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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.