When I was doing my PhD in Cambridge the detraction of child abuse was, at times, discouraged by some academics too eager to endear themselves to the higher echelons. When I took one of my collaborators to the Cavendish Laboratory we had a number of Jersey "authorities" ready to reassert that there had been no abuses at "Haut de La Garenne". It is left to the reader to figure out how they learned that we would be there that day and how they got into the laboratory's discussion room. It would appear that there were inside acolytes as well.
This was one of the very many visits that the Jersey gang graced us with. There are few doubts that the university, as an institution collaborated to help them intimidate me, my friends and associates.
Lord Broers, who has since been promoted to a life peerage presided to the University along with the Duke of Edinburgh. The use of Cambridge as an arm of the civil service, Royalty or Masonry is not a proper use for public funds. The university is meant to investigate, educate and form in an independent and thought provoking way. To challenge and stretch the individual, not to subdue, undermine or obstruct the truth. The University was instrumental in aiding obstruction to the course of justice in one of the most important abuse cases in the history of the UK. Surprised ?
On the other hand individuals are not institutions. Lord Broers and the Duke have let down their academics and their students by trying to instil dogma, concealment and deception into a community of highly intelligent and independent thinking scholars. This assault on academia should be highlighted, not concealed. The demoralization of academics who were seduced, manipulated, forced or subdued into participating in the concealment of this case. This assault on independent intellect was only perpetrated by a few regimes in history; nazism, fundamentalist communism, fundamentalist islamism and new labour. Broers reward for humiliating free thinking academia was then to be promoted to the high political ranks. Collusion pays dividends !
It should be said that the Cambridge civil servants do not all have the security of tenured positions and therefore are easy to induct into allowing and even participating in abuse, but also easy to demoralize.
May Broers be left to politics and the Duke consigned to the polo stables.
The naked truth is that the British establishment has abandoned a strict adherence to the rule of law and adopted a lax moral compass that was percolated to a demoralized public service, resulting in the erosion of moral virtue that everyone senses today.
On the other hand Phillip Baillache, now in luxurious retirement, was promoted to knight of the realm and later to honorary fellow of Oxford's Pembroke College. A suiting reward for debasing what the British establishment considered competition. Anti-competition is the trait that emerges from the actions permited by the authorities.
I therefore propose that Stuart Syvret, who is banking his own defence, be financed by an Oxbridge grant to defend justice, impartiality and rule of law in the most vulnerable region of the realm; the wealthy island of Jersey.
It is the duty of academics to lead, to assist democracy and to promote development. It is therefore the Cambridge academic who should defend the freedoms in the UK first, even if it costs him his position of narrow privelege.
Good night and good luck.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Syvret's persecution
Stuart Syvret has been arrested and accused of disclosing information under state secret in his blog.
Accusations:
"
1: Failing to renew a driving licence after an automatic expiry date.
2: Failing to notify a change of the registration address for my car.
3: Allegedly disclosing controlled data on this blog.
4: The data in question not being formally registered as under my control.
"
Now, of course it is Jersey style accusations. Nothing there worth anything.
Senator Syvret is now considering defending himself in the case.
What I have been considering is writing Cambridge and soliciting legal representation for Syvret, since the academic establishment was very willing to help obstruct the course of justice but not to engage in the defense of human rights.
Accusations:
"
1: Failing to renew a driving licence after an automatic expiry date.
2: Failing to notify a change of the registration address for my car.
3: Allegedly disclosing controlled data on this blog.
4: The data in question not being formally registered as under my control.
"
Now, of course it is Jersey style accusations. Nothing there worth anything.
Senator Syvret is now considering defending himself in the case.
What I have been considering is writing Cambridge and soliciting legal representation for Syvret, since the academic establishment was very willing to help obstruct the course of justice but not to engage in the defense of human rights.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Bailhache the Dukes protegé
Indymedia
will give a reasonable account of the story in Jersey, with the exception that the abuse is neither ritualistic nor satanic. What it was was systemic and international.
The brethren contains a subgroup of people who are starting to feel uncomfortable with the proximity of the law, and that is why the issue is being trated as damage control.
The Duke of Kent is the patron of ALL the British masons and a "friend" of all the upper crust who will support the crown.
The persecutions were propagated to the main British universities and involved intimidating people abroad. The acts of international terrorism were hiden.
The Dukes were well informed about the situation and helped conceal the facts for the sake of the establishment and the cover up of aristocratic involvement.
will give a reasonable account of the story in Jersey, with the exception that the abuse is neither ritualistic nor satanic. What it was was systemic and international.
The brethren contains a subgroup of people who are starting to feel uncomfortable with the proximity of the law, and that is why the issue is being trated as damage control.
The Duke of Kent is the patron of ALL the British masons and a "friend" of all the upper crust who will support the crown.
The persecutions were propagated to the main British universities and involved intimidating people abroad. The acts of international terrorism were hiden.
The Dukes were well informed about the situation and helped conceal the facts for the sake of the establishment and the cover up of aristocratic involvement.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Old boys don't snitch
What is the difference between MP's and a catering company ?
One books the cooks ...
Its is very impressive that the expenses debacle has turned out to be all that it has turned out to be. The MP's don't snitch. The business has been going on since the dark ages and there has not been a single snitch. The house might be the right place to run a mafia.
One books the cooks ...
Its is very impressive that the expenses debacle has turned out to be all that it has turned out to be. The MP's don't snitch. The business has been going on since the dark ages and there has not been a single snitch. The house might be the right place to run a mafia.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I just can't compete. Ahhh ahhh ahhh
This is pure entertainment. Forget Monty Python, forget Borat, forget the old muse. Expenses !
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency
The 1st cardinal - Heather Brooke
The 2nd cardinal - Stuart Syvret
How does the government plea ?
A poke in the Iris
As explained by Stuart Syvret, Iris Le Feuvre was responsible for Education in the states of Jersey. The McGuires were abusers who were actually complimented by the states for their services. (you were best to read Senator Syvret's blog)
The Senator is, at present, very shocked with the treatment that the abusers had and the fact that the McGuires will not face jail. More than fair enough !
I am not at all surprised.
Here is a letter I sent Straw. The refurbishments wizard:
Dear Justice Secretary,
I have felt compelled to write to you this open letter expressing my frustration and deep sense of injustice with respect to the way in which the Haut de la Garenne child abuses at Jersey have been addressed, both by the islands establishment and by the UK government. I would, therefore, like to ask that the UK take over the investigation and appoint an independent legal team.
It is by now clear to the public that there has been a consistent breakdown of the rule of law at Jersey and that the only argument for permitting ongoing obstruction to the police investigation and to the fair administration of justice has been system justification.
The UK is responsible for safeguarding its own commitments to universal human rights, in the face of Europe and the world. It would be a betrayal to us all,and contrary to the spirit of its own involvement in Iraq and Afganistan, if it were to abandon its passion for the guarantee of fair play. The horrors described by the victims of abuse struck us all as unparalleled, and to think that the same rule that allowed and even concealed them is now being trusted to deliver justice constitutes a meaningful discredit to governance at Jersey and, up to now, in the UK.
The Jersey establishment has made clear throughout the years the type of very flawed justice that it can provide. To allow this beloved island and its people to fall under the grip of oppression and hopelessness strikes as unbearable to many who, like me, believe that the promotion of freedoms in the world should be both peaceful and consistent.
The estranged government of Jersey cannot guarantee elementary constituents of a competent and modern democracy and it should not be trusted to carry this mater through.
The UK has been an historical beacon of freedoms and guarantees and, as a nation, it has never collectively bowed in the face of interests, threats or attacks. This traditional spirit has been one of your most admired traits and it is still very much an intrinsic component of modern Britain. Please do not allow it to evanesce into the fast, bright lights of an all too convenient compass. The people of Britain, and not just, deserve to be able to trust, as their unity is above all else a unity of confidence.
Yours faithfully,
(yours truly)
He told his secretary to tell me that the states are a Crown Dependency.
I had already heard !
There is something that I did not tell Straw, or Blair or John Major or Maggie Thatcher or - hold on and on and on - Winston Churchill (?) and that is that upholding human rights and the rule of law is THE function of the state. This is a fact that the British government does not recognize. Plain and simple (and I haven't even read Noam Chomsky yet !).
In my case, I was damaged both professionally and personally, financially and physically by the malfeasance of the Jersey States and the collusion of the British government. Perhaps that was its very intent, to obtain indirect gains through lowering my leverage to carry out science, professional development, enterprise, personal relations and even education. Perhaps it was to favour its own initiatives and enterprises with a feudal flavour.
As Ali G would say, "its cos I is black". And "they is crooks".
What Straw told me is plainly not acceptable. He is going to get two lawsuits instead of just one !
The lib dem are taking legal steps in international court of law and I am considering the same move.
It is even hilarious that the British Government has allowed the situation to go as far as it has. No one even believes that there can be a Spanish Inquisition.
Toodeloo, chaps.
The Senator is, at present, very shocked with the treatment that the abusers had and the fact that the McGuires will not face jail. More than fair enough !
I am not at all surprised.
Here is a letter I sent Straw. The refurbishments wizard:
Dear Justice Secretary,
I have felt compelled to write to you this open letter expressing my frustration and deep sense of injustice with respect to the way in which the Haut de la Garenne child abuses at Jersey have been addressed, both by the islands establishment and by the UK government. I would, therefore, like to ask that the UK take over the investigation and appoint an independent legal team.
It is by now clear to the public that there has been a consistent breakdown of the rule of law at Jersey and that the only argument for permitting ongoing obstruction to the police investigation and to the fair administration of justice has been system justification.
The UK is responsible for safeguarding its own commitments to universal human rights, in the face of Europe and the world. It would be a betrayal to us all,and contrary to the spirit of its own involvement in Iraq and Afganistan, if it were to abandon its passion for the guarantee of fair play. The horrors described by the victims of abuse struck us all as unparalleled, and to think that the same rule that allowed and even concealed them is now being trusted to deliver justice constitutes a meaningful discredit to governance at Jersey and, up to now, in the UK.
The Jersey establishment has made clear throughout the years the type of very flawed justice that it can provide. To allow this beloved island and its people to fall under the grip of oppression and hopelessness strikes as unbearable to many who, like me, believe that the promotion of freedoms in the world should be both peaceful and consistent.
The estranged government of Jersey cannot guarantee elementary constituents of a competent and modern democracy and it should not be trusted to carry this mater through.
The UK has been an historical beacon of freedoms and guarantees and, as a nation, it has never collectively bowed in the face of interests, threats or attacks. This traditional spirit has been one of your most admired traits and it is still very much an intrinsic component of modern Britain. Please do not allow it to evanesce into the fast, bright lights of an all too convenient compass. The people of Britain, and not just, deserve to be able to trust, as their unity is above all else a unity of confidence.
Yours faithfully,
(yours truly)
He told his secretary to tell me that the states are a Crown Dependency.
I had already heard !
There is something that I did not tell Straw, or Blair or John Major or Maggie Thatcher or - hold on and on and on - Winston Churchill (?) and that is that upholding human rights and the rule of law is THE function of the state. This is a fact that the British government does not recognize. Plain and simple (and I haven't even read Noam Chomsky yet !).
In my case, I was damaged both professionally and personally, financially and physically by the malfeasance of the Jersey States and the collusion of the British government. Perhaps that was its very intent, to obtain indirect gains through lowering my leverage to carry out science, professional development, enterprise, personal relations and even education. Perhaps it was to favour its own initiatives and enterprises with a feudal flavour.
As Ali G would say, "its cos I is black". And "they is crooks".
What Straw told me is plainly not acceptable. He is going to get two lawsuits instead of just one !
The lib dem are taking legal steps in international court of law and I am considering the same move.
It is even hilarious that the British Government has allowed the situation to go as far as it has. No one even believes that there can be a Spanish Inquisition.
Toodeloo, chaps.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Mone(y)tization and suicide watch
I just could not resist at my shot of becoming Bob Hope (nothing to do with president Obama here).
What do MP's and Ian Huntley have in common?
They have all confessed and they have all been under suicide watch.
The trouble with firing the present MP's is that the new ones will think that the money is not right.
How did Tony Blair end up a millionaire ? He was true to his nature.
Why did the duck cross the road ? To get to the floating house.
What do MP's and Ian Huntley have in common?
They have all confessed and they have all been under suicide watch.
The trouble with firing the present MP's is that the new ones will think that the money is not right.
How did Tony Blair end up a millionaire ? He was true to his nature.
Why did the duck cross the road ? To get to the floating house.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Deliberate cargo cult theory
Looking at my blog made me realize that my arguments have been a tat circular and centered around single issue. It made me realize that, after all, I have been trained as a theoretical physicist at Cambridge and therefore forwarding theories runs through my scientific veins like honey used to run through the fountains of security options before the credit crunch.
Cargo cult is a curious thing, it takes root in primitive civilizations as a fundamental logical misunderstanding of causation. Richard Feynman, the Physics nobel prize winner made an influential speech about the subject that is a classic for any natural scientist. Like primitives invented the wheel, Archimedes the buoyancy principle, Einstein the theory of relativity and Darwin the evolution of species, so has Feynman discovered the fundamental trappings of modern policy making: Cargo cult.
Let us analyze the premises that any politician fulfills in their path to glory.
First, let us define politics:
Politics is popular action through representatives.
Necessary conditions for a politician:
1) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
Therefore :
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
Therefore:
3) Must get elected for office.
When adequatelly implemented this results in a vehicle for popular action.
How can these conditions be changed to allow perversion, or if you prefer, subversion of the electoral process ? Simple !
1) Must get elected for office.
Therefore - spin - :
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
Therfore - spin - :
3) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
The causation between the first set of necessary conditions and the second is not the same and they are, in fact, in direct opposition to one another. The second set is cargo cult and is anti-democratic.
QED.
The reader will tend to say that he already knew the theorem. Like the Pythagoras theorem, it is the one that everyone understands but during the GCSE's fails to apply. To the practitioners of politics it is also a deliberate fallacy.
Cargo cult is a curious thing, it takes root in primitive civilizations as a fundamental logical misunderstanding of causation. Richard Feynman, the Physics nobel prize winner made an influential speech about the subject that is a classic for any natural scientist. Like primitives invented the wheel, Archimedes the buoyancy principle, Einstein the theory of relativity and Darwin the evolution of species, so has Feynman discovered the fundamental trappings of modern policy making: Cargo cult.
Let us analyze the premises that any politician fulfills in their path to glory.
First, let us define politics:
Politics is popular action through representatives.
Necessary conditions for a politician:
1) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
Therefore :
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
Therefore:
3) Must get elected for office.
When adequatelly implemented this results in a vehicle for popular action.
How can these conditions be changed to allow perversion, or if you prefer, subversion of the electoral process ? Simple !
1) Must get elected for office.
Therefore - spin - :
2) Must find a way to transmit and produce his views to the masses.
Therfore - spin - :
3) Must be representative of an opinion that is general enough and accurate enough to warrant a sufficient number of supporters.
The causation between the first set of necessary conditions and the second is not the same and they are, in fact, in direct opposition to one another. The second set is cargo cult and is anti-democratic.
QED.
The reader will tend to say that he already knew the theorem. Like the Pythagoras theorem, it is the one that everyone understands but during the GCSE's fails to apply. To the practitioners of politics it is also a deliberate fallacy.
In motion
ARREST OF SENATOR STUART SYVRET
“That this House deplores the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret by the Jersey Police Force for alleged infractions of data protection laws; notes that the Senator was in receipt of information disclosed in the public interest, with which he is attempting to hold the Jersey government to account for a variety of profoundly serious child protection and clinical governance failures; condemns the manner of the Senator's arrest and the subsequent searching of his home by the police without a search warrant; further condemns the fact that substantial quantities of his constituents' private data were taken and copied by the Jersey police; considers this an intimidatory and anti-democratic action which the Senator is virtually powerless to challenge given the politicisation of the Jersey judiciary and the propensity of the Jersey legislature to oppress minority members; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to fulfil his duties by exercising his constitutional powers to intervene and ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey through requiring a separation of powers and the imposition of effective checks and balances in order that survivors of child abuse, and other victims of malfeasance gain the proper protection of justice; and considers that through such actions the UK will return to compliance with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, obligations which are breached by tolerating the situation in Jersey.”
John Hemming & Austin Mitchell
“That this House deplores the arrest and detention of Senator Stuart Syvret by the Jersey Police Force for alleged infractions of data protection laws; notes that the Senator was in receipt of information disclosed in the public interest, with which he is attempting to hold the Jersey government to account for a variety of profoundly serious child protection and clinical governance failures; condemns the manner of the Senator's arrest and the subsequent searching of his home by the police without a search warrant; further condemns the fact that substantial quantities of his constituents' private data were taken and copied by the Jersey police; considers this an intimidatory and anti-democratic action which the Senator is virtually powerless to challenge given the politicisation of the Jersey judiciary and the propensity of the Jersey legislature to oppress minority members; and calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to fulfil his duties by exercising his constitutional powers to intervene and ensure good governance and the proper administration of justice in Jersey through requiring a separation of powers and the imposition of effective checks and balances in order that survivors of child abuse, and other victims of malfeasance gain the proper protection of justice; and considers that through such actions the UK will return to compliance with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, obligations which are breached by tolerating the situation in Jersey.”
John Hemming & Austin Mitchell
Monday, May 18, 2009
Who you gonna call ? Porkbusters
I found this link to Porkbusters. Great idea. Its has been done in America, folks !
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Blair - Expensive
Tony Blair has claimed expenses on his mortgages.
What if he makes it to Brussels ? Who is going to pay for the trauma ?
What if he makes it to Brussels ? Who is going to pay for the trauma ?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
LGC Forensics and Jersey, the tropical island.
It appears that the forensic work for the Haut de La Garenne affair was carried out at LGC forensics, Oxford. Given that Lenny Harper was accused of incompetence, and now that they think we should doubt most things, could it be that LGC was insufficient ? In other words could it be that LGC has hindered the research ? How come the skull turned out to be a coconut ? Tropical island ?
The "top" cop they sent in wants a quiet, well paid, retirement and knows how to be praised by the establishment.
See the blog about the latest on the cover up.
The Jersey affair, with the collusion of the UK governance, does constitute a grave violation of civil rights in the island and elsewhere. The right to individual freedom, the right to investigation, fair trial, etc, etc, etc.
I find it difficult to believe that the BBC is a problem in Jersey without being an issue in the UK. The collusions of the BBC with the establishment are ill explained. There has to be a good reason why the BBC never denounced the abuse during 30 years of prior knowledge. The inconvenience of the news possibly stems from infiltrated abusers, or otherwise plain irresponsibility.
The "top" cop they sent in wants a quiet, well paid, retirement and knows how to be praised by the establishment.
See the blog about the latest on the cover up.
The Jersey affair, with the collusion of the UK governance, does constitute a grave violation of civil rights in the island and elsewhere. The right to individual freedom, the right to investigation, fair trial, etc, etc, etc.
I find it difficult to believe that the BBC is a problem in Jersey without being an issue in the UK. The collusions of the BBC with the establishment are ill explained. There has to be a good reason why the BBC never denounced the abuse during 30 years of prior knowledge. The inconvenience of the news possibly stems from infiltrated abusers, or otherwise plain irresponsibility.
Torture in the UK. Crypto-plutocracy.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.", Inter-American convention to prevent and punish torture
You really need to consider that when the UK authorities allow the use of gangs to intimidate dissenters the situation is a bit complicated in legal terms. The UK government, for the sake of the protection of its own insuficiencies and disonesties was complicit with the use of coercive methods to obtain trade secrets, scientific information, and to subdue dissent. Now you will think that I am about to go into the rendition flights or guantanamo, but I actually intend to talk about Cambridge and the treatment I had at the hands of the Chancellors. The aspiring crypto-plutocrats. The masonic leaders felt that there were reasons to worry about the shift of power that the internet can bring, in addition to the Jersey debacle where the Royals were well informed about the situation for many years but were unwilling to stop the abuse. This in the legal term is defined as:
"The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture:
a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so.
b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto. "
Now, did the British authorities have knowledge of the persecutions that I had been subjected to by the Jersey oligarchy and the criminal gangs ?
I informed the authorities many times - the Royals and, in particular, the Duke of Kent and Edinburgh - of the the intimidatory, illegal actions that were taking place. According to the definition of article 3 they are guilty of torture.
That the UK colludes with torture of terrorist suspects is no novelty. That the UK and its princes have carried out torture for financial and ideological advantage, concealment of crimes against children and convenience with respect to the Jersey oligarchy is now disclosed.
If the reader is somehow surprised that this did take place sometime ago, please consider the malfeasance of the Jersey oligarchy and that of Jack "refurbishments" Straw in relation to the plight of Senator Stuart Syvret, his harrassment and his arrest.
The UK, its establishment, its princes, its prime minister and its police, have for the best part of 30 years allowed people to be tortured for the sake of concealing the abuse of children by the elites. The masonic involvement in the torture is even more ironic, as masonry is supposed to be philantropic.
The use of such coercive methods is typical of the crypto-plutocracy. Yes, as you might have guessed the situation that Stuart Syvret and I describe is a situation of terrorism with torture. It is just not directed, indiscriminately, at the population, but it is what it is.
Crypto-plutocracy
The Government has the obligation to intervene in the safeguard of human rights. The fact that it did not, means that the obligations to the people and the international comunity were not met. Behind this course of action are the interests of a plutocracy. A class of wealthy self-interested individuals who obstructed the course of justice and have, de facto, tortured people. In Jersey the media demonstrates an obvious bias or if you prefer a publication policy of concealment. The UK, as Eileen Fairweather has shown, also had a publication policy with respect to Haut de La Garenne, or if you prefer, editorial controls.
This picture of things is starting to look frighteningly like some conspiracy theories I have heard of. The congruence of interests leads to controls over the press (BBC included), police, academia, government, etc. There are power networks involved (Masonry) and there are crypto-rulers. In this case the Dukes and the connections to the interests of Jersey island. With respect to the world crisis at the moment, the energy interests and the banking drive to make money and lobby the governments against further regulations.
There is something very wrong when the interests of the crypto-plutocracy manage to suppress the truth for so long.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Whitehall & refurbishments
We now know that many in the UK were fully aware of the Jersey abuse.
The educational institutions were aware, the police, the Dukes (Chancellors of Cambridge and Surrey), Whitehall, etc. The reason behind the belated response had to do with the fact that the abuses were being carried out by elites.
The controls over institutions were, and still are, top down. With some spivs inside functioning as informants and enforcers of discipline.
There have been, recently, further indications that the UK politicians were either nonfeasant or malfeasant. The recent scandals reveal that British politics is in bad shape. The trust in politicians is at an all time low, for good reasons.
Morally bankrupt.
The educational institutions were aware, the police, the Dukes (Chancellors of Cambridge and Surrey), Whitehall, etc. The reason behind the belated response had to do with the fact that the abuses were being carried out by elites.
The controls over institutions were, and still are, top down. With some spivs inside functioning as informants and enforcers of discipline.
There have been, recently, further indications that the UK politicians were either nonfeasant or malfeasant. The recent scandals reveal that British politics is in bad shape. The trust in politicians is at an all time low, for good reasons.
Morally bankrupt.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Banks and stooges: The rise of the Soviets
"When a government takes over a people’s economic life it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties and the meaning of the people it governs", Maxwell Anderson
Politicians need money. Banks had money. Politicians got money from banks and kept their mouths shut with respect to the dangers of synthetic products. The banks busted, the politicians blamed the banks and hid the fact they were being lobbyed by them . Who is to blame ? The banks - at least according to the politicians. The politicians - at least according to the banks. The public - at least according to both.
The credit crunch debacle was extremely revealing when it comes to understanding the mechanisms underlying the formation of the tidal wave of debt. Both politicians and banks colluded to advance a state of things that the tax payer would have to bankroll. The immediate convenience of it all was obvious and the tendency toward short term gratification, a well known psychological phenomenon. Given the simple explanation for it all, where then dissenters really silenced ?
Naturally, the news were meant to entertain, the prestige Madoffs hailed as wizards, the bankers idolized as value added, the politicians advertised growth, the public bought houses and the world was a happy place. Those who tried to detract the madness were ignored and the advantages of the get rich quick system highlighted as a virtuous circle. The world needed large global banks. The finance sector can be the value added of the feeble minded.
So what now ?
The banks are on an artificial lung with borrowed state money. There has been no change in the people who generated the banking crisis in the banks, apart from the CEO's who did not trade by themselves in the first place. The regulation has not changed that much and still yields potential for more trouble. The public pays all. After paying for the banking bonuses.
The rise of the Soviets
In conclusion, the banks are now in the hands of the politicians. More DNA databases, more CCTV, more Lords and more controls over the internet, more moral hazard with respect to the idiosyncrasies of finance. And most importantly finance is now, increasingly, a matter for the government. There is a good side to all this; more jobs for the boys. Tony Blair no longer has to bend to Morgan Chase to finance a mortgage and can soon ask the Soviets for a place to crash.
China has picked up the debt and can boast ownership of part of the British motoring industry as well. Soon they could be bankrolling top gear and ordering Clarkson to buy a minimum amount of chinese ciggies.
Politicians need money. Banks had money. Politicians got money from banks and kept their mouths shut with respect to the dangers of synthetic products. The banks busted, the politicians blamed the banks and hid the fact they were being lobbyed by them . Who is to blame ? The banks - at least according to the politicians. The politicians - at least according to the banks. The public - at least according to both.
The credit crunch debacle was extremely revealing when it comes to understanding the mechanisms underlying the formation of the tidal wave of debt. Both politicians and banks colluded to advance a state of things that the tax payer would have to bankroll. The immediate convenience of it all was obvious and the tendency toward short term gratification, a well known psychological phenomenon. Given the simple explanation for it all, where then dissenters really silenced ?
Naturally, the news were meant to entertain, the prestige Madoffs hailed as wizards, the bankers idolized as value added, the politicians advertised growth, the public bought houses and the world was a happy place. Those who tried to detract the madness were ignored and the advantages of the get rich quick system highlighted as a virtuous circle. The world needed large global banks. The finance sector can be the value added of the feeble minded.
So what now ?
The banks are on an artificial lung with borrowed state money. There has been no change in the people who generated the banking crisis in the banks, apart from the CEO's who did not trade by themselves in the first place. The regulation has not changed that much and still yields potential for more trouble. The public pays all. After paying for the banking bonuses.
The rise of the Soviets
“In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.”, Fran Lebowitz
In conclusion, the banks are now in the hands of the politicians. More DNA databases, more CCTV, more Lords and more controls over the internet, more moral hazard with respect to the idiosyncrasies of finance. And most importantly finance is now, increasingly, a matter for the government. There is a good side to all this; more jobs for the boys. Tony Blair no longer has to bend to Morgan Chase to finance a mortgage and can soon ask the Soviets for a place to crash.
China has picked up the debt and can boast ownership of part of the British motoring industry as well. Soon they could be bankrolling top gear and ordering Clarkson to buy a minimum amount of chinese ciggies.
Masonic Brethren - The power network
“Its laws are reason and equity; its principles benevolence and love; and its religion purity and truth; its intention is peace on earth; and its disposition good-will toward man.” , Rev TM Harris
Two Dukes, reason and equity
Have you ever wondered why so many American presidents have been masons ?
It is because they have a better chance.
The mission statement of self-improvement in the masonry leads to networking and the formation of internal fraternities that facilitate career advancement. In politics, that is essential to build a support power network that then functions as a stepping stone to the aspirational politician.
The fact that the brethren uses a front mission statement of brotherly love and moral advancement is also useful.
“Freemasonry is an institution essentially philanthropic and progressive, which has for its basis the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. It has for its object the exercise of benevolence, the study of universal morality, and the practice of all the virtues.” , Constitution Grand Orient of France
But let us look at some of the people we know:
In Jersey island morality has been work in progress at best; Bill Clinton, a mason, had the morals of a teenager even as a President and George Bush, also a mason, was what everyone knows. The "practice of all virtues" is certainly remote to most brethren I know.
And the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Kent. The two Dukes of higher education, fomenting universal morality at Cambridge and Surrey. The independent thinker or a detractor of paedophilia will have to consider moving to other Universities, or abroad, if he does not wish to become persona non grata in the process of honest inquiry.
While I was at Cambridge I tried to inquire the reason why the University and its department of criminology had not investigated the allegations of abuse at Jersey. Only to find a wall of silence on the part of the local criminologists. I have always considered that to be the influence of the fact that the Duke of Edinburgh is the Chancellor of the University and therefore the uncovering of brethren is not a priority for research. The above mentioned law of equity for masons. Meant, in this case, that the educational institutions in Britain were well aware of the abuse, but even so failed to make it public due to internal convenience and management of interests. The Dukes were the currency of influence and the peddlers of intimidation, lending a barrier of "social superiority" and "natural" aristocracy to a deliberate dogma: To ignore the abuse, its consequences, its victims, its perpetrators and its accomplices.
Anyone, who like me, preferred to see the issue fully exposed was then "invited" to leave. That is to say would be targeted with undercurrents, abuses, threats and violence enough to consider giving up or be seriously wounded. Something similar to what has been happening to Senator Stuart Syvret.
The Dukes could have exposed the abuse, the BBC or other news agencies would have listened. They did know. So what is the reason for the inequities of the Dukes ?
I firmly believe that there are serious deficiencies and threats to freedoms in the UK and that the mentality of "natural" aristocrats is not helpful. Either Royals, prestige politicians or masons, there always seems to exist some caste of natural superiority. This is what sets Britain back by a few decades when it comes to embracing freedoms in a truly modern mindset.
Raising Barriers
Whenever there is whistle blowing, there are barriers being raised. Let me tell you a couple of stories that happened to me:
1) Outlaws MC - the Warwickshire chapter
2) The Portuguese Mob
To come.
Two Dukes, reason and equity
Have you ever wondered why so many American presidents have been masons ?
It is because they have a better chance.
The mission statement of self-improvement in the masonry leads to networking and the formation of internal fraternities that facilitate career advancement. In politics, that is essential to build a support power network that then functions as a stepping stone to the aspirational politician.
The fact that the brethren uses a front mission statement of brotherly love and moral advancement is also useful.
“Freemasonry is an institution essentially philanthropic and progressive, which has for its basis the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. It has for its object the exercise of benevolence, the study of universal morality, and the practice of all the virtues.” , Constitution Grand Orient of France
But let us look at some of the people we know:
In Jersey island morality has been work in progress at best; Bill Clinton, a mason, had the morals of a teenager even as a President and George Bush, also a mason, was what everyone knows. The "practice of all virtues" is certainly remote to most brethren I know.
And the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Kent. The two Dukes of higher education, fomenting universal morality at Cambridge and Surrey. The independent thinker or a detractor of paedophilia will have to consider moving to other Universities, or abroad, if he does not wish to become persona non grata in the process of honest inquiry.
While I was at Cambridge I tried to inquire the reason why the University and its department of criminology had not investigated the allegations of abuse at Jersey. Only to find a wall of silence on the part of the local criminologists. I have always considered that to be the influence of the fact that the Duke of Edinburgh is the Chancellor of the University and therefore the uncovering of brethren is not a priority for research. The above mentioned law of equity for masons. Meant, in this case, that the educational institutions in Britain were well aware of the abuse, but even so failed to make it public due to internal convenience and management of interests. The Dukes were the currency of influence and the peddlers of intimidation, lending a barrier of "social superiority" and "natural" aristocracy to a deliberate dogma: To ignore the abuse, its consequences, its victims, its perpetrators and its accomplices.
Anyone, who like me, preferred to see the issue fully exposed was then "invited" to leave. That is to say would be targeted with undercurrents, abuses, threats and violence enough to consider giving up or be seriously wounded. Something similar to what has been happening to Senator Stuart Syvret.
The Dukes could have exposed the abuse, the BBC or other news agencies would have listened. They did know. So what is the reason for the inequities of the Dukes ?
I firmly believe that there are serious deficiencies and threats to freedoms in the UK and that the mentality of "natural" aristocrats is not helpful. Either Royals, prestige politicians or masons, there always seems to exist some caste of natural superiority. This is what sets Britain back by a few decades when it comes to embracing freedoms in a truly modern mindset.
Raising Barriers
Whenever there is whistle blowing, there are barriers being raised. Let me tell you a couple of stories that happened to me:
1) Outlaws MC - the Warwickshire chapter
2) The Portuguese Mob
To come.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Does the "Wild West" Internet need a Jersey Bailiff ?
Net neutrality vs The Baron: Control in the information age
"The Government have insisted in evidence to this inquiry that the responsibility for personal Internet security ultimately rests with the individual. This is no longer realistic, and compounds the perception that the Internet is a lawless ‘wild west’”, the British government.
"You can't just rely on individuals to take responsibility for their own security. They will always be out-foxed by the bad guys.", Lord Alec Broers the former vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, a friend of Jersey and submissive to the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Edinburgh.
"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation."
Vinton Cerf, the architect.
"The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services."
Vinton Cerf, the architect.
There is great care to be taken in not being "out-foxed" by Broers as well. The Internet (broadband) is, in the words of the Portuguese prime minister - a civil engineer - , "the electricity of the 21st century". It is only natural that people will try to control the power supply. How can they do this when it is meant to be out of their control ? Introduce apparently innocuous or even benign regulatory innovation that can be easily subverted to control the use of the Internet, and in particular to restrict the Internet companies. How ? On one hand you have a sheriff who decides what is going to be addressed and what is not. On the other you make the companies accountable for any problems. End result: you own the companies chances and options through the "Sheriff". Did Broers propose a name for the Bailiff yet ?
It all looks very reasonable indeed. Legislation for accountability of software companies with respect to hacking. Accountability for banks with respect to losses; ISP's; retailers; etc. So why is it that other countries did not think of this one yet ? Because the legislation can be an unbearable burden on very many of the internet companies, transferring the power of deciding on who can operate or not to the "Sheriff". It is not that there is moral hazard on the part of the internet companies in what regards security and, therefore, that should not warrant restrictions on internet neutrality. The problems are a natural and inexorable consequence of the complexity of computer systems and cannot be eliminated with legislation. What this does, in this case, is to overburden very many companies and place their operational latitude in the hands of the policing body. i.e. control over net neutrality.
Let me run this by you again:
The British government is pretending to misunderstand computer security. It is not that companies do not improve it because they don't want to, it is because they are unnable to. The policing body wants to have controls over the majority of enterprises by reclaiming the capacity to arbiter on who is safe enough to operate and who is not, where most can be considered unsafe. The control that the government proposes is arbitrary and in the hands of the "Jersey Bailiff" it means that the burocrats call who stays in business according to arbitrary standards.
I think that Britain is having some trouble coping with the fact that there are things in life that you can not and should not control. I have been reading in awe the news in the UK press about the social web phenomena:
Facebook is turning us all into introverts.
Facebook is bad for the brain.
Facebook is a platform for cyberbulying.
And something on Bebo, but not much about MySpace. What is the difference ?
The difference is that MySpace is owned by NewsCorp and Facebook is indy. The press manifests preference for an initiative that is, in essence, the same thing in a different flavor, with comparable audiences (despite what people say), with comparable levels of popularity, but a double standard with respect to attacks. Does this tell the reader something about the nature of things ? Well, maybe its just me !
The need for greater security leading to increased centralized controls. The new expression of the same old menace.
And now, there are those who wish to keep information on phone calls and emails for the sake of security and confidence ????
People have enough confidence in the Internet to use it without dramatic losses. What they don't trust is the British government.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The open masonic lodge and the closed Jersey island
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink", George Orwell
Given the nature of the problems at Jersey, the collusions and the involvement of the establishment, both in the island and outside, is it not clear that the masonic lodge is corrupt ? Why is it still open ? Why has the Duke of Kent not closed the lodge in Jersey ? Well, officially there is no evidence of a cover up. However, masonry has known of these allegations for many years and the Duke of Kent, as the grand master, should have taken action to ensure that the brethren does not become a threat inside and outside of Jersey. The Duke, who was for a number of years the Chancellor of the University of Surrey, made certain that the University environment remained either hostile or inhibited, subdued or intimidated, avoidant or otherwise unwilling to recognize abuse. The need for academics to remain in line with official policy was suggested by alluding to the involvement of the powerful. The Duke of Kent and Lord Alec Broers defined the academic dogma that would underpin the academic pact of denial and collusion. A large majority of the academics in Britain do not have a permanent position, something that places British academia at the mercy of impositions from above, and in particular of chancellors favorable to the cover up, dogmas, ideological restrictions, etc. The establishment, whenever it controls the educational institutions and exacts upon them, is paying a criminal disservice to society. The subversion, in this case, of the fundamental principles of an independent and critical thinking education, does bring attention to the words of JFK about secret societies ( Speech ), and is a fundamental offense to freedom and free choice.
Lord Alec Broers has been, for the large part of this process, an established figure who needed to gain the approval of the political masters. Compliance, fidelity and malleability to suggestions from the government and the crown are the lifeblood of promotions in the civil service. He is now a life peer, partly as a reward for allowing strings of control and an unwritten gagging order over the University of Cambridge.
The Duke of Kent has known of the allegations of child abuse since times immemorial. The fact that he is the leader of the masons implies that he should have done enough to ensure that this type of abuse was not carried out by members of the masonry. Instead, he tacitly colluded with the Jersey lodge for years and still flaunted the shamelessness of trying to clinch to the computer pioneers and to hamper high level scientific development.
The Crown, that does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the dependency, has the resources to investigate and denounce, the power to influence and expose. With respect to this affair it did not. Why ? First, there are the masonic links. The protective wall of secrets and the link to the master mason, the Duke of Kent. The alleged involvement of one aristocrat and finally the inconvenience of it all in the face of the rest of an establishment that did nothing to bring this issue into the light.
And now, we have the Duchess of York exposing bad child care conditions in Turkey ( ABC news). That it is commendable that people have the best interests of children in care in mind is obvious, but I cant help but to be disappointed at the fact that Ferguson did not expose the Jersey oligarchy when I am certain that everyone in the family knew of the facts well before they came to public light.
The lodge will now try to find evasion from the debacle, by inventing innocent explanations for most things and most importantly by claiming that they had no knowledge of the abuse. In fact, I was personally persecuted by the Jersey oligarchy that went to extreme lengths to convince people that there was no wrong doing, but most importantly to leave people feeling threatened. They went after me to the University of Coimbra, Cambridge, several scientific conferences and workshops, scientific institutes and places of employment. All in the line of intimidation, lies, innuendo and subversion of the law. There was, for certain, obstruction to the course of justice and a very large number of people outside Jersey have witnessed, in first hand, their pressures and their lies.
Given the nature of the problems at Jersey, the collusions and the involvement of the establishment, both in the island and outside, is it not clear that the masonic lodge is corrupt ? Why is it still open ? Why has the Duke of Kent not closed the lodge in Jersey ? Well, officially there is no evidence of a cover up. However, masonry has known of these allegations for many years and the Duke of Kent, as the grand master, should have taken action to ensure that the brethren does not become a threat inside and outside of Jersey. The Duke, who was for a number of years the Chancellor of the University of Surrey, made certain that the University environment remained either hostile or inhibited, subdued or intimidated, avoidant or otherwise unwilling to recognize abuse. The need for academics to remain in line with official policy was suggested by alluding to the involvement of the powerful. The Duke of Kent and Lord Alec Broers defined the academic dogma that would underpin the academic pact of denial and collusion. A large majority of the academics in Britain do not have a permanent position, something that places British academia at the mercy of impositions from above, and in particular of chancellors favorable to the cover up, dogmas, ideological restrictions, etc. The establishment, whenever it controls the educational institutions and exacts upon them, is paying a criminal disservice to society. The subversion, in this case, of the fundamental principles of an independent and critical thinking education, does bring attention to the words of JFK about secret societies ( Speech ), and is a fundamental offense to freedom and free choice.
Lord Alec Broers has been, for the large part of this process, an established figure who needed to gain the approval of the political masters. Compliance, fidelity and malleability to suggestions from the government and the crown are the lifeblood of promotions in the civil service. He is now a life peer, partly as a reward for allowing strings of control and an unwritten gagging order over the University of Cambridge.
The Duke of Kent has known of the allegations of child abuse since times immemorial. The fact that he is the leader of the masons implies that he should have done enough to ensure that this type of abuse was not carried out by members of the masonry. Instead, he tacitly colluded with the Jersey lodge for years and still flaunted the shamelessness of trying to clinch to the computer pioneers and to hamper high level scientific development.
The Crown, that does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the dependency, has the resources to investigate and denounce, the power to influence and expose. With respect to this affair it did not. Why ? First, there are the masonic links. The protective wall of secrets and the link to the master mason, the Duke of Kent. The alleged involvement of one aristocrat and finally the inconvenience of it all in the face of the rest of an establishment that did nothing to bring this issue into the light.
And now, we have the Duchess of York exposing bad child care conditions in Turkey ( ABC news). That it is commendable that people have the best interests of children in care in mind is obvious, but I cant help but to be disappointed at the fact that Ferguson did not expose the Jersey oligarchy when I am certain that everyone in the family knew of the facts well before they came to public light.
The lodge will now try to find evasion from the debacle, by inventing innocent explanations for most things and most importantly by claiming that they had no knowledge of the abuse. In fact, I was personally persecuted by the Jersey oligarchy that went to extreme lengths to convince people that there was no wrong doing, but most importantly to leave people feeling threatened. They went after me to the University of Coimbra, Cambridge, several scientific conferences and workshops, scientific institutes and places of employment. All in the line of intimidation, lies, innuendo and subversion of the law. There was, for certain, obstruction to the course of justice and a very large number of people outside Jersey have witnessed, in first hand, their pressures and their lies.
Monday, April 27, 2009
BBC, censorship, the Duke of Kent, inspector Clouseau and the British parliament
"I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life.", Duke of Wellington about the House of Parliament
The Jersey child abuse, as we know, involved local government officials, clerics, one aristocrat, figures from the entertainment world and even allegedly people from Whitehall. Naturally, the motivation for concealment was strong. The BBC, as I have mentioned, knew well in advance of 2007 that there were serious allegations against the systemic failures in childcare at Jersey. Paxman was informed as well as the former head of the BBC, also the Chancelor of the University of Cambridge, Lord Alec Broers, and the Duke of Kent knew about the problems long before it became public knowledge. The same with Senator Stuart Syvret. As a mater of fact, my move to Cambridge was partly motivated by the fact that I was harassed by Philip Bailhache both in Portugal and in Spain and therefore the issues needed to be resolved once and for all. The British government should have been aware of the situation also, but the failure to act was typical of their behaviour. The government is deliberate in their resolve to do things only when absolutelly necessary, or otherwise get compensations for doing their duty.
With respect to the unwillingness of the BBC, Police, UK governance, Portuguese governance, Portuguese Police, the Crown and the University to help bring light on this issue. It all boils down to one thing; inconvenience in facing the issues, fear of facing people in high places including the Freemason network of old boys and, in the end, a distaste for the rugged victims - since they are of lower social status - and an intrinsic submission to the British of the palatable upper crust. A complex of collusion and corruption.
The BBC: Knew, but did not tell - Fine censorship.
The Duke: Was well aware of the allegations long before the last accusations of abuse - Fine mason.
The Police: Inspector Clouseau was at work for 40 years in the UK also - Fine blind eye.
The House: Is where some abusers were. At Jersey Senate and allegedly Whitehall - Fine rapists.
The Oxbridge: Started out by denial, turned lack of sufficient evidence, turned embarrassed admission, turned silent - Fine education.
The Queen: Knew, but does not do interference - Fine ornament.
In addition to this, the British establishment has found, in lies, enough leverage to meddle in my affairs; scientific interests and professional advancement, business and enterprise, personal relationships, family, emotional wellbeing, personal finance and privacy.
The Jersey child abuse, as we know, involved local government officials, clerics, one aristocrat, figures from the entertainment world and even allegedly people from Whitehall. Naturally, the motivation for concealment was strong. The BBC, as I have mentioned, knew well in advance of 2007 that there were serious allegations against the systemic failures in childcare at Jersey. Paxman was informed as well as the former head of the BBC, also the Chancelor of the University of Cambridge, Lord Alec Broers, and the Duke of Kent knew about the problems long before it became public knowledge. The same with Senator Stuart Syvret. As a mater of fact, my move to Cambridge was partly motivated by the fact that I was harassed by Philip Bailhache both in Portugal and in Spain and therefore the issues needed to be resolved once and for all. The British government should have been aware of the situation also, but the failure to act was typical of their behaviour. The government is deliberate in their resolve to do things only when absolutelly necessary, or otherwise get compensations for doing their duty.
With respect to the unwillingness of the BBC, Police, UK governance, Portuguese governance, Portuguese Police, the Crown and the University to help bring light on this issue. It all boils down to one thing; inconvenience in facing the issues, fear of facing people in high places including the Freemason network of old boys and, in the end, a distaste for the rugged victims - since they are of lower social status - and an intrinsic submission to the British of the palatable upper crust. A complex of collusion and corruption.
The BBC: Knew, but did not tell - Fine censorship.
The Duke: Was well aware of the allegations long before the last accusations of abuse - Fine mason.
The Police: Inspector Clouseau was at work for 40 years in the UK also - Fine blind eye.
The House: Is where some abusers were. At Jersey Senate and allegedly Whitehall - Fine rapists.
The Oxbridge: Started out by denial, turned lack of sufficient evidence, turned embarrassed admission, turned silent - Fine education.
The Queen: Knew, but does not do interference - Fine ornament.
In addition to this, the British establishment has found, in lies, enough leverage to meddle in my affairs; scientific interests and professional advancement, business and enterprise, personal relationships, family, emotional wellbeing, personal finance and privacy.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Haut de la Garenne and the British Police
"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.", Benjamin Franklin, Master mason
Introduction: Cop Psychology
It is, in my scope of things, obvious that the British Police has handled the case with mischief.
In a first instance, and as has been documented by Eileen Fairweather, the Jersey Police was complicit in the abuse of children in the home for many years. What has perhaps not been made very explicit is that the Police in the UK followed a similar selective insight into the problem of child abuse. Wheneverlaw enforcement has to face institutional friction they tend to give up. The good cop against the system is mostly an Hollywood invention.
When the Islington debacle erupted in the mid nineties, there had been on the part of the local government signaling that pointed at a cover up. In this case Margaret Hodge, from Islington council, objected to the allegations. Their usual trickery has been in the line of accusing people of not being in their right minds and recommending that they should "take their pills". The Police read this as: "no compliance, no promotions and suspensions on the way". To aggravate things, crimes of child abuse are hard to detect, prove and most of all convict successfully. They are, in the end, rape cases and only a tiny fraction of these ever see convictions. Knowing this, the Police avoids them whenever they imply political actors or otherwise "credible" or famous people, since failure to produce convictions leads to accusations of time wasting or other misbehavior, as well as compensation seeking. This is what has been happening in Jersey.
The masonic involvement in the abuse was enough to intimidate and warrant resistance to investigation. The Duke of Kent, as the Master of the masonic lodge of England, should have assumed a role in assuring that the network would behave morally. He did not and they have not.
David Warcup was selected to substitute Power by a panel of four people: Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard, Chief Executive of the States Bill Ogley, the Director of States Human Resources, Ian Crich, and the Chairman of the Appointments Commission, Mike Liston. All establishment. The question is why ?
Why was such a high ranking officer attracted to the Jersey challenge ? A man who has been a "visiting fellow of Northumbria University" ?
In the face of such mysteries what I usually suggest is keeping an eye on what he is going to do afterward since the rewards are always in the future. Is he too sexy for his shirt and therefore a candidate for higher political agendas, a man with ambition ? Well, most likely he moved to a tax haven so that he would not be fully taxed on his 220000 pounds a year income. To his convenience. And the research is taking the same direction, the most convenient possible.
It is clear that the truth, in this case, scratched the surface only because the two top ranking Police officers in Jersey were nearing retirement age and, therefore, were more able to afford the undercurrents that the Political elites can unleash. Now it is followed by a high ranking cop who is there for his convenience. One who knows how to climb the ranks. Do the math !
The Police in the UK, naturally, wishes to have as little to do with the subject as possible since there could be more high ranking people involved in the abuse. A. Fairweather has reported the alleged involvement of one aristocrat and clerics. It is known who these clerics are alleged to have been, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no indications as to who the aristocrat might be. Is that strange ?
In conclusion and to better assist you in understanding this case there is something you absolutely have to remember: Psychology of Convenience.
Chapter I: Percolation to the UK power structure
The UK has been for the best part of the last 40 years, willfully oblivious to the systemic problems in child care in Jersey, at Islington and other places.The explanation is always the same: Government has no interest is solving problems, but instead in advertising successes. The extent of abuse is therefore concealed and the leaderships allowed to thrive as if they were doing a great job. Turning a blind eye is the British thing to do, and yet the slippery slope of malfeasance leads to inexorable decline. The strategy of abuse of power is, in the long run, self defeating.
Once the convenience prone Mr warcup is through with the innocent explanations to put this sad affair behind our backs, the UK government will be grateful for the notorious service this awarded cop has yet again produced. The alternative would be to investigate the murder scenario, along with all the implications, the suspects and the accomplices in the UK. The first problem would be whitehall. It is just possible that some abusers and frequent visitors to the house of Haut de La Garenne are still in the House of the Lords. If not it is still a risk. Either way it is not a chance worth taking, and it is here that Warcup is paying a great service to the UK politics. He now places himself as an appeaser who prevents the percolation of the abuse to the guilty parties in country. Next the accomplices; it is obvious that there have been accomplices to the state of affairs in the island. It is yet again necessary to remember that Bailhache was an honorary fellow of Pembroke (Oxford) and a Knight of the realm, due to his "outstanding" handling of justice in the island. It is obvious that the University held him in high regard, even after 1998 when I arrived in England and denounced the situation. I was the one that they tried to silence, even though it was all done with the traditional British manners, read lack of respect for basic rights, cold shoulder, harassment, professional undercurrents, physical aggression, vandalism, instigation of criminal gangs against me and threats to me and my family. All at the placid and pastoral Cambridge. These stories deserve a number of other posts, since all of them are worth full description. In addition, coveting of intellectual property and attempts of material appropriation, through coercion.
It is, at this point, necessary to mention that the UK, government and police, had full knowledge of what had occurred at Jersey, at least since 1998. The crown had known about allegations since many years before, and certainly during the time when abuses were still taking place. The argument for non interference has always been that the crown(queen) does not interfere in its own dependencies and the UK does not interfere in the crown dependencies. Clearly, a loophole meant to justify irresponsibility in the face of a blatant, long term, breakdown of the rule of law. It is then not surprising that Warcup will be a good subject of the crown for the sake of his own comforts and far less than the 50pc tax. That there were those pandering to conveniences per se is not surprising. The surprising thing is the lengths at which people were willing to go to conceal the obvious.
The Duke of Kent has known of this for a long time but has never been linked publicly to the affair, for some reason that can have to do with the "respect" of the press for the masonic influence in the power structure of the news agencies. It was then with great surprise that I watched Jeremy Paxman interviewing Frank Walker, when I had told Paxman in person that there had been problems at Haut de La Garenne in 2004. He never mentioned that the subject wasn't fresh. It is frankly mind boggling that the BBC did not investigate this matter to the full, as it has since turned out to be the most important case of child abuse in the history of the UK. Could it be that the news agencies were gagged by an infamous order ? Could it be that they already knew and simply let it rest, and why ? Perhaps best to ask the BBC. I believe they had no interest in opening a can of worms - and let the kids have it.
A matter of the greatest inconvenience to Governance in Jersey and the UK, Police in Jersey and the UK, Oxbridge, Crown and free press.
25th of April
Today is the 25th, a national holiday that commemorates the overthrowing of the Portuguese dictatorship ("Estado novo") in 1974.
A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue. ,
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Respect!,
Ali G
Introduction: Cop Psychology
It is, in my scope of things, obvious that the British Police has handled the case with mischief.
In a first instance, and as has been documented by Eileen Fairweather, the Jersey Police was complicit in the abuse of children in the home for many years. What has perhaps not been made very explicit is that the Police in the UK followed a similar selective insight into the problem of child abuse. Wheneverlaw enforcement has to face institutional friction they tend to give up. The good cop against the system is mostly an Hollywood invention.
When the Islington debacle erupted in the mid nineties, there had been on the part of the local government signaling that pointed at a cover up. In this case Margaret Hodge, from Islington council, objected to the allegations. Their usual trickery has been in the line of accusing people of not being in their right minds and recommending that they should "take their pills". The Police read this as: "no compliance, no promotions and suspensions on the way". To aggravate things, crimes of child abuse are hard to detect, prove and most of all convict successfully. They are, in the end, rape cases and only a tiny fraction of these ever see convictions. Knowing this, the Police avoids them whenever they imply political actors or otherwise "credible" or famous people, since failure to produce convictions leads to accusations of time wasting or other misbehavior, as well as compensation seeking. This is what has been happening in Jersey.
The masonic involvement in the abuse was enough to intimidate and warrant resistance to investigation. The Duke of Kent, as the Master of the masonic lodge of England, should have assumed a role in assuring that the network would behave morally. He did not and they have not.
David Warcup was selected to substitute Power by a panel of four people: Home Affairs Minister, Wendy Kinnard, Chief Executive of the States Bill Ogley, the Director of States Human Resources, Ian Crich, and the Chairman of the Appointments Commission, Mike Liston. All establishment. The question is why ?
Why was such a high ranking officer attracted to the Jersey challenge ? A man who has been a "visiting fellow of Northumbria University" ?
In the face of such mysteries what I usually suggest is keeping an eye on what he is going to do afterward since the rewards are always in the future. Is he too sexy for his shirt and therefore a candidate for higher political agendas, a man with ambition ? Well, most likely he moved to a tax haven so that he would not be fully taxed on his 220000 pounds a year income. To his convenience. And the research is taking the same direction, the most convenient possible.
It is clear that the truth, in this case, scratched the surface only because the two top ranking Police officers in Jersey were nearing retirement age and, therefore, were more able to afford the undercurrents that the Political elites can unleash. Now it is followed by a high ranking cop who is there for his convenience. One who knows how to climb the ranks. Do the math !
The Police in the UK, naturally, wishes to have as little to do with the subject as possible since there could be more high ranking people involved in the abuse. A. Fairweather has reported the alleged involvement of one aristocrat and clerics. It is known who these clerics are alleged to have been, but to the best of my knowledge there has been no indications as to who the aristocrat might be. Is that strange ?
In conclusion and to better assist you in understanding this case there is something you absolutely have to remember: Psychology of Convenience.
Chapter I: Percolation to the UK power structure
The UK has been for the best part of the last 40 years, willfully oblivious to the systemic problems in child care in Jersey, at Islington and other places.The explanation is always the same: Government has no interest is solving problems, but instead in advertising successes. The extent of abuse is therefore concealed and the leaderships allowed to thrive as if they were doing a great job. Turning a blind eye is the British thing to do, and yet the slippery slope of malfeasance leads to inexorable decline. The strategy of abuse of power is, in the long run, self defeating.
Once the convenience prone Mr warcup is through with the innocent explanations to put this sad affair behind our backs, the UK government will be grateful for the notorious service this awarded cop has yet again produced. The alternative would be to investigate the murder scenario, along with all the implications, the suspects and the accomplices in the UK. The first problem would be whitehall. It is just possible that some abusers and frequent visitors to the house of Haut de La Garenne are still in the House of the Lords. If not it is still a risk. Either way it is not a chance worth taking, and it is here that Warcup is paying a great service to the UK politics. He now places himself as an appeaser who prevents the percolation of the abuse to the guilty parties in country. Next the accomplices; it is obvious that there have been accomplices to the state of affairs in the island. It is yet again necessary to remember that Bailhache was an honorary fellow of Pembroke (Oxford) and a Knight of the realm, due to his "outstanding" handling of justice in the island. It is obvious that the University held him in high regard, even after 1998 when I arrived in England and denounced the situation. I was the one that they tried to silence, even though it was all done with the traditional British manners, read lack of respect for basic rights, cold shoulder, harassment, professional undercurrents, physical aggression, vandalism, instigation of criminal gangs against me and threats to me and my family. All at the placid and pastoral Cambridge. These stories deserve a number of other posts, since all of them are worth full description. In addition, coveting of intellectual property and attempts of material appropriation, through coercion.
It is, at this point, necessary to mention that the UK, government and police, had full knowledge of what had occurred at Jersey, at least since 1998. The crown had known about allegations since many years before, and certainly during the time when abuses were still taking place. The argument for non interference has always been that the crown(queen) does not interfere in its own dependencies and the UK does not interfere in the crown dependencies. Clearly, a loophole meant to justify irresponsibility in the face of a blatant, long term, breakdown of the rule of law. It is then not surprising that Warcup will be a good subject of the crown for the sake of his own comforts and far less than the 50pc tax. That there were those pandering to conveniences per se is not surprising. The surprising thing is the lengths at which people were willing to go to conceal the obvious.
The Duke of Kent has known of this for a long time but has never been linked publicly to the affair, for some reason that can have to do with the "respect" of the press for the masonic influence in the power structure of the news agencies. It was then with great surprise that I watched Jeremy Paxman interviewing Frank Walker, when I had told Paxman in person that there had been problems at Haut de La Garenne in 2004. He never mentioned that the subject wasn't fresh. It is frankly mind boggling that the BBC did not investigate this matter to the full, as it has since turned out to be the most important case of child abuse in the history of the UK. Could it be that the news agencies were gagged by an infamous order ? Could it be that they already knew and simply let it rest, and why ? Perhaps best to ask the BBC. I believe they had no interest in opening a can of worms - and let the kids have it.
A matter of the greatest inconvenience to Governance in Jersey and the UK, Police in Jersey and the UK, Oxbridge, Crown and free press.
25th of April
Today is the 25th, a national holiday that commemorates the overthrowing of the Portuguese dictatorship ("Estado novo") in 1974.
A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue. ,
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Respect!,
Ali G
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Eno salts
"And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.", JFK
Today, I have decided to take some time to comment on the accusations of Dame Stella Rimington on the exploitation of the fear of terrorism to foment laws that are contrary to the interest of liberty in the UK, something to which Brian Eno has concurred.
This does not necessarily relate to the rest of my posts in a very direct way, but nevertheless gives us indications of the trends and mechanism at work in the Realm.
The UK is a classist society. Classism is a form of violence, used to enforce or indoctrinate the upper hand of one state of things over another, based on intrinsic privilege. Once this is forcefully accepted the next step - to impose, dogmatically, as superior any opinion, view or report that originates from higher ground - is trivial. What has been imposed on the UK, from the start of the war and onto the police state that the UK is becoming, has been that a higher ground has called a judgment that is not the result of well informed, well thought, free choice. The British are the most vulnerable to fall prey to fascist trappings, so long as natural and unquestioned superiority is accepted. The internalization of natural aristocracy subdues the mind into accepting what is imposed upon it.
It is not very surprising that such a problem is of the utmost relevance in Britain today. Tony Blair subdued the British, and not just, into accepting the war. Then, further fears were motivated by 7/7, and the acceptance of laws that are compromising liberties. Finally, the subversion of the laws meant to be used for the advancement and protection of freedoms. This is not the work of democrats and, as David Davis put it, the government seeks to undermine peoples rights instead of defending them. The perpetuation of a "natural" political aristocracy is being, yet again, sought after.
The case is not surprising to my eyes and does resonate with what I have seen and heard in the UK. Democracy is dead, once you find yourself in the path of government or police interests.
Tony Blair - The bridge mason
This brings us to Tony Blair and his plan to become the president of US all. The first European president. It is particularly worrying that a man who is without doubt responsible for the worst decision making in, at least, a generation has already found supporters among the relevant leaders of our time.
It seems that under the pretense of forming bridges among free countries, charity for self promotion and speeches for dummies, Tony will succeed in becoming the president of US all, all without our vote.
I am then left to wonder if we will end up with all the things that he can architect; new intrusive laws for terrorism, prolonged recession, entrenched privilege, natural aristocracy, pandering to the big boys, the power of rune divination in finance and avoidance in crime fighting and any other major issue I can think of.
The bridge mason is at work again, and this time he's got the Europeans fooled.
Tony is not someone who is serious about democracy, the law, reason or peace. He is a self interested, power hungry rube. The first president of Europe threatens to be a joke, a coarsening influence in Europe.
Incidentally, why do we need a president anyway ?
Today, I have decided to take some time to comment on the accusations of Dame Stella Rimington on the exploitation of the fear of terrorism to foment laws that are contrary to the interest of liberty in the UK, something to which Brian Eno has concurred.
This does not necessarily relate to the rest of my posts in a very direct way, but nevertheless gives us indications of the trends and mechanism at work in the Realm.
The UK is a classist society. Classism is a form of violence, used to enforce or indoctrinate the upper hand of one state of things over another, based on intrinsic privilege. Once this is forcefully accepted the next step - to impose, dogmatically, as superior any opinion, view or report that originates from higher ground - is trivial. What has been imposed on the UK, from the start of the war and onto the police state that the UK is becoming, has been that a higher ground has called a judgment that is not the result of well informed, well thought, free choice. The British are the most vulnerable to fall prey to fascist trappings, so long as natural and unquestioned superiority is accepted. The internalization of natural aristocracy subdues the mind into accepting what is imposed upon it.
It is not very surprising that such a problem is of the utmost relevance in Britain today. Tony Blair subdued the British, and not just, into accepting the war. Then, further fears were motivated by 7/7, and the acceptance of laws that are compromising liberties. Finally, the subversion of the laws meant to be used for the advancement and protection of freedoms. This is not the work of democrats and, as David Davis put it, the government seeks to undermine peoples rights instead of defending them. The perpetuation of a "natural" political aristocracy is being, yet again, sought after.
The case is not surprising to my eyes and does resonate with what I have seen and heard in the UK. Democracy is dead, once you find yourself in the path of government or police interests.
Tony Blair - The bridge mason
This brings us to Tony Blair and his plan to become the president of US all. The first European president. It is particularly worrying that a man who is without doubt responsible for the worst decision making in, at least, a generation has already found supporters among the relevant leaders of our time.
It seems that under the pretense of forming bridges among free countries, charity for self promotion and speeches for dummies, Tony will succeed in becoming the president of US all, all without our vote.
I am then left to wonder if we will end up with all the things that he can architect; new intrusive laws for terrorism, prolonged recession, entrenched privilege, natural aristocracy, pandering to the big boys, the power of rune divination in finance and avoidance in crime fighting and any other major issue I can think of.
The bridge mason is at work again, and this time he's got the Europeans fooled.
Tony is not someone who is serious about democracy, the law, reason or peace. He is a self interested, power hungry rube. The first president of Europe threatens to be a joke, a coarsening influence in Europe.
Incidentally, why do we need a president anyway ?
The University of Cambridge and the Science of Insufficient Evidence
Cambridge: My first impressions
When I first arrived at Cambridge, I was confronted by two types of people; the firm believers in the Jersey oligarchy and the absolute believers in the advancement of their chances in life. For the first interview, in June 1997, I was dully informed that there was not enough evidence of abuse at Haut de La Garenne, by my supervisor, Paul David Bristowe. In fact, I found it very strange that I was going to be accepted for a PhD at the University of Cambridge given the "lack" of evidence and the nature of my allegations. It crossed my mind that intellectual exploitation would be in the cards and that I would be on the menu. Sure enough, and upon my arrival I found that Hughes Hall college was divided into the above mentioned two halves and that there was a persistent dogma: There was no evidence of abuse at Haut de La Garenne. I found this strange, and it took me some time to understand why it was, exactly, that the University of Cambridge took this stance and why my colleagues and "friends" were so keen to playing down the demonstrable facts, at least at first. You see, it is illogical to take an affirmative stance on these matters as an institution, since you cannot afford to engage in controversy, let alone to be wrong. Nevertheless, the head of the college, Peter Richards, was staunch in asserting that Philip Bailhache was a judge and therefore had some sort of credibility.
He was also a fellow of Pembroke college in Oxford, a mason, and a knight of the realm and the head of governors of Haut de La Garenne in the 70's and 80's.The masonic links were made very explicit and the intent to ascent was obvious.
One of the very first persons that I met upon arrival at Cambridge was Deep Kanta Lahiri Shoudhuri, an History PhD candidate from India who was fast to tell me that there was no evidence of child abuse at Jersey, something that he could not have known unless he had been explicitly coached. Guessably, it would have been someone in the ranks of the College, otherwise their credibility and clout would be null. And so it was that I realized that the University of Cambridge had adopted, for the most of my stay there, the superficial approach of taking the allegations as unproven and unfalsiable, a very unscientific stance. It would appear that the institutional protection of the unassailable position of the University and the promotion of the good name, the quality of the teaching and research took absolute precedence over sound reason and morals. It should be clear to everyone that the University assumed a dogmatic position for the best part of six years and also that the allegations of abuse were well known at the top of academic league decades before the Jersey debacle broke out on the Island itself. It is, therefore, natural to conclude that the University of Oxford also new of the allegations of abuse and of their reasons well before Bailhache was made a fellow of Pembroke in 1995 and a knight in 1996.
My colleagues, academics and their affiliates more or less followed this dogma with all the guessable implications. Professional discrimination, undermining of personal relationships, instigation of hate crimes, threats, home invasion, theft, assault and Police negligence. I may have left a large number of crimes out for now, but I intend to go into it in full detail.
As you might know Alec Broers, the leader of the University at that time, is now a life peer at the house of lords. It is necessary to understand that you do not get to be that high up in the civil service in the UK just because you are hard working, diligent, intelligent and cautious. You really have to resonate with the heartbeat of the political elite. And in that respect, the house is in tune with turning a blind eye and not letting the problems in the island touch Whitehall in any way. The dogma was convenient and was willfully embraced by Broers himself, branching down as a universal approach. The University policy of the day also included being in line with the government on every issue, under the understanding that the University is but a form of public service and, therefore, following every government suggestion as a matter of course. The consequences of that policy are in broad view and throughout what has now become known as "broken Britain", a distant cry from the 1997 hopeful expression "cool Britain".
As you arrive to be a student at Cambridge you have, first of all to declare your residence as a foreign citizen. This was my first encounter with the Cambridgeshire Police. The constabulary that would, in time, become a location for frequent visits. People have not fully realized that the dismissal of the allegations of abuse did not only take place in Jersey, but also in the UK, with the UK Police.
It is not well known to the public that Philip Bailhache has conducted a campaign of intimidation and lies that span several decades, multiple countries and two continents. This criminal has, for the sake of upholding the malfeasance of the establishment, persecuted me outside Jersey, tried to defame me, threatened me and instigated gangsters against me. There is no doubt that Bailhache, the mason, assisted by his brotherhood have made a mockery of justice and of the places that he has visited. He has yet to pay for all that he did. And so to those of you who have wondered about the nature of the Bailiff, I would suggest reading Senator Syvret's blog, since he is close to the truth. He does however fall a bit short. Bailhache is a criminal and a gangster of the highest order, with institutional support at Jersey, Whitehall, Oxbridge and the UK Police. He has had channels to the Portuguese mob and to the British Outlaws MC, among other criminal groups. All that is only possible through freemasonry.
The masonic connections were central to the development of events while I was at Cambridge and the main reason behind the violence that I was subjected to. The University of Cambridge was commited to navigating the controversy without compromising, or otherwise perfecting the science of insufficient evidence.
When I first arrived at Cambridge, I was confronted by two types of people; the firm believers in the Jersey oligarchy and the absolute believers in the advancement of their chances in life. For the first interview, in June 1997, I was dully informed that there was not enough evidence of abuse at Haut de La Garenne, by my supervisor, Paul David Bristowe. In fact, I found it very strange that I was going to be accepted for a PhD at the University of Cambridge given the "lack" of evidence and the nature of my allegations. It crossed my mind that intellectual exploitation would be in the cards and that I would be on the menu. Sure enough, and upon my arrival I found that Hughes Hall college was divided into the above mentioned two halves and that there was a persistent dogma: There was no evidence of abuse at Haut de La Garenne. I found this strange, and it took me some time to understand why it was, exactly, that the University of Cambridge took this stance and why my colleagues and "friends" were so keen to playing down the demonstrable facts, at least at first. You see, it is illogical to take an affirmative stance on these matters as an institution, since you cannot afford to engage in controversy, let alone to be wrong. Nevertheless, the head of the college, Peter Richards, was staunch in asserting that Philip Bailhache was a judge and therefore had some sort of credibility.
He was also a fellow of Pembroke college in Oxford, a mason, and a knight of the realm and the head of governors of Haut de La Garenne in the 70's and 80's.The masonic links were made very explicit and the intent to ascent was obvious.
One of the very first persons that I met upon arrival at Cambridge was Deep Kanta Lahiri Shoudhuri, an History PhD candidate from India who was fast to tell me that there was no evidence of child abuse at Jersey, something that he could not have known unless he had been explicitly coached. Guessably, it would have been someone in the ranks of the College, otherwise their credibility and clout would be null. And so it was that I realized that the University of Cambridge had adopted, for the most of my stay there, the superficial approach of taking the allegations as unproven and unfalsiable, a very unscientific stance. It would appear that the institutional protection of the unassailable position of the University and the promotion of the good name, the quality of the teaching and research took absolute precedence over sound reason and morals. It should be clear to everyone that the University assumed a dogmatic position for the best part of six years and also that the allegations of abuse were well known at the top of academic league decades before the Jersey debacle broke out on the Island itself. It is, therefore, natural to conclude that the University of Oxford also new of the allegations of abuse and of their reasons well before Bailhache was made a fellow of Pembroke in 1995 and a knight in 1996.
My colleagues, academics and their affiliates more or less followed this dogma with all the guessable implications. Professional discrimination, undermining of personal relationships, instigation of hate crimes, threats, home invasion, theft, assault and Police negligence. I may have left a large number of crimes out for now, but I intend to go into it in full detail.
As you might know Alec Broers, the leader of the University at that time, is now a life peer at the house of lords. It is necessary to understand that you do not get to be that high up in the civil service in the UK just because you are hard working, diligent, intelligent and cautious. You really have to resonate with the heartbeat of the political elite. And in that respect, the house is in tune with turning a blind eye and not letting the problems in the island touch Whitehall in any way. The dogma was convenient and was willfully embraced by Broers himself, branching down as a universal approach. The University policy of the day also included being in line with the government on every issue, under the understanding that the University is but a form of public service and, therefore, following every government suggestion as a matter of course. The consequences of that policy are in broad view and throughout what has now become known as "broken Britain", a distant cry from the 1997 hopeful expression "cool Britain".
As you arrive to be a student at Cambridge you have, first of all to declare your residence as a foreign citizen. This was my first encounter with the Cambridgeshire Police. The constabulary that would, in time, become a location for frequent visits. People have not fully realized that the dismissal of the allegations of abuse did not only take place in Jersey, but also in the UK, with the UK Police.
It is not well known to the public that Philip Bailhache has conducted a campaign of intimidation and lies that span several decades, multiple countries and two continents. This criminal has, for the sake of upholding the malfeasance of the establishment, persecuted me outside Jersey, tried to defame me, threatened me and instigated gangsters against me. There is no doubt that Bailhache, the mason, assisted by his brotherhood have made a mockery of justice and of the places that he has visited. He has yet to pay for all that he did. And so to those of you who have wondered about the nature of the Bailiff, I would suggest reading Senator Syvret's blog, since he is close to the truth. He does however fall a bit short. Bailhache is a criminal and a gangster of the highest order, with institutional support at Jersey, Whitehall, Oxbridge and the UK Police. He has had channels to the Portuguese mob and to the British Outlaws MC, among other criminal groups. All that is only possible through freemasonry.
The masonic connections were central to the development of events while I was at Cambridge and the main reason behind the violence that I was subjected to. The University of Cambridge was commited to navigating the controversy without compromising, or otherwise perfecting the science of insufficient evidence.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"When one man is enslaved, all are not free", JFK
I was unsurprised to find that Senator Stuart Syvret had been arrested for questioning at Jersey island. Not because he could be guilty of a crime but because I know his accusers well. That is the very reason why I have never visited the island, that is the reason why I have asked other people to do it on my behalf, and some have. The situation at Jersey has been described in good detail by Senator Syvret, but the underlying reasons for the behavior of the oligarchy, their connections, friends, affiliates and methods, have not yet been fully exposed. The tyranny in the island has been, in reality, supported by a number of entities and mechanism that I intend to explain the best that I can in future blogs.
I have been, for the best part of the last 30 years, a victim of the Jersey establishment. I have been persistently persecuted by them and by the British establishment, as a result of whistle blowing with respect to child abuse and crimes of terrorism, committed at home and abroad. It is the many stories of this endless persecution, its motivations and the people behind it that I plan to recount to the readers of this blog in a free format.
Reading that the Senator is, at this point, concerned that a hacker is attempting to bring down his blog is also not surprising. Trying to silence him is a necessity and I am only surprised that they have not yet resorted to other forms of violence, as they have done with me in the past. Lenny Harper, the police investigator who conducted the initial stages of the inquiry complained about defamation, threats and other forms of abuse. That the UK has permitted it and even substituted the true policemen for a couple of friendlies who are more than ready to collaborate in the damage limitation exercise, is indicative of the UK's true stance on this matter. UK prestige oblige! The UK will tell you that you are right to complain, that they are following the situation closely but continues to undermine the victims and stealthily assists in the concealment. As the Senators blog comes under threat, I think it is perhaps time to start another.
Naturally, the allegations that there have been data protection law violations are an excuse, the regime needs to intimidate and suppress. It needs to make understood that certain things cannot be said without paying a high price. These undercurrents are exactly what would be expected from their methods of subversion and underground plotting.
The Secretary of Justice, Jack Straw, is responsible for upholding the respect for human rights in the island and in the UK in its multiple forms. This is yet another situation, where the true problem is at Whitehall. The nonfeasance of British politicians is the true origin of the problems at Jersey and the origin of almost all problems in Britain. In addition, the islands status as a Crown dependency, where the "Crown" is an entity that is not accountable is, in itself, anti-democratic. It is correct to say that the situation is one of state sponsored terrorism against the people of Jersey and dissidents abroad.
If you write Secretary Straw about this you will get the same answer I did from Janet Tweedale assuring that he is being well informed, and above all else the island is a crown dependency with its own elected systems. No one is accountable for state sponsored terrorism perpetrated under the crown.
With respect to the role of the UK in this, I believe that it configures collusion with the Jersey establishment. Whitehall does not want extensive investigations into this matter, for that would imply uncovering the links to the highest spheres of the British society including politicians, universities, intelligence, business, royal connections, entertainment, press and, of course, masonry. All types of people who have known of the abuse for many years but have always failed to denounce it.
The strange behaviour of the BBC relates to the fact that they too are more inclined to let go in the name of "sensible reporting", and that is to say they don't need the trouble, just like the police and the others. A nice old boy usually keeps his job, but a maverick can join the depression ranks. Even the chief of police, the corageous Graham Power, found that out the hard way.
At the very least it proves lack of due diligence in uncovering and stopping further abuse in the Island and abroad, as the oligarchy does persecute its detractors with fierce resolve. The investigation had, clearly, not been dealt with as it should have been before the Power/Harper team and now it is not more than in damage limitation mode. The UK does not wish percolation to their power structures.
The UK pretends to be sympathetic with the victims of abuse, while trying to conceal the true extent of the pact of convenience.
I have been, for the best part of the last 30 years, a victim of the Jersey establishment. I have been persistently persecuted by them and by the British establishment, as a result of whistle blowing with respect to child abuse and crimes of terrorism, committed at home and abroad. It is the many stories of this endless persecution, its motivations and the people behind it that I plan to recount to the readers of this blog in a free format.
Reading that the Senator is, at this point, concerned that a hacker is attempting to bring down his blog is also not surprising. Trying to silence him is a necessity and I am only surprised that they have not yet resorted to other forms of violence, as they have done with me in the past. Lenny Harper, the police investigator who conducted the initial stages of the inquiry complained about defamation, threats and other forms of abuse. That the UK has permitted it and even substituted the true policemen for a couple of friendlies who are more than ready to collaborate in the damage limitation exercise, is indicative of the UK's true stance on this matter. UK prestige oblige! The UK will tell you that you are right to complain, that they are following the situation closely but continues to undermine the victims and stealthily assists in the concealment. As the Senators blog comes under threat, I think it is perhaps time to start another.
Naturally, the allegations that there have been data protection law violations are an excuse, the regime needs to intimidate and suppress. It needs to make understood that certain things cannot be said without paying a high price. These undercurrents are exactly what would be expected from their methods of subversion and underground plotting.
The Secretary of Justice, Jack Straw, is responsible for upholding the respect for human rights in the island and in the UK in its multiple forms. This is yet another situation, where the true problem is at Whitehall. The nonfeasance of British politicians is the true origin of the problems at Jersey and the origin of almost all problems in Britain. In addition, the islands status as a Crown dependency, where the "Crown" is an entity that is not accountable is, in itself, anti-democratic. It is correct to say that the situation is one of state sponsored terrorism against the people of Jersey and dissidents abroad.
If you write Secretary Straw about this you will get the same answer I did from Janet Tweedale assuring that he is being well informed, and above all else the island is a crown dependency with its own elected systems. No one is accountable for state sponsored terrorism perpetrated under the crown.
With respect to the role of the UK in this, I believe that it configures collusion with the Jersey establishment. Whitehall does not want extensive investigations into this matter, for that would imply uncovering the links to the highest spheres of the British society including politicians, universities, intelligence, business, royal connections, entertainment, press and, of course, masonry. All types of people who have known of the abuse for many years but have always failed to denounce it.
The strange behaviour of the BBC relates to the fact that they too are more inclined to let go in the name of "sensible reporting", and that is to say they don't need the trouble, just like the police and the others. A nice old boy usually keeps his job, but a maverick can join the depression ranks. Even the chief of police, the corageous Graham Power, found that out the hard way.
At the very least it proves lack of due diligence in uncovering and stopping further abuse in the Island and abroad, as the oligarchy does persecute its detractors with fierce resolve. The investigation had, clearly, not been dealt with as it should have been before the Power/Harper team and now it is not more than in damage limitation mode. The UK does not wish percolation to their power structures.
The UK pretends to be sympathetic with the victims of abuse, while trying to conceal the true extent of the pact of convenience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)