desert, I would imagine. I can’t think of many civilian applications – maybe for hunting, or farming, for rounding up sheep.” Sharkey added.

“But of course if it’s used for combat, it would be killing civilians as well as it’s not going to be able to discriminate between civilians and soldiers.”

You can see images of all the LA Design Challenge concepts at this link.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

The Petraeus legacy: A paramilitary CIA?

Via CR

While much of the media focus on l’affaire Petraeus has centered on the CIA director’s sexual relationship with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, the scandal opens a window onto a different and more consequential relationship—that between the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. In a behind-the-scenes turf war that has raged since 9/11, the two government bodies have fought for control of the expanding global wars waged by the United States—a turf war that JSOC has largely won. Petraeus, an instrumental player in this power struggle, leaves behind an agency that has strayed from intelligence to paramilitary-type activities. …

“I would not say that CIA has been taken over by the military, but I would say that the CIA has become more militarized,” Philip Giraldi, a retired career CIA case officer, told The Nation. “A considerable part of the CIA budget is now no longer spying; it’s supporting paramilitaries who work closely with JSOC to kill terrorists, and to run the drone program.” The CIA, he added, “is a killing machine now.”

As head of US Central Command in 2009, Petraeus issued execute orders that significantly broadened the ability of US forces to operate in a variety of countries, including Yemen, where US forces began conducting missile strikes later that year. During Petraeus’s short tenure at the CIA, drone strikes conducted by the agency, sometimes in conjunction with JSOC, escalated dramatically in Yemen; in his first month in office, he oversaw a series of strikes that killed three US citizens, including 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki. In some cases, such as the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, commandos from the elite JSOC operated under the auspices of the CIA, so that the mission could be kept secret if it went wrong.

One current State Department liaison who has also worked extensively with JSOC describes the CIA as becoming “a mini-Special Operations Command that purports to be an intelligence agency.” …

“There are great generals, but this guy is not one of them.” Arriving at the CIA, Lang says, Petraeus “wanted to drag them in the covert action direction and to be a major player.” …

Giraldi, the former senior CIA officer, expressed concern that in these circumstances, the “CIA is going to forget how to spy.” …


Pedophile rings and 10 Downing Street...

 Via DI

Even those readers from around the world may have noticed that Britain has been rocked by the paedophile revelations regarding Jimmy Savile, the former disc jockey and procurer of children for the rich and famous - and what has followed in relation to Lord McAlpine, the former treasurer of the Conservative or 'Tory' Party at the time of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

There is information coming from all directions and it can be very confusing for those who have not followed this unfolding story stage by stage.  I have been on this case since the 1990s and I'll put the pieces together to make sense of it.

This is not just a story about Britain, either, because the same networks of paedophilia and Satanism covertly manipulate the political system all over the world and most certainly in places like North America. The Bush family are up to their necks in it.

What even many more open-minded people can't grasp is the almost unimaginable scale of child abuse, murder and human sacrifice worldwide and how it is the very cement that holds the global Establishment together, locally, nationally and internationally.
The bigger picture requires the question: why paedophilia? I can answer that very simply, but it needs a really open mind to accept it and they are not the majority, of course. These people are possessed by sheer evil and thus express sheer evil.

This is why paedophilia is so fundamentally connected to Satanism - or one reason why. Satanic ritual ensures the total possession of the 'vehicle' and paedophilia expresses that possession to allow the possessing entity to feed off the child's life-force during sexual abuse, as I have explained at length in my books and highlighted at Wembley.

I have found the same networks of paedophiles, Satanists and secret society initiates in every country I have investigated and I have been to a few to say the least. The networks (in the end a single network) operate globally and right down into local communities.

At all these levels you invariably find that members of the paedophile/Satanist/secret society network occupy key positions in politics, government administration, law enforcement, the judiciary and so on. I am not saying all those positions are spoken for in this way, of course, because there are many genuine, decent people in all of them.
But the networks in the global web cover their own backs by ensuring that any claims about their activities - and not just paedophilia either - are 'investigated', dismissed and covered up by members of the network in the police and other levels of 'law' enforcement. If a case goes to court or some sort of 'public inquiry', they seek to have their own 'safe' people appointed from the judiciary to keep the lid on everything. 

Members of the network, or ring, in all these positions and others, watch each other's backs and they only get convicted if the barriers and influence of the network are breached by genuine people inside the political and legal system.

With that background, we come to the present Establishment paedophile scandal in the UK which began with the revelations on British television about 'entertainer', Jimmy Savile, or So-vile' as he has become known.
The ITV television programme exposing his sexual molestation and rape of underage girls triggered a massive response from other people all over the country who contacted the police to tell their stories about what Savile did to them. Police say they are following hundreds of leads and Savile's paedophilia was clearly of historic proportions over decades.

The paedophile-infested Establishment and its servile media sought to hold the line at Savile's own abuse of young girls with a few other people in the entertainment industry thrown in, most notably two convicted paedophiles and friends of Savile, former 'pop stars', Gary Glitter and Jonathan King.

But I have known about Savile since the 1990s when a royal insider and others told me about his paedophilia and necrophilia (sex with dead bodies); his liking for sex with little boys; his extremely close relationship with the royal family; and how he procured children for the rich and famous, including the royals and top politicians. In other words, the scandal is far bigger than the public is being told - absolutely fantastic, in fact, in its scale and depth.

I knew that Savile supplied former Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath with young boys - I have been exposing Heath since 1998 (seven years before he died) as a paedophile, Satanist and mass child killer for most of his adult life. See The Biggest Secret and other books of mine.

Gradually, as the Savile story expanded, some of this found its way into the mainstream media, including the confirmation by a BBC contemporary of Savile, Paul Gambaccini, that Savile was a necrophiliac. This is why, as I was told in the 1990s, that Savile volunteered to work in hospitals - it gave him access to the mortuaries.

See my newsletter, Jimmy Savile ... Doorway to the Cesspit for far more detail about the Savile story. I am reprising a little of that background again here because of its connection to what followed with claims about the abuse of children in 'care' homes in North Wales and the political figures alleged to be implicated.
Savile was extremely close to the British royal family to whom he was introduced by the late Lord Louis Mountbatten, a paedophile himself, and he went on to have a close relationship with Prince Philip and Prince Charles - so much so that he acted as a 'go-between' during Charles' bust-ups with Princess Diana.

It would be inexplicable that this very strange aging disc jockey would be so unbelievably close to the royal family - right in the inner sanctum - unless you knew what he really did for a living and that was procure children. The same is true of his equally close relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with whom he claims to have spent many Christmas dinners during her years in office.

It just so happens that the Thatcher government and Conservative Party in the 1980s was alive with paedophilia as will be the present Conservative administration because they always are. The same applies to the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and their like around the world, including, no, especially, the Republicans and Democrats in the United States. 

The latest sequence began with the Savile revelations still in full flow when a Labour Member of Parliament and deputy chairman of the opposition Labour Party, Tom Watson, asked Prime Minister David Cameron in the Houses of Parliament about a paedophile ring operating out of Number 10 Downing Street during the reign of a previous - unnamed - prime minister.
Watson and Cameron.
His question was connected to Peter Righton, a member of the vile Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who was convicted in 1992 of importing and possessing illegal homosexual pornographic material. Righton was a former consultant to the National Children's Bureau and Director of Education at the prestigious National Institute of Social Work in London. Tom Watson said in Parliament:

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 its links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

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.
Peter Righton - a 'leading child care expert' and paedophile. 
Tom Watson said later that 'a retired public servant had, through a quirk of fate, stumbled on something that appeared so huge, that almost everyone he'd ever raised his concerns with had baulked at the challenge' and that 'some of those powerful people involved in a cover up may well have been - and could still be - powerful politicians.' Watson continued in a posting on his website:

Since then though, many more ordinary people have contacted me about suspicions they have had of a wider wrongdoing - in some cases so heinous it made me cry.

They have talked of psychopaths marking children with Stanley knifes to show 'ownership'. They tell of parties where children were 'passed around' the men. They speak of golf course car parks being the scenes for child abuse after an 18 hole round.

And they have named powerful people - some of them household names - who abused children with impunity.

Two former police officers have raised their concerns of cover-ups. Child protection specialists have raised their fears that the network of convicted paedophile Peter Righton, the nexus of the group, was wider than at first thought. Others have identified a former cabinet minister who regularly abused young boys.

Some have raised mysterious early deaths, disappeared children, suspicious fires, intimidation and threats.

It's bewildering.

It certainly can be, but I have been researching this subject for nearly two decades and what Watson says all makes perfect sense to me.

Watson's public statement was then followed by very weird behaviour by the BBC over an interview for the current affairs programme, Newsnight, with Steve Messham who was one a stream of children abused at 'care' homes in North Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.

Children's homes and 'care' homes are the main source of children for the rings and child procurer Jimmy Savile has been connected to the North Wales abuse scandal, as he has to others like the one at the Haut de la Garenne on the Channel Island of Jersey. It is a national and international ring and so homes are involved all over the country - as abuse victims have indeed confirmed.

A member of the production group behind Steve Messham's Newsnight interview - not directly employed by the BBC - began to circulate on the Internet that Newsnight was likely to name a senior political figure that evening as a child abuser. 

Iain Overton, editor of the self-styled 'independent, not-for-profit' Bureau of Investigative Journalism which led the Newsnight 'investigation', said: 'If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile'. See the news story after this article for fascinating connections to Overton's employers.

Overton's actions began a frenzy of activity on the Internet speculating on who it could be, but when the programme aired that night the interview with Steve Messham did not include the name of the person that he was talking about and was only an account of his deeply disturbing experiences with this person. 

Naturally the speculation became even more frenetic and in the days that followed the name of very close Thatcher aide and former party treasurer Lord McAlpine was widely mentioned on the Internet by multiple sources. McAlpine, now living in Italy, eventually made a public statement denying that he abused anyone and threatening legal action against those who named him.

McAlpine, a man of considerable wealth from the family of the McAlpine construction and civil engineering company, was very specific in his statement as he sought to counter the unbroadcast claims by Steve Messham that he was the abuser.
He said that he had only once been to the location of much of Messham's abuse, the main North Wales town of Wrexham. He said that this single visit was to the local Constituency Conservative Association on party business and he had been at all times accompanied by the now dead Stuart Newman, an agent from Conservative Central Office. He said he did not stay the night.

McAlpine said that he had never visited a children's home in North Wales, 'nor have I ever visited any children's home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature.' He added that he had never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, did not own a Rolls Royce, has never had a 'Gold card' or 'Harrods card' and never wore aftershave - all of which had been alleged of Messham's attacker or attackers.

'If he does think I am the man who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person', McAlpine said.

McAlpine then threatened legal action in his statement of denial - 'I conclude by reminding those who have defamed me or who intend to do so that in making this statement I am by no means giving up my right to seek redress at law and repeat that I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.'

What I find strange is that he is talking about legal action now, at the age of 70 in semi-retirement in Italy, when he did not take legal action 'in his prime' in the 1990s when he was very prominently named in relation to abuse at North Wales children's homes by the now defunct Scallywag magazine.

McAlpine told the BBC this week that it had been an 'horrendous shock' to hear the allegations, so why wasn't the Conservative Party treasurer in the Thatcher era equally 'horrendously shocked', and why didn't he therefore sue, when similar allegations involving North Wales children's homes were published by Scallywag magazine in the 1990s and he was the subject of a banner headline to that effect - and more?

I don't understand. The Scallywag article could not have been more explicit. And why does he say that it was an 'horrendous shock' to hear these allegations when similar ones have been published before and he did NOTHING?

McAlpine was an extremely rich man and in the 1990s he was an even more prominent public figure. He could have put Scallywag out of business if he had showed in court that its allegations were not true and this would have nailed the allegations for good and stopped them circulating on the Internet ever since (without a single challenge from 'me Lord'). The same with Margaret Thatcher aide and speechwriter, Derek 'me' Laud, who appeared in the Scallywag article.

McAlpine says he is seeking damages from all and bloody sundry now and yet did nothing when the same allegations were made by Scallywag all those years ago. So please, Lord McAlpine, credibly explain why you didn't. 

Here is the Scallywag article ... it is worth reading this before we proceed.

Later in the day after McAlpine made his denial statement, suddenly Steve Messham retracted his decades-old claim that McAlpine was one of his abusers - a statement repeated only a few days earlier in part of the Newsnight interview that was not broadcast.

That was shocking enough, but his explanation for doing so was absolutely bizarre.

Messham apologised for naming McAlpine (he hadn't publicly) and he said it was a case of 'mistaken identity', the same words that McAlpine had used in his statement earlier the same day. Newsnight then made a grovelling apology for naming McAlpine when they hadn't - the name was removed from the Messham interview. 

Newsnight was just about the only BBC news or current affairs programme with a trace of backbone, but has now been neutered as a result of all this with lawyers in attendance to dictate what can and cannot be broadcast.
Steve Messham said that the reason he recanted that night on his not publicly mentioning the name of Lord McAlpine is that he was shown a picture of him by police 'in the last hour' and he realised it was not the man who abused him over and over and over decades ago.

Messham said that the problem of 'mistaken identity' arose because police showed him a picture in the 1990s of the person that he said abused him and they told him that it was Lord McAlpine. Now they had shown him a picture of the 'real' Lord McAlpine 'in the last hour' and he had realised that it is not the man in the picture that police showed to him in the 1990s.

WHAT? I mean where do you start with an explanation so ridiculous? If Messham hadn't been 'got at' by someone then I am a Chinaman living in an igloo on the Costa del Sol. What other credible explanation can there be for such a sudden about-turn after decades of saying the same thing and never wavering?
We are being asked to believe that in the 15 to 20 years between Steve Messham allegedly being shown the picture of 'Lord McAlpine' by police and accusing him of sexually abusing him in an unbroadcast part of the interview with Newsnight that Messham has never once Googled 'Lord Alistair McAlpine' and seen the pictures of him widely available ever since he said he was abused??

That he never once sought out a picture of McAlpine of any kind in the decades since his time in the children's home until the police showed him one 'in the last hour'? 

That he didn't know what McAlpine looked like even when he has been in the news only recently with comments about jailed Polly Peck businessman, Asil Nadir, and when he was regularly in the news in the 1980s during the Thatcher era?

When I heard what Steve Messham had said I Googled 'Lord Alistair McAlpine' and up came pictures widely available way before 'in the last hour' ...
I mean, how many do you want, Steve? And yet he never saw a picture of Lord McAlpine in the nearly 20 years between the two photographs shown to him by the police? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. So why did he say it? Your call, but I know what mine is.

MP Tom Watson said after he asked his question about the Downing Street paedophilia ring in Parliament:

I'm not going to let this drop despite warnings from people who should know that my personal safety is imperilled if I dig any deeper. It's spooked me so much that I've kept a detailed log of all the allegations should anything happen. 

Only a few days before Steve Meesham came out with his sudden 'mistaken identity' apology, he told Channel Four News how he had broken into the flat of an abuser in North Wales and taken dozens of photographs of abusers raping boys, including himself, and some clearly showed the face, he said, of 'the prominent Tory abuser'.

Was he talking about the same man that days later he said that he had misidentified or someone else? If it was the same man then Messham's 'mistaken identity' story lies in tatters. We need him to clarify this because it is all very confusing at the moment.

Further, he said that he not only had Polaroid photographs of this famous abuser, but the man had told him who he was and how he would have him killed if he ever spoke out. Click here to see the interview ...

So Meesham said that he took the photographs to police and that although the faces of the abusers were clear to see the police said that they could not identify men in the pictures.

Police now say that they can't comment on what happened to the images because of the new inquiry, but Meesham's story about the pictures is corroborated by Sian Griffiths, who worked in the inquiry office at Clwyd Council in the 1990s during the two inquiries into abuse at North Wales children's homes.

These were the Jillings report, which was never published because the council was warned by insurers of possible legal action by those that the victims named, and the main Waterhouse inquiry which did not allow victims to name who they said were their famous abusers. 

Clwyd Council are now apparently considering whether to publish the Jillings report in the light of current events. Labour MP Ann Clwyd is one calling for publication after reading the contents at the time. She said that 'it shows rape and torture ... the effects on those young boys cannot be underestimated.'

Sian Griffiths, who sat at the administrative centre of both inquiries, told Channel Four News that Steve Messham's photographs of abuse were ordered to be destroyed. She said: 'We were supplied with copies of court documents ... there was an order made for the books and photos to be destroyed.' This is Sian's interview ...

Why would you order that photographs showing abusers should be destroyed?? I don't know about you, but I have this terrible putrid smell right under my nose. I can't think what it could be.
[A quick aside here, but a very relevant one: When you see that Channel Four News interview with Steve Messham which did not name anyone, how is that any different to the BBC Newsnight interview with him, which equally didn't name anyone? Yet now the BBC (licence fee-payer) is forking out £185,000 in compensation to McAlpine over an interview in which he wasn't named?? Will McAlpine be seeking an out-of-court settlement from Channel Four News? That's laughable, but the BBC is easy pickings now what's left of its balls have been handed over on a platter.]

There are so many strands to this story and so many unanswered questions, but some things we do know. The Thatcher government and Conservative Party was infested with paedophiles and there was a ring involved that went right to 'Number 10'. MP Tom Watson was quite right to ask his question about this. 

One of Thatcher's significant aides, Derek Laud, was named as a paedophile in the Scallywag article in the 1990s and, as with McAlpine, he never sued despite being accused of sickening and outrageous behaviour. Once again, why?  
Laud was a speechwriter to Thatcher, many Conservative MPs (including Alan Clark who has been linked with underage sex) and has reportedly written speeches for Prince Charles. Laud is a long-time family friend of current Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife and was a guest at their wedding.

In this same period that people like Derek Laud and paedophile Chester MP Peter Morrison were close aides to Margaret Thatcher, she and her husband Denis were close friends of Jimmy Savile, the prolific supplier of children for the rich and famous and, once again, the same question must be asked about the Thatchers as about the royal family.

Why was Margaret Thatcher so close to a former disc jockey and all round strange bloke to the extent that he was invited for cosy chats and Christmas dinner with her year after year in her time as Prime Minister? What was it about fading 'entertainer' Savile that got him so close to both a sitting Prime Minister and the royal family?
An aging and infirm Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street with current Prime Minister, David Cameron. 
We also know that an extremely close Thatcher aide, the late Sir Peter Morrison, the Member of Parliament for Chester, has been named as an abuser by residents of children's homes in nearby North Wales. Chester is only 13 miles from Wrexham where Steve Messham says that a lot of his abuse took place. 

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and leader of the Welsh Conservatives, has said publicly that he has seen evidence connecting Morrison to the North Wales paedophile scandal. Richards said: '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.'

This is extremely significant when you think that Morrison was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, one of her closest aides, leader of her campaign team in the Conservative leadership election of 1990 and a deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Thatcher had paedophiles this close to her and record-breaking paedophile and child procurer Jimmy Savile as a close friend, regular visitor to her country home at Chequers and Christmas dinner guest.

Did she not KNOW what was going on?

Did not current Prime Minister David Cameron know when he worked for the Conservative Research Department at Conservative headquarters between 1988 and 1993, or on his subsequent rise to the leadership?

I don't believe it.
'Merry Christmas, Jimmy.'
Paedophile and closest of aides Sir Peter Morrison with Margaret Thatcher. 
This brings us back to MP Tom Watson and his revelations about a paedophile ring connected to Downing Street. He said of Peter Righton, who was operating his paedophile network in the same period that we are talking about:

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. I am not naming the person for obvious reasons but for clarity it is not former MP, Peter Morrison.

So here we have yet another paedophile on the inside of the Thatcher administration at the time of Morrison - and called a 'key aide' - that is yet to be named. How many were there, for goodness sake? And remember that Thatcher had replaced the paedophile, Satanist and child-killer Edward Heath as leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 and so it all went back much further than her time.

And so to Lord McAlpine, the man at the heart of the controversy of recent times. He was a central figure in the Thatcher network of aides and associates for 15 years between 1975 and 1990. They apparently met in 1975 and he was her party treasurer from then until 1990 and deputy chairman of the party from 1979 to 1983.

The two worked very closely together throughout the Thatcher years in government and he led the fundraising campaigns for her elections. This apparently involved channelling money through offshore accounts and among the donors were seriously dodgy businessmen like Asil Nadir who was jailed for ten years for a mega fraud in 2012. Nadir gave the party £400,000. 

According to McAlpine's Wikipedia profile: 'He would later describe his relationship with Thatcher in his book The Servant ... Using Machiavelli's The Prince for his analogy, the "Servant" (himself) is an important part of the success of the Prince (Thatcher).'

Okay, we get the picture, he was incredibly close to Margaret Thatcher throughout her time as party leader and Prime Minister and yet he didn't know about the paedophiles that she had so close to her - a fact that is now becoming so clear and we have seen nothing yet?

McAlpine must have known, to say otherwise is beyond ridiculous given his closeness to Thatcher and all that went on. So what did he do to stop and expose it?

Did he not warn her about her close association with Jimmy Savile given that so many people seemed to have known what he was doing but kept their mouths shut? Are we to believe that the British intelligence network including MI5 didn't know about Savile and the widespread paedophile activity infesting the Thatcher administration?

Are we to believe that they didn't tell Thatcher or that her closest of friends, McAlpine, wasn't aware through a multitude of sources what was going on?

So, I repeat, what did they do to stop and expose it? Answer: NOTHING. Why?

Didn't other central figures in Thatcher governments know - people like Deputy Prime Minister Willie Whitelaw and Home Secretary and Trade and Industry Secretary Leon Brittan? Sure they did, but what followed was still more silence and inaction. Why?

William Hague and Savile.

Rod Richards, the former Conservative MP and leader of the Welsh Conservatives, confirmed the widely-known fact that Thatcher's close aide, Sir Peter Morrison, was a paedophile connected to abuse in North Wales children's homes, and he also said that William Hague, the Secretary of State for Wales who set up the Waterhouse abuse inquiry, should have known about Morrison. William Hague is now Foreign Secretary in the Cameron government helping to decide which country is bombed next.

Former Conservative Minister Edwina Currie said that Morrison had sex with underage boys and was protected by a 'culture of sniggering'. She called him 'a noted pederast'. This is defined as 'a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner.' Others have described Morrison's activities as an 'open secret'.
And yet Thatcher and another of her closest aides and associates, and one of the central figures in the party, Lord McAlpine, didn't know?

That is inconceivable, surely?

So what did they do about it? Clearly nothing, because Morrison was appointed to be Thatcher's Parliamentary Private Secretary as late as 1990, her last year in office.

One way that Morrison protected himself from exposure was to threaten libel actions, just like Jimmy Savile did and others have done. Peter Connew, one-time editor of the Sunday Mirror, said that when journalists 'doorstepped' Morrison he would say 'print and I'll sue you'.

Connew said that he had personal experience of the way efforts to name Morrison were blocked despite him being arrested for attempting to procure young boys in public toilets. The police were prevented from charging him and Connew said that 'such was the hush-up that nobody could get hold of the log of the arrest':

As soon as he was brought in for importuning young boys in public toilets, the seniors would come down. That was the reason the officers leaked the details: they were outraged that the seniors had ticked them off for arresting him.


MI5 certainly knew all about the paedophile activities of the late MP for Rochdale in Lancashire, Sir Cyril Smith, who was not even in government or the main opposition party. Tony Robinson, a special branch officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, has described seeing a police dossier 'thick' with allegations from boys saying that Smith had abused them. 

The dossier of Smith's abuse was kept in a safe at special branch headquarters in Hutton, Preston, and Robinson said these words were written at the top: 'No further action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].' 

No, it wasn't in the Establishment paedophile ring's interests to prosecute and as always the interests of the abused children were irrelevant. Robinson said that shortly after seeing the file he was called by an MI5 officer who said that the evidence should be sent to London. Police now say apparently that the file has been 'lost' (sound familiar?).

So MI5 would cover up for a lowly politician nowhere near government, but would not cover for a massive paedophile ring operating out of 10 Downing Street? And Thatcher and major figures who were so close to her did not know it was going on?


Thatcher and McAlpine - and others - have a lot of explaining to do about why paedophile activities, of which insiders were so clearly well aware, were met with no action or exposure. The case alone of close Thatcher aide, Peter Morrison, reveals a scandalous disregard for the boys that he was abusing in North Wales and elsewhere.

In fact, it goes further. Scallywag said that MI5 took foreign diplomats to the North Wales homes and secretly filmed them abusing and torturing boys to use the tapes for blackmail. This is a classic Intelligence modus operandi with regard to child abuse by the famous and influential - especially politicians that they want to control.
If all this was just a one-off in one administration in one country at one time it would be bad enough, but it isn't. I can tell you after two decades of research that this is typical of political systems and governments across much of the world. Paedophilia, along with secret societies and Satanism, is the cement that holds the entire global network of conspirators and their agents together across 'different' political parties and apparently 'opposing' factions.

Paedophiles, Satanists and secret society initiates watch each other's backs, even though they may be in different political parties in public, or one may be a politician and another a police chief, judge, journalist or media owner. They are a cancer within the body politic and the wider human society. 

We now have the chance to use the British example to show the world how it all fits together and dismantle this global network of horror and sickening abuse of the most vulnerable.

Watch this space. Things are moving fast and it is going to get very interesting.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...