Thursday, April 16, 2009

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment