"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