"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.
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.