Monday, 29 April 2013
LETTER TO BRIDGET PRENTICE 30TH JANUARY 2008
There has been a massive cover up of institutional child abuse and human trafficking in this country.
Sunday, 28 April 2013
MAGGIE AND THE PIE PAEDOS - REPOSTED FROM SPOTLIGHT BLOG
REPOSTED FROM SPOTLIGHT:
Leon, Maggie, Elm Guest House, and the CGHE
In January, Exaro News and the Sunday People revealed that the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality (CGHE) “strongly recommended” that its members visit the Elm Guest House, which was being used as a front for a paedophile ring that sexually abused children as young as 10 who had been procured from children’s homes run by Richmond Council. Full article
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, wrote to the CGHE and as well as saying he supported the wholly reasonable aim of reducing the age of homosexual consent to 18, he told them that the Conservative Party supported “all minorities”. He didn’t specify whether this support included the paedophile minority.
The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to 4 years old, had successfully infiltrated the gay liberation movement and positioned themselves as an oppressed minority group. They had also persuaded politicians to support their cause, and they claimed that two MPs were on their mailing list.
Although it may seem far-fetched that any government would support a paedophile organisation, you only have to look at the Thatcher government’s record on child abuse to realise that the rights of paedophiles were given more importance than the rights of children. They refused to ban the Paedophile Information Exchange despite a petition which attracted over a million signatures from members of the public. Read more
The Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality were keen supporters of Thatcher, as we can see from these Capital Gay articles from April/May 1982, although she was less keen to show her support for them. Was this becase she was aware of their connections to the Elm Guest House and wanted to distance herself from them?
Some Labour politicians also supported paedophiles. The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), now known as Liberty, whose officials included Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, Jack Dromey, and Henry Hodge, were affiliated to PIE. In 1978 the NCCL passed a resolution which stated that images of child abuse should only be considered indecent if it could be proved that the children involved had suffered harm. Read more
Former Liberal leader David Steel publicly attacked Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens for naming the senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman as a paedophile. Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith attended the Elm Guest House, and was also linked to child murderer Sidney Cooke, and leading PIE member Peter Righton, whose paedophile network preyed on children in schools and children’s homes across the UK.
There were also powerful Establishment figures outside the main political parties who were involved in covering up paedophile networks. The Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, threatened Fleet Street over their coverage of the Elm Guest House paedophile network, and effectively stopped them from reporting on it after August 1982. Havers, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, protected paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, and Hetherington allowed the leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange to flee the country and escape a jail sentence.
http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/leon-maggie-elm-guest-house-and-the-cghe/
Leon, Maggie, Elm Guest House, and the CGHEIn January, Exaro News and the Sunday People revealed that the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality (CGHE) “strongly recommended” that its members visit the Elm Guest House, which was being used as a front for a paedophile ring that sexually abused children as young as 10 who had been procured from children’s homes run by Richmond Council. Full article
In 1983, Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, wrote to the CGHE and as well as saying he supported the wholly reasonable aim of reducing the age of homosexual consent to 18, he told them that the Conservative Party supported “all minorities”. He didn’t specify whether this support included the paedophile minority.
The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), who campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to 4 years old, had successfully infiltrated the gay liberation movement and positioned themselves as an oppressed minority group. They had also persuaded politicians to support their cause, and they claimed that two MPs were on their mailing list.
Although it may seem far-fetched that any government would support a paedophile organisation, you only have to look at the Thatcher government’s record on child abuse to realise that the rights of paedophiles were given more importance than the rights of children. They refused to ban the Paedophile Information Exchange despite a petition which attracted over a million signatures from members of the public. Read more
The Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality were keen supporters of Thatcher, as we can see from these Capital Gay articles from April/May 1982, although she was less keen to show her support for them. Was this becase she was aware of their connections to the Elm Guest House and wanted to distance herself from them?
Some Labour politicians also supported paedophiles. The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), now known as Liberty, whose officials included Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, Jack Dromey, and Henry Hodge, were affiliated to PIE. In 1978 the NCCL passed a resolution which stated that images of child abuse should only be considered indecent if it could be proved that the children involved had suffered harm. Read more
Former Liberal leader David Steel publicly attacked Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens for naming the senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman as a paedophile. Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith attended the Elm Guest House, and was also linked to child murderer Sidney Cooke, and leading PIE member Peter Righton, whose paedophile network preyed on children in schools and children’s homes across the UK.
There were also powerful Establishment figures outside the main political parties who were involved in covering up paedophile networks. The Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, threatened Fleet Street over their coverage of the Elm Guest House paedophile network, and effectively stopped them from reporting on it after August 1982. Havers, along with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, protected paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, and Hetherington allowed the leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange to flee the country and escape a jail sentence.
http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/leon-maggie-elm-guest-house-and-the-cghe/
Friday, 26 April 2013
PREVENTED FROM SENDING HOTMAIL AT 15.17 26TH APRIL 2013
My Hotmail account is once more being tampered with.
Every time I try to send an email to a new contact it goes down, and I get the message that Hotmail is unable to connect me.
It is as though some nosy bastard is vetting every new contact I send an email to.
ITS ABOUT MY SONS EDUCATION, YOU NOSY CRETINS! WHY DONT YOU MIPAEDO NOSY BASTARDS LEAVE OUR FAMILY ALONE, DON'T YOU THINK YOU'VE HASSLED US ALL ENOUGH BY NOW?
LEAVE US ALONE!!!
Every time I try to send an email to a new contact it goes down, and I get the message that Hotmail is unable to connect me.
It is as though some nosy bastard is vetting every new contact I send an email to.
ITS ABOUT MY SONS EDUCATION, YOU NOSY CRETINS! WHY DONT YOU MIPAEDO NOSY BASTARDS LEAVE OUR FAMILY ALONE, DON'T YOU THINK YOU'VE HASSLED US ALL ENOUGH BY NOW?
LEAVE US ALONE!!!
Thursday, 25 April 2013
NO MEDIA REPORTAGE OF THIS SO FAR - WHY NOT?
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzoompad.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F07%2Fdavid-cameron-was-on-select-committee.html&ei=ePJ4UeObJaLS0QXHtYD4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHp4A7s-LNqwTqs8g3ElBasbb5Rnw&sig2=_pgOjaKMZn9pgzAiPwM1JQ&bvm=bv.45645796,d.d2k
JIMMY SAVILLE AND ROLF HARRIS WERE FRIENDS!
The Sir Jimmy Savile Sale at Saviles Hall, Leeds
30 July 2012, 10:30
Saviles Hall
Royal Armouries Museum
Leeds, West Yorkshire
LS10 1LT
Tel - 020 3291 2832
Fax - 020 3291 2834
lot detailslot no
369
description
Rolf Harris (Australian b.1930)
Portrait sketch of Sir Jimmy smoking a cigar
Black felt tip and white acrylic on cream card
Signed lower left and dated 92 lower right
39.5cm x 53cm
Unframed
This was drawn in the HTV Studios canteen in Bristol. Sir Jimmy was there for an interview and Rolf was filming his ITV series Rolf's Cartoon Club (1989-1993).
Please note that this lot may be subject to Droite de Suite
Provenance: From the estate of Sir Jimmy Savile. OBE, KCSG, LLD (1926-2011)
condition report
Slightly dog earred to top right and bottom left of card
guide price
£400-600
Sold for £4,500
convert currency
http://www.dnfa.com/search.asp?view=lotno&auction=13560&lotno=369&uniqueid=445466-538
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
CREEPY SILENT NUMBER WITHELD PHONE CALL
I have just had another creepy silent phone call. The number witheld, of course.
This was at 10.50 am, a few minuites ago. The recorded message said the callers number is unavailable.
I am sick of this, its just abusive. I am having my Hotmail account go kaput as well, and not be able to even look at my emails, I got very cross about this a few days ago, when I was trying to look at an important email from my son's school. Its ridiculous that this is happening. What can I do about it? Is there anything that I can do?
This was at 10.50 am, a few minuites ago. The recorded message said the callers number is unavailable.
I am sick of this, its just abusive. I am having my Hotmail account go kaput as well, and not be able to even look at my emails, I got very cross about this a few days ago, when I was trying to look at an important email from my son's school. Its ridiculous that this is happening. What can I do about it? Is there anything that I can do?
IN CASE IT GETS DELETED - REPOSTING FROM REAL WHITBY
REPOSTING FROM REAL WHITBY:
http://t.co/uFJEbWKqWE
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
Say No To Joe - Read About It Here
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
Regular readers of Real Whitby will know that on the 28th of March, Scarborough Borough Council wrote to our Internet Service Provider demanding that they to terminate our website hosting service. Three contributors to the site, including myself, were also threatened with legal action on the same day, also over allegations of wrongdoing that SBC has not specified. This was done without any prior warning or any previous complaint to Real Whitby.
On the 31st of March, Real Whitby wrote to Scarbrough Borough Council, asking it to specify which articles it objected to and why, so we could consider any complaint and the possibility of resolving this by issuing a correction, retraction or apology. Twenty one days has elapsed and we have not had any substantive response.
I am therefore writing with an update on my original article on this attempt by Scarborough Borough Council to arbitrarily impose press censorship.
It appears that Real Whitby’s offer to resolve things amicably is being ignored. Accordingly, I have written to all of the present 48 Scarborough Borough Councillors (except Councillor Chatt, at his request) bringing this matter to their attention in an Open Letter, asking them to ensure that Scarbrough Borough Council either sets out what its complaint is, or withdraws its threats of legal action.
The Open Letter is set out below for your information. I have had no response as at the time of publication.
~~~~~~~
Dear Councillor,
Following the failure of Mrs Lisa Dixon, Scarborough Borough Council Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to provide a substantial response to correspondence within twenty one days, I am writing to you in an open letter concerning her letters before action demanding the closure of the Real Whitby Website. The chronology of events is as follows
1.On the 27th of July 2012 I was interviewed by North Yorkshire Police at the request of County & Borough Councillor Jane Kenyon in connection with allegations of harassment over articles I had written for Real Whitby. I co-operated fully with the investigation, the interview did not reveal any evidence of any offence and I was released without charge or arrest. In short, her allegations were without substance.
2.On the 28th of March 2013 Mrs Dixon wrote to the Real Whitby Internet Service Provider demanding that they terminate the website hosting service provided to Real Whitby (reproduced here: page 1, page 2) and also wrote to three of Real Whitby’s contributors essentially alleging that some of their articles were “malicious, untrue and defamatory” and constituted “criminal activity”.
3. On the 9th of April, Whitby Town Council debated and carried a motion deploring the actions of SBC towards Real Whitby. Prior to the debate, SBC issued a statement to the Councillors stating that “Real Whitby…have merely been asked to desist from publishing statements which are inaccurate, misleading and defamatory”. Given that Mrs Dixon had written to our Internet Service Provider demanding that the Real Whitby website be “terminated”, it is clear that the statement contained deliberate falsehood.
4.On the 11th of April I wrote to Mrs Dixon pointing out the errors in the statement and asking her to withdraw it. Her immediate response was “The press release is not withdrawn”, although she did not deny it was based on falsehood.
It is unclear from Mrs Dixon’s vague and unspecific letters if her allegations relate to some or all of the following issues covered in the local and national press following investigation by Real Whitby:
•The controversy involving several Conservative and independent Councillors who received two Broadband allowances.
•The articles concerning Councillor Jane Kenyon.
•The “MeToo!” controversy.
•The allegation, that Conservative Councillor and former Mayor Peter Jaconelli was a paedophile and that he was protected by Scarborough Borough Council and the Police.
•The criticism of Mrs Dixon’s performance as Monitoring Officer.
•Concerns over conflicts of interest in the North York Moors National Parks Authority for which Mrs Dixon has responsibility for as Monitoring Officer
•The resignation of Conservative Councillor Tim Lawn on the 18th of March
•Concern that Conservative and some independent candidates who received two Broadband allowances would have their electoral chances damaged by press coverage during the County Council elections.
Or to other matters.
The public response to these events has been that Whitby Town Council has passed a motion censuring SBC for trying to close down the Real Whitby website and prevent freedom of speech. Private Eye has also criticised her actions and, having taken legal advice, has confirmed that the allegations made by Real Whitby, that Mrs Dixon describes as “malicious, untrue and defamatory” are in fact “accurate”.
We are confident that this response reflects public and press opinion should the matter go to Court, particularly as those Councillors who wish to proceed with a High Court action will be subject to cross examination on all of the above matters, should it come to that.
To try and resolve this, Real Whitby wrote to Mrs Dixon on the 31st of March, asking her to specify which articles she objected to and why, so her views could be considered and a correction or apology issued if this was appropriate. Her eventual response to me was “I do not intend to enter into correspondence with you at this at stage in relation to any proposed legal action to be undertaken by the Council”.
It therefore appears that having issued a letter before action, attempting to close down Real Whitby and threatening its contributors with civil and criminal legal action, Mrs Dixon is unwilling or unable to specify what her complaint is, or participate in any attempt to resolve the matter by discussion.
The current situation therefore causes me the following concerns:
•The existence of a free press is an essential quality in a Democratic society. SBC has tried to close down a news magazine at election time. This gravest of actions, attracting local and national criticism, was apparently not put before the full Council.
•SBC blatantly lied about its actions in a statement put before Whitby Town Council and then released to the public through the press.
•The WTC motion shows that SBC is acting contrary to local opinion and to the public interest.
•Mrs Dixon will not confirm who drafted and authorised the issue of the press release. Given that it related to legal action, it must presumably have been approved at some point by Mrs Dixon, who has a conflict of interest in this matter.
•Having had the falsehoods in the statement pointed out to her, Mrs Dixon refused to issue a correction and the public position of SBC currently is that it has not tried to close down Real Whitby, when in fact it is clearly documented that it did.
•SBC is currently refusing to disclose who authorised legal action to terminate Real Whitby, or what process it went through.
•Legal action was mentioned in the forward plan on the 1st of March and again on the 26th of March 2013:
http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/documents/s50391/Forward%20Plan.pdf
http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/documents/s50391/Forward%20Plan.pdf
Mrs Dixon has confirmed: “For your information the legal action to which you refer was not discussed at the Cabinet meeting of 26 March 2013, nor was any motion or report tabled in relation to it. The issue of the letter did not require Cabinet approval. Councillor Kenyon did not instigate or suggest the sending of this letter.” The Key Decisions List on the 26th of March 2013 called for a decision by the Cabinet on the 23rd of April. However, on the 28thof March 2013, Mrs Dixon nevertheless wrote threatening legal action, i.e. 26 days before the Cabinet was scheduled to come to a decision.
•A number of Councillors have conflicts of interest in this matter. Those Cabinet Members who have a personal interest would have to leave the Chamber for the duration of the item on closing down Real Whitby, thus making the Cabinet inquorate. This would appear to me to invalidate any instruction the Head of Legal & Democratic Services may or may not have received from the Cabinet. It therefore appears that Mrs Dixon has initiated legal action without a mandate to do so, in a matter in which she and others had a conflict of interest.
•Legal action was threatened on the basis of allegations that Real Whitby articles are defamatory and “hindering the ability of the Council to discharge a number of its functions”, yet when asked to confirm which articles are alleged to be at fault, which Councillors and/or Officers claim to have been defamed, which functions are being hindered, which Councillors and Officers have authorised legal action on their behalf and the specific basis of these allegations, Mrs Dixon has refused to comment within a reasonable time scale.
•Allegations have been made of criminal activity, although this has already been investigated by the Police once and found to be without substance. Further, the Police are not empowered to intervene in cases of this nature because they are covered by the civil law of libel, not criminal law.
•Mrs Dixon should never have issued a letter before action, demanding the closure of Real Whitby, threatening libel action and potentially criminal proceedings if she did not have authority from the Council to enter into subsequent correspondence on it and come to a resolution. This serves only to cause an extended period of alarm and distress for no reason. I consider this completely unacceptable, particularly as Mrs Dixon is aware that Mr Ward is a pensioner in poor health and that her letter has affected his health adversely, as has her continued refusal to respond to correspondence, thereby leaving this threat hanging over him.
The current situation is bizarre, in that SBC is maintaining its position that the Real Whitby website should be terminated to our ISP, whilst publicly denying this in the press and to the public. It appears that appropriate procedures were not followed to authorise the threats of legal action and although Real Whitby responded promptly and reasonably offering to discuss SBC’s concerns, SBC is refusing to confirm what the grounds for its dissatisfaction are, or which Councillors and/or Officers claim to have been defamed and have authorised Mrs Dixon to threaten legal proceedings in their name, or which functions the Council is unable to fulfil.
It is a legal maxim that allegations which are unsupported by evidence are worthless. This matter has obviously been completely mishandled. The letters have achieved nothing other than to increase the numbers of people accessing the Real Whitby website and its profile nationally on the one hand, and to cause alarm and distress whilst bringing the Council into even more public disrepute and ridicule on the other.
To achieve a sensible resolution, I would ask that you raise this matter and ensure that either Scarborough Borough Council provides a list of the articles it deems to be offensive, indicating precisely which comments they are referring to, along with a list of the associated complainants, or alternatively it withdraws the threats of legal action and corrects the statement.
Because of the public interest in this matter I have written to you in an open letter, which will be published this evening. I will publish any response or rebuttal SBC or any Councillor wishes to make public.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy Hicks
Related Posts
Real Whitby: The ‘PRIVATE EYE’ Collection
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Joe PLANT
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Brian SIMPSON
Scarborough Council By-Election Countdown (4)
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor David JEFFELS
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Bill CHATT
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor John BLACKBURN
SBC Press Censorship: more incredible revelations
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Janet JEFFERSON
NYCC Election Preview – Cllr Peter POPPLE
Posted by Real Whitby on April 22, 2013. Filed under Featured,News,Scarborough Borough Council. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Say No To Joe - Read About It Here
21 Responses to Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
kathleen parkerReply
April 23, 2013 at 7:45 am
SBC are a joke,they’re watching each others backs,afraid of losing their cushy jobs after May2nd! We need a complete change,we need people who will look after our interests and NOT line their own pockets.
Sam BuckleyReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:02 am
Councils, as public bodies, are not legally able to sue for defamation. Individual councillors or officers can, but they have to do it using their own resources – neither the authority nor the finances of the council are available to them.
Martine YatesReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:22 am
What a sorry excuse for a council. The puppets are dancing, that’s for sure, a classic example of mass denial. Keep up the good work, corruption and lies should not be the standard by which our public servants carry out their duties.
James MillerReply
April 23, 2013 at 9:09 am
Both spot on except one phrase in Kathleen’s post; ‘SBC are a joke’. They are not, I am afraid, a joke. There is an old adage ‘If they had a brain they ‘d be dangerous’. Change that slightly to ‘If they had sly cunning they’d be dangerous’. That, they have got.
Sam BuckleyReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:14 am
P.S. See the House of Lords decision in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers [1993]
Jonathon ChapmanReply
April 23, 2013 at 11:52 am
Is Timothy Hicks the owner of this organ or just a common-or-garden ‘corruption buster’ contributor?
Is “news magazine” the official definition of the RW website? I ask because whenever I have tried to compare it to a news organ, Glenn chimes in to remind me that RW is just a community discussion forum and therefore not comparable to a news organ. This clarification is welcome.
And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits I can tell you that the fist question a judge will ask the plaintiff is what action he/she/it took to mitigate the damage of the alleged defamation. The plaintiff must be able to show that it took action to have the offensive material removed or taken down.
It seems that SBC has taken the necessary mitigation steps and now presumably considers the matter sub judice.
Tim HicksReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Dear Mr Chapman,
Thank you for your contribution. To be clear, SBC have not confirmed what articles they consider to be defamatory and so we are unable to take any mitigating action.
This is plainly stated in the article above.
I am not the owner or editor of Real Whitby.
Regards,
Tim
Tim ThorneReply
April 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm
“And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits”
You’ve come back! I figured you’d left for pastures new. I see your Shylock sock is still busy on LSE, trying to convince people to buy SXX. Are you paid by York Potash to big up their stock? Is that what Prototype Communications does, Simon?
Carolyn WittReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Carry on doing what you are doing, eventually SBS will realise that neither YOU or us Whitby folk are willing to sit back & say or do nowt, use your votes wisely Whitby.
Bomber HarrisReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Have you seen this Jonny ?
http://usopinvestors.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=365&sid=b1e45c289f6a0b1a97dbf64d49d52ffb&start=120
James MillerReply
April 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Hey Bomber. Someone called Simon Chapman puts what are described as ‘long rambling posts’ on there. Do you think it is any relation?
Bomber HarrisReply
April 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm
He’s also taking legal action against every man in the world. Real Whitby needs to throw him off, hes a serial troll
mick wardReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Well done. About time this political climate of theft needs adressing at every level. Where can I donate please
george conwayReply
April 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm
I, as a newcomer, am also interested to know if Tim Hicks is a Whitby resident or resides elsewhere. If it is the latter what motivates him to undertake the actions he does via Real Whitby website and why does Real Whitby entetain someone who does not have a local interest. How many more Tim Hicks are there?
Tim ThorneReply
April 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Hi Colin.
Tim HicksReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Dear Mr Conway,
Thank you for your comment.
I am not a Whitby Resident. I do not normally submit articles on Whitby, these are mainly run by Nigel and Tim. I have commented on this story because I am being threatened with legal action, which I hope you would agree gives me a right to comment.
I am motivated by a specialist interest in investigating corruption and fraud.
There is only one of me and so far as I am aware I am unique.
Best regards,
Tim
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm
As site owner, I entertain him because he is good, extremely thorough, dedicated to working against corruption, professional, very well educated and writes in a way people can understand. Thanks for your interest.
Bob RobertsReply
April 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Just where does the Scarborough News stand in all this furore? Surely Freedom of Speech is valued by all journalists, whether they be amateur or professionals. Would the Scarborough News under it present leadership have denied the Sons of Neptune for their relentless quest for cleaner seas simply because its controversial?
It was Martin Niemöller who said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
If the SBC Stasi get away with this then the Scarborough News can kiss goodbye to its freedom of speech which one day they may well be in need of.
C’mon make a stand Scarborough News, it might even sell some papers !
george conwayReply
April 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Mr Hicks, you are only threatened with legal action, I imagine, as you have both chosen and been allowed, to put yourself into this position by writing articles that in some way relate to Whitby, if not why would the owners allow you to use this site in the first place?
Regards
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm
It was contrary to the public interest that organs of government, whether central or local, should have the right to sue for libel because any governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism and to allow such actions would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the council from the Court of Appeal’s decision (the Independent, 21 February 1992; (1992) QB 770) that a local authority cannot maintain an action for libel.
It was of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech. ‘The chilling effect’ induced by the threat of civil actions for libel was very important.
Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory publication were known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those facts was not available. That might prevent the publication of matters which it was very desirable to make public.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/law-report-local-authorities-cannot-institute-libel-actions-derbyshire-county-council-v-times-newspapers-ltd-and-others–house-of-lords-lord-keith-lord-griffiths-lord-goff-of-chieveley-lord-brownewilkinson-and-lord-woolf-18-february-1993-1473954.html
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:42 pm
“Scarborough Borough Council respectfully request that you act to terminate the website hosting service provided to Whitby Sea Anglers in respect of http://www.real-whitby.co.uk due to their flagrant and repeated breach of your own terms and conditions.”
http://t.co/uFJEbWKqWE
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
Say No To Joe - Read About It Here
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
Regular readers of Real Whitby will know that on the 28th of March, Scarborough Borough Council wrote to our Internet Service Provider demanding that they to terminate our website hosting service. Three contributors to the site, including myself, were also threatened with legal action on the same day, also over allegations of wrongdoing that SBC has not specified. This was done without any prior warning or any previous complaint to Real Whitby.
On the 31st of March, Real Whitby wrote to Scarbrough Borough Council, asking it to specify which articles it objected to and why, so we could consider any complaint and the possibility of resolving this by issuing a correction, retraction or apology. Twenty one days has elapsed and we have not had any substantive response.
I am therefore writing with an update on my original article on this attempt by Scarborough Borough Council to arbitrarily impose press censorship.
It appears that Real Whitby’s offer to resolve things amicably is being ignored. Accordingly, I have written to all of the present 48 Scarborough Borough Councillors (except Councillor Chatt, at his request) bringing this matter to their attention in an Open Letter, asking them to ensure that Scarbrough Borough Council either sets out what its complaint is, or withdraws its threats of legal action.
The Open Letter is set out below for your information. I have had no response as at the time of publication.
~~~~~~~
Dear Councillor,
Following the failure of Mrs Lisa Dixon, Scarborough Borough Council Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to provide a substantial response to correspondence within twenty one days, I am writing to you in an open letter concerning her letters before action demanding the closure of the Real Whitby Website. The chronology of events is as follows
1.On the 27th of July 2012 I was interviewed by North Yorkshire Police at the request of County & Borough Councillor Jane Kenyon in connection with allegations of harassment over articles I had written for Real Whitby. I co-operated fully with the investigation, the interview did not reveal any evidence of any offence and I was released without charge or arrest. In short, her allegations were without substance.
2.On the 28th of March 2013 Mrs Dixon wrote to the Real Whitby Internet Service Provider demanding that they terminate the website hosting service provided to Real Whitby (reproduced here: page 1, page 2) and also wrote to three of Real Whitby’s contributors essentially alleging that some of their articles were “malicious, untrue and defamatory” and constituted “criminal activity”.
3. On the 9th of April, Whitby Town Council debated and carried a motion deploring the actions of SBC towards Real Whitby. Prior to the debate, SBC issued a statement to the Councillors stating that “Real Whitby…have merely been asked to desist from publishing statements which are inaccurate, misleading and defamatory”. Given that Mrs Dixon had written to our Internet Service Provider demanding that the Real Whitby website be “terminated”, it is clear that the statement contained deliberate falsehood.
4.On the 11th of April I wrote to Mrs Dixon pointing out the errors in the statement and asking her to withdraw it. Her immediate response was “The press release is not withdrawn”, although she did not deny it was based on falsehood.
It is unclear from Mrs Dixon’s vague and unspecific letters if her allegations relate to some or all of the following issues covered in the local and national press following investigation by Real Whitby:
•The controversy involving several Conservative and independent Councillors who received two Broadband allowances.
•The articles concerning Councillor Jane Kenyon.
•The “MeToo!” controversy.
•The allegation, that Conservative Councillor and former Mayor Peter Jaconelli was a paedophile and that he was protected by Scarborough Borough Council and the Police.
•The criticism of Mrs Dixon’s performance as Monitoring Officer.
•Concerns over conflicts of interest in the North York Moors National Parks Authority for which Mrs Dixon has responsibility for as Monitoring Officer
•The resignation of Conservative Councillor Tim Lawn on the 18th of March
•Concern that Conservative and some independent candidates who received two Broadband allowances would have their electoral chances damaged by press coverage during the County Council elections.
Or to other matters.
The public response to these events has been that Whitby Town Council has passed a motion censuring SBC for trying to close down the Real Whitby website and prevent freedom of speech. Private Eye has also criticised her actions and, having taken legal advice, has confirmed that the allegations made by Real Whitby, that Mrs Dixon describes as “malicious, untrue and defamatory” are in fact “accurate”.
We are confident that this response reflects public and press opinion should the matter go to Court, particularly as those Councillors who wish to proceed with a High Court action will be subject to cross examination on all of the above matters, should it come to that.
To try and resolve this, Real Whitby wrote to Mrs Dixon on the 31st of March, asking her to specify which articles she objected to and why, so her views could be considered and a correction or apology issued if this was appropriate. Her eventual response to me was “I do not intend to enter into correspondence with you at this at stage in relation to any proposed legal action to be undertaken by the Council”.
It therefore appears that having issued a letter before action, attempting to close down Real Whitby and threatening its contributors with civil and criminal legal action, Mrs Dixon is unwilling or unable to specify what her complaint is, or participate in any attempt to resolve the matter by discussion.
The current situation therefore causes me the following concerns:
•The existence of a free press is an essential quality in a Democratic society. SBC has tried to close down a news magazine at election time. This gravest of actions, attracting local and national criticism, was apparently not put before the full Council.
•SBC blatantly lied about its actions in a statement put before Whitby Town Council and then released to the public through the press.
•The WTC motion shows that SBC is acting contrary to local opinion and to the public interest.
•Mrs Dixon will not confirm who drafted and authorised the issue of the press release. Given that it related to legal action, it must presumably have been approved at some point by Mrs Dixon, who has a conflict of interest in this matter.
•Having had the falsehoods in the statement pointed out to her, Mrs Dixon refused to issue a correction and the public position of SBC currently is that it has not tried to close down Real Whitby, when in fact it is clearly documented that it did.
•SBC is currently refusing to disclose who authorised legal action to terminate Real Whitby, or what process it went through.
•Legal action was mentioned in the forward plan on the 1st of March and again on the 26th of March 2013:
http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/documents/s50391/Forward%20Plan.pdf
http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/documents/s50391/Forward%20Plan.pdf
Mrs Dixon has confirmed: “For your information the legal action to which you refer was not discussed at the Cabinet meeting of 26 March 2013, nor was any motion or report tabled in relation to it. The issue of the letter did not require Cabinet approval. Councillor Kenyon did not instigate or suggest the sending of this letter.” The Key Decisions List on the 26th of March 2013 called for a decision by the Cabinet on the 23rd of April. However, on the 28thof March 2013, Mrs Dixon nevertheless wrote threatening legal action, i.e. 26 days before the Cabinet was scheduled to come to a decision.
•A number of Councillors have conflicts of interest in this matter. Those Cabinet Members who have a personal interest would have to leave the Chamber for the duration of the item on closing down Real Whitby, thus making the Cabinet inquorate. This would appear to me to invalidate any instruction the Head of Legal & Democratic Services may or may not have received from the Cabinet. It therefore appears that Mrs Dixon has initiated legal action without a mandate to do so, in a matter in which she and others had a conflict of interest.
•Legal action was threatened on the basis of allegations that Real Whitby articles are defamatory and “hindering the ability of the Council to discharge a number of its functions”, yet when asked to confirm which articles are alleged to be at fault, which Councillors and/or Officers claim to have been defamed, which functions are being hindered, which Councillors and Officers have authorised legal action on their behalf and the specific basis of these allegations, Mrs Dixon has refused to comment within a reasonable time scale.
•Allegations have been made of criminal activity, although this has already been investigated by the Police once and found to be without substance. Further, the Police are not empowered to intervene in cases of this nature because they are covered by the civil law of libel, not criminal law.
•Mrs Dixon should never have issued a letter before action, demanding the closure of Real Whitby, threatening libel action and potentially criminal proceedings if she did not have authority from the Council to enter into subsequent correspondence on it and come to a resolution. This serves only to cause an extended period of alarm and distress for no reason. I consider this completely unacceptable, particularly as Mrs Dixon is aware that Mr Ward is a pensioner in poor health and that her letter has affected his health adversely, as has her continued refusal to respond to correspondence, thereby leaving this threat hanging over him.
The current situation is bizarre, in that SBC is maintaining its position that the Real Whitby website should be terminated to our ISP, whilst publicly denying this in the press and to the public. It appears that appropriate procedures were not followed to authorise the threats of legal action and although Real Whitby responded promptly and reasonably offering to discuss SBC’s concerns, SBC is refusing to confirm what the grounds for its dissatisfaction are, or which Councillors and/or Officers claim to have been defamed and have authorised Mrs Dixon to threaten legal proceedings in their name, or which functions the Council is unable to fulfil.
It is a legal maxim that allegations which are unsupported by evidence are worthless. This matter has obviously been completely mishandled. The letters have achieved nothing other than to increase the numbers of people accessing the Real Whitby website and its profile nationally on the one hand, and to cause alarm and distress whilst bringing the Council into even more public disrepute and ridicule on the other.
To achieve a sensible resolution, I would ask that you raise this matter and ensure that either Scarborough Borough Council provides a list of the articles it deems to be offensive, indicating precisely which comments they are referring to, along with a list of the associated complainants, or alternatively it withdraws the threats of legal action and corrects the statement.
Because of the public interest in this matter I have written to you in an open letter, which will be published this evening. I will publish any response or rebuttal SBC or any Councillor wishes to make public.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy Hicks
Related Posts
Real Whitby: The ‘PRIVATE EYE’ Collection
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Joe PLANT
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Brian SIMPSON
Scarborough Council By-Election Countdown (4)
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor David JEFFELS
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Bill CHATT
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor John BLACKBURN
SBC Press Censorship: more incredible revelations
NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Janet JEFFERSON
NYCC Election Preview – Cllr Peter POPPLE
Posted by Real Whitby on April 22, 2013. Filed under Featured,News,Scarborough Borough Council. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Say No To Joe - Read About It Here
21 Responses to Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
kathleen parkerReply
April 23, 2013 at 7:45 am
SBC are a joke,they’re watching each others backs,afraid of losing their cushy jobs after May2nd! We need a complete change,we need people who will look after our interests and NOT line their own pockets.
Sam BuckleyReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:02 am
Councils, as public bodies, are not legally able to sue for defamation. Individual councillors or officers can, but they have to do it using their own resources – neither the authority nor the finances of the council are available to them.
Martine YatesReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:22 am
What a sorry excuse for a council. The puppets are dancing, that’s for sure, a classic example of mass denial. Keep up the good work, corruption and lies should not be the standard by which our public servants carry out their duties.
James MillerReply
April 23, 2013 at 9:09 am
Both spot on except one phrase in Kathleen’s post; ‘SBC are a joke’. They are not, I am afraid, a joke. There is an old adage ‘If they had a brain they ‘d be dangerous’. Change that slightly to ‘If they had sly cunning they’d be dangerous’. That, they have got.
Sam BuckleyReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:14 am
P.S. See the House of Lords decision in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers [1993]
Jonathon ChapmanReply
April 23, 2013 at 11:52 am
Is Timothy Hicks the owner of this organ or just a common-or-garden ‘corruption buster’ contributor?
Is “news magazine” the official definition of the RW website? I ask because whenever I have tried to compare it to a news organ, Glenn chimes in to remind me that RW is just a community discussion forum and therefore not comparable to a news organ. This clarification is welcome.
And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits I can tell you that the fist question a judge will ask the plaintiff is what action he/she/it took to mitigate the damage of the alleged defamation. The plaintiff must be able to show that it took action to have the offensive material removed or taken down.
It seems that SBC has taken the necessary mitigation steps and now presumably considers the matter sub judice.
Tim HicksReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Dear Mr Chapman,
Thank you for your contribution. To be clear, SBC have not confirmed what articles they consider to be defamatory and so we are unable to take any mitigating action.
This is plainly stated in the article above.
I am not the owner or editor of Real Whitby.
Regards,
Tim
Tim ThorneReply
April 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm
“And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits”
You’ve come back! I figured you’d left for pastures new. I see your Shylock sock is still busy on LSE, trying to convince people to buy SXX. Are you paid by York Potash to big up their stock? Is that what Prototype Communications does, Simon?
Carolyn WittReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Carry on doing what you are doing, eventually SBS will realise that neither YOU or us Whitby folk are willing to sit back & say or do nowt, use your votes wisely Whitby.
Bomber HarrisReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Have you seen this Jonny ?
http://usopinvestors.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=365&sid=b1e45c289f6a0b1a97dbf64d49d52ffb&start=120
James MillerReply
April 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Hey Bomber. Someone called Simon Chapman puts what are described as ‘long rambling posts’ on there. Do you think it is any relation?
Bomber HarrisReply
April 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm
He’s also taking legal action against every man in the world. Real Whitby needs to throw him off, hes a serial troll
mick wardReply
April 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Well done. About time this political climate of theft needs adressing at every level. Where can I donate please
george conwayReply
April 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm
I, as a newcomer, am also interested to know if Tim Hicks is a Whitby resident or resides elsewhere. If it is the latter what motivates him to undertake the actions he does via Real Whitby website and why does Real Whitby entetain someone who does not have a local interest. How many more Tim Hicks are there?
Tim ThorneReply
April 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Hi Colin.
Tim HicksReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Dear Mr Conway,
Thank you for your comment.
I am not a Whitby Resident. I do not normally submit articles on Whitby, these are mainly run by Nigel and Tim. I have commented on this story because I am being threatened with legal action, which I hope you would agree gives me a right to comment.
I am motivated by a specialist interest in investigating corruption and fraud.
There is only one of me and so far as I am aware I am unique.
Best regards,
Tim
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm
As site owner, I entertain him because he is good, extremely thorough, dedicated to working against corruption, professional, very well educated and writes in a way people can understand. Thanks for your interest.
Bob RobertsReply
April 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Just where does the Scarborough News stand in all this furore? Surely Freedom of Speech is valued by all journalists, whether they be amateur or professionals. Would the Scarborough News under it present leadership have denied the Sons of Neptune for their relentless quest for cleaner seas simply because its controversial?
It was Martin Niemöller who said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
If the SBC Stasi get away with this then the Scarborough News can kiss goodbye to its freedom of speech which one day they may well be in need of.
C’mon make a stand Scarborough News, it might even sell some papers !
george conwayReply
April 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Mr Hicks, you are only threatened with legal action, I imagine, as you have both chosen and been allowed, to put yourself into this position by writing articles that in some way relate to Whitby, if not why would the owners allow you to use this site in the first place?
Regards
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm
It was contrary to the public interest that organs of government, whether central or local, should have the right to sue for libel because any governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism and to allow such actions would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the council from the Court of Appeal’s decision (the Independent, 21 February 1992; (1992) QB 770) that a local authority cannot maintain an action for libel.
It was of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech. ‘The chilling effect’ induced by the threat of civil actions for libel was very important.
Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory publication were known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those facts was not available. That might prevent the publication of matters which it was very desirable to make public.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/law-report-local-authorities-cannot-institute-libel-actions-derbyshire-county-council-v-times-newspapers-ltd-and-others–house-of-lords-lord-keith-lord-griffiths-lord-goff-of-chieveley-lord-brownewilkinson-and-lord-woolf-18-february-1993-1473954.html
Real Whitby WebmasterReply
April 23, 2013 at 10:42 pm
“Scarborough Borough Council respectfully request that you act to terminate the website hosting service provided to Whitby Sea Anglers in respect of http://www.real-whitby.co.uk due to their flagrant and repeated breach of your own terms and conditions.”
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
REPOSTING FROM SPOTLIGHT BLOG
How a paedophile murder inquiry fell apart (October 2000)
I hope no-one minds, I tried to repost it on Twitter and it went really slow and wouldn't let me, so I thought I had better repost it here, in case its the paedo cover uppers again mucking with my Twitter account trying to censor people being able to read it.
http://t.co/1dEGAybTCx
The Guardian, October 2000
by Nick Davies
A year after Bristol police finally started to unravel the ring of paedophiles in the city who had been abusing children for up to twenty years, they came across an informant who opened up a new and alarming line of inquiry.
The man, who himself had a long history of sexually abusing boys, told them that the paedophiles they were investigating had been spending a lot of time in Amsterdam, where they had become involved with a group of exiled British child abusers who had succeeded in commercialising their sexual obsession. They were trafficking boys from other countries; running legitimate gay brothels and selling the under-aged boys ‘under the counter’ and through escort agencies; they had branched out into the production of hard-core child pornography. And they had killed some of them.
One boy had simply been shot through the head, the informant said: he had been causing trouble and had been executed in front of several paedophiles in the basement of a club in the city centre. Another, about whom he knew very little, he believed had been thrown into one of the canals. But the one about whom he spoke the most – the one who seemed to haunt him – was a boy who had been tortured and killed in the most painful and bloody fashion in the course of producing a pornographic video. The informant said he had seen most of the video himself. He said he had vomited before he could reach the end.
The few detectives in Europe and North America who specialise in the investigation of child abuse, invariably say the same thing about ’snuff movies’: they have often heard of them, sometimes pursued them but never found one. The videos remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of the burgeoning underworld of international sexual exploitation. The Bristol informant’s account was so hideous as to invite disbelief. It was clearly possible that the man was simply inventing the story in an attempt to curry favour with the detectives as they turned over the paedophile culture of the city. And yet, the detectives soon found themselves taking the story seriously, because they discovered that the allegation had been made before. Not just once but repeatedly, evidence of one kind or another had come to the attention of police in England and Holland, indicating that, for their pleasure and their profit, some of the British paedophiles in Amsterdam had murdered boys in front of the camera.
Some of the evidence had been pursued, sometimes with vigour. Some of it had been ignored. None of it had led to a murder charge. For a short while, the Bristol detectives thought they might be able finally to make some progress in tracking down the truth, but when two of them flew to Amsterdam in the autumn of 1998 to pass on their information to Dutch officers, they hit a wall. The Bristol informant had described the flat in Amsterdam where he had seen the video; he had named the owner of the flat who was, by implication, also the owner of the video; he had provided the name and job of the man who carried out the killing; he had described events on the video in grim detail; he had provided the rough age and the first name of the dead boy. The Dutch officers said it was not enough: without the full name of a victim, they would not begin an investigation.
Having fought their way through the swamp of inertia which surrounds the British policing and prosecution of child abuse, the Bristol detectives had now hit the even deeper swamp of virtual paralysis that afflicts the international policing of paedophilia. Within their own jurisdictions, there are now specialist paedophilia detectives – for example, in both London and Amsterdam – who will work relentlessly to lock up predatory child abusers. But when they try to move abroad, this potentially powerful machine starts to misfire.
The result – as the Guardian has found by going into the paedophile scene in Amsterdam and Berlin – is that there is now a flourishing underground trade in boys who are being exported from the economic chaos of Eastern Europe, as well as from the streets of London, to be put to work in the sex industry of Western Europe, particularly Holland. And there is no effective police operation to deal with it. Quite simply: predatory paedophiles glibly cross whatever borders they like in order to pursue their obsessions; the police who might follow them are almost always trapped within their own narrow jurisdictions, partly by differences in law and procedure, partly by sheer institutional frailty, because they lack the manpower and the money to work internationally. There is an exception to this rule of parochialism – in the highly funded war against drugs – but in the perverse world of modern policing, the trafficking, rape and alleged murder of children has a far lower priority.
After speaking to paedophiles and their victims and to police and social workers in Britain, Holland and Germany, we have uncovered the inner workings of an international paedophile ring. Its roots spring from Amsterdam, where, in the late 1980s, a group of exiled British paedophiles set up a colony. Taking advantage of Dutch tolerance towards sexual behaviour, they exploited the freedom of the gay community in the city as cover to enact their fantasies and to make money from them. One of the first to do so was Alan Williams, the ‘Welsh Witch’, who already had a vicious history of abusing boys in south Wales.
Williams arrived in Amsterdam in 1988, aged 21, and soon set himself up as the manager of a gay brothel called Boys Club 21 on the first floor of 21 Spuistraat, near the central station. Across the road at number 44, another British paedophile, a chubby Londoner named Warwick Spinks, then aged 25, was running a similar club called the Gay Palace. Both clubs had a perfectly legal business, running a bar and offering the services of adult male prostitutes who could take customers upstairs to bedrooms. But Williams and Spinks had much wider and crueller interests.
Williams had fled to Holland after being convicted in Britain of indecent assaults on boys. In Amsterdam, he boasted of the day in South Wales when he had seen a ten-year-old boy on his bike, wanted him, grabbed him, raped him and, when he cried, strangled him to death. He liked to show people the video of himself as a teenager in Young Boys Pissing. From Boys Clubs 21, he organised the importing of boys from Cardiff and London, inflicting intense violence on any who defied him. Paul Conibeer, from Cardiff, who eventually managed to run away told us: “He put a contract on me. They were going to put a bullet in my head. Two of my mates came up with black eyes and warned me. I hid in this cafe – they were ripping people out, looking for me.”
Spinks, who has described himself as “an international slut”, had been running a mail-order pornography business from Brighton, East Sussex, before he moved to Amsterdam, where he pioneered the trafficking of boys as young as ten years old into the city’s sex industry. He brought homeless boys from the streets of London and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, fanned out across Europe importing vulnerable ‘chicken’, as he liked to call them, from the poverty of East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Having got them to Amsterdam, he used them himself, sold them into the brothels or through escort agencies and put them in front of the camera. Some resisted, some ran away – most were made to comply with the removal of their passports and regular doses of drugs and violence.
By 1990, these two clubs on Spuistraat – together with Boys for Men, De Boys, the Blue Boy and the Why Not – had become the busiest watering hole in the international paedophile jungle. Dutch police at the time estimated there were 250 paedophiles involved in the production of child pornography in Amsterdam with an unknown floating population of child sex tourists from all over the world. A Swiss businessman, for example, was caught in the city with handcuffs, a gag and a large suitcase with airholes in the side; police found a video of him abusing two young girls with electrodes. A wealthy New York attorney was caught ferrying child pornography from Asia. But it was the British who formed the hard core of the new industry: Stephen Smith, who had helped to found the Paedophile Information Exchange, fled there to avoid imprisonment in England; Russell Tricker, now aged 58, a former private school teacher who was convicted of child-sex offences in the UK, moved to Amsterdam, where he used his job as a coach-driver to ferry suitable boys from London; Tricker’s friend, John Broomhall, opened a porn shop on Spuistraat and was caught with more than a thousand copies of videos of under-aged boys; Mark Enfield, now aged 41, sold a video of himself abusing a drugged boy; Andrew Prichodsky, now aged 50, jumped bail in England on the eve of his third trial for child sex offences.
Alan Williams introduced two paedophile friends from Wales, John Gay and Lee Tucker, both of whom were to become central targets for the Bristol detectives. The two men found they could sell Welsh boys into the clubs on Spuistraat at £120 a time and then make more money by investing in the booming business of child pornography. They borrowed money from a paedophile lorry driver in Bristol, bought state-of-the-art video equipment, set up TAG Films, and visited Amsterdam regularly to make porn films, which they sold through distributors in the United States and Germany. At the time, Dutch law said nothing about the possession of child pornography and punished its production with a maximum sentence of only three months.
By October 1990, detectives on the old Obscene Publications Squad at Scotland Yard were picking up worrying signals. An informant told them that someone called Alan Williams was trafficking boys into Amsterdam and that Wiiliams had asked him to smuggle a child porn video back into the UK. Soon afterwards, another informant told how he had smuggled a dozen tapes in the opposite direction: they had been produced, he believed, in a house in North London, which was equipped with a bondage room for boys. He had delivered the tapes in Amsterdam to Boys Club 21, to ‘Alan from Cardiff’. While he was there, this informant said, he had visited the Gay Palace across the road, where he had watched videos of boys in bondage, aged 11 to 14 years old, being buggered by masked men.
Soon, other informants were offering more detail – each new fragment of the picture a little more alarming than the last. One man, who was close to Alan Williams, said he had seen Warwick Spinks selling a special video for £4,000. It showed a boy whom he thought was only eight or nine years old being sexually abused and tortured by two men. But the most startling allegations came from a gay man, Frank, who had gone to Amsterdam in July 1990 and found himself caught up in this paedophile underworld. In 1993, he spoke to the same officers at Scotland Yard.
Frank told how he had met Alan Williams and seen him arguing with a boy from Rotherham who was owed money for four punters he had serviced in Boys Club 21. Williams had offered to pay him in cocaine but refused to pay him in cash and, when the boy had grabbed him and pushed him up against a fruit machine, the club’s security man had thrown the boy out of a first-floor window, breaking his leg. Frank told police of Warwick Spinks’ monthly trips to Berlin, often accompanied by compliant boys from Amsterdam who would persuade reluctant recruits that the clubs in Spuistrat would give them a good life with all the cash and drugs they could use. Spinks told Frank that if he saw a boy who was really cute, he would simply snatch him: “Spinks liked to pay them in drugs, coke and E and speed or even smack. He said it would help him if they got hooked.” He recalled, too, how he had met John Gay and Lee Tucker operating as a camera crew for child pornography.
One day, Frank said, Spinks invited him to come on a trip to the Canaries, delivering three kilos of grass to an old English gangster who had retired there. Frank went and that evening, in the gangster’s bar, Spinks had suggested he should help him sell videos and offered to show him a sample. Frank said he watched in growing horror as the video played out a murder – a boy who seemed to be no older than twelve years old was being beaten and attacked with needles, before being castrated and cut open with a knife. The video seemed to have been shot in a barn in what looked like Dutch countryside, and detectives later learned that Williams and his friends had been talking about making a video in a barn that belonged to a German from one of the Spuistraat clubs.
Scotland Yard were in a difficult position: their informants were British and so was Warwick Spinks, who by this time had left Amsterdam and was living in Hastings, East Sussex; but everything else in the story was scattered round Europe – a video made in Holland but shown in Spain with an alleged perpetrator who was German and a victim of unknown nationality. Still the allegation – supported by the earlier fragments of intelligence – demanded action.
After long negotiations within Scotland Yard and with their counterparts in Holland, the detectives set up Operation Framework and, as the Guardian reported in 1997, they recruited a specialist undercover officer to pose as a child abuser and to befriend Warwick Spinks in England. Over a series of meetings, Spinks took the bate and started to boast about his activities: “I am good at picking up stray chickens… I have been all over the world, I’m an international slut.” He described how he picked up boys in Dresden, in Bratislava in the Czech Republic, and in Poland where, he claimed, they cost only ten pence. “All those chickens with no money, ” he chuckled. In London, he said he was particularly keen on the hamburger bars around Picadilly Circus. And he was full of excitement about Hastings. “The chickens down the coast are very bored, they have got no money, they are not streetwise like Londoners and they spend all of their time in arcades… ”
The undercover officer asked Spinks if he could get him a sado-masochistic video featuring boys as young as ten, and Spinks replied that he knew people in Amsterdam who could. The officer went on to claim that some friends of his had been offered a snuff movie, in which someone was tortured to death, for £6,000. Spinks spoke with the voice of an expert.
“They’re not six grand,” he said. “I know, well I knew some people who were involved in making snuff movies and how they did it was, they only sold them in limited editions, made ten copies or something, ten very rich customers in America, who paid $5,000 each or something like that – which is a lot of money to watch some kids being snuffed. I mean, I steer a wide berth from those people. I know somebody who was in a snuff movie and somebody got snuffed in front of him and he never knew it was a snuff movie. They had tied him up and done terrible things to him and killed him.”
“Did they?” asked the officer.
“And he has been really petrified since, because he was like from Birmingham, middle 20s… I know the person who made the film. I felt sorry for this boy, it was a German boy.”
“How old?” asked the officer.
“About 13, 15. He thought he was going to make 200 guilders and ended up being dead.”
But Operation Framework ended in frustration. Spinks divulged no more about the video and failed to produce a copy of it. Without more evidence, the detectives could not justify the expense of keeping the undercover officer or of sending officers to Amsterdam, where, in any event, they lacked police powers. The Scotland Yard detectives arrested Spinks in Hastings and charged him with adbucting and raping two homeless boys from the streets of London and selling one of them into a Spuistraat brothel. In February 1995, he was jailed at Lewes Crown Court for seven years, reduced on appeal to five.
But the allegation of murder would not go away. As The Guardian reported in 1997, another gay man, Edward, a friend of Frank’s, spoke of his experience of the British paedophiles in Amsterdam. He, too, had mixed with Spinks and Williams and their friends and he claimed to have seen five videos, each featuring the sexual torture and death of a boy. He said their bodies had been dumped in a lake. The Dutch police investigated and said they could no find no evidence to support the claims.
Now, the Bristol detectives have come up with their own informant who has offered yet more evidence. He, too, described the same cauldron of commercialised child abuse, bubbling around Spuistraat. He explained how John Gay and Lee Tucker set themselves up as video pornographers, first taking a group of boys by minivan to an isolated farmhouse in France, and then making visits to Amsterdam to film with the boys there. And he told how, in 1989, he had been alone in a flat which belonged to one of the key figures in the Amsterdam paedophile scene, whom he named; he had found a video and played it and watched in horror as it played out a murder – a boy who was being buggered and beaten before being castrated and cut open with a knife.
At first sight, this informant was describing the same video as the one which Frank saw in the Canaries, and yet its details differ: Frank described a video shot in a barn; the Bristol informant says it was shot in a flat. Frank described the abuse and murder of one boy; the Bristol informant says there was a second boy, who was also being abused and who was still alive at the point when he turned off the tape. And yet, the overlap is striking: the specific nature of the violence is unusual and identical; and the Bristol informant names the man who actually committed the killing – he is the same German whose barn was allegedly picked as a porn studio by the ring of child porngraphers.
Frank and the Bristol informant were certainly involved with the paedophile colony in Amsterdam. So, too, were Spinks and Edward. All four of them were there in 1989/90 and all four separately claim that at least one boy was killed on video. Spinks told the undercover officer that a German boy was killed; Frank says that two Germans disappeared as well as an American; Franks says that Spinks once hinted to him that a German boy named Manny had been murdered; one of the English boys told Operation Framework that a German boy named Manny had gone missing; we have confirmed from talking to boys who worked in Spuistraat at that time that a boy of that name and nationality, then aged 14, disappeared after being caught breaking into a gaming machine at one of the clubs.
The Bristol informant, however, says he thinks the victim of the video which he saw was Dutch, named Marco and probably aged 16. At one end of the scale of possibility, every one of these men may be lying in an attempt to score favours with the police or to cause trouble for other men on the Amsterdam scene, and certainly it was not unusal for boys to disappear from Spuistraat simply because they had had enough of being exploited and ran away. At the other end of the scale, the truth is that one or more boys was killed in a paedophile snuff movie – and the murderers have got away with it. As Spinks told the undercover officer: “I know I’m a fat old queen, but I get away with it. I get away with murder.”
The Bristol detectives can get no further. The Dutch say they will not investigate, and Avon and Somerset police have neither the funds nor the legal power to run their own inquiry in Holland. They have been frustrated not only in their attempt to pursue the allegation of murder but also in relation to a separate statement from one of the Welsh boy victims, who says he was raped at gun point by one of the British paedophiles in Amsterdam. The Bristol detectives arrested the man, but could not even put the allegation to him, because the alleged rape was outside their jurisdiction.
There have been successful paedophilia operations between British and European police. Scotland Yard detectives recently have twice arrested wanted men and extradited them to Holland for trial on child-sex offences. The Bristol detectives, following the activities of Gay and Tucker, led German police to raid a video distributor in Dusseldorf. Within their borders, the Dutch paedophilia unit have arrested several of the key British paedophiles for sexual abuse and the production of pornography and, since January 1996, they have introduced a tougher law, which threatens up to six years in prison for the production of child pornography. But the wider picture is of police being trapped within their borders with the result, we have found, that the European trade in boys for sexual exploitation has grown into an international industry.
The trafficking of boys into Amsterdam’s sex industry continued to grow long after Warwick Spinks left the city in the early 1990s. A couple of years ago, I sat in the Blue Boy club on Spuistraat, amidst the dry ice and the boys in thongs, and flicked through the catalogue on the bar, offering “truly the best boys in town” – East German boys, Polish boys, Dutch boys – and watched a Japanese businessman make his purchase. I spent an evening on Paardenstraat, just around the corner from the tourist cafes on the Rembrandsplein, where the pavement is strewn with garbage and there’s a smell of piss in the air. East European boys sit chewing the skin around their finger nails in the shadows of the three bars – the Festival, the Music Box and the Cupido – waiting for business. One of Alan Williams’ Welsh boys ended up in the Festival Bar. By the age of 16, he was HIV positive and was last heard of in a mental hospital in England.
In search of their origins, I went to Berlin, to the Bahnhof Am Zoo, where the trains arrive from all over Eastern Europe, bringing the destitute in search of a dream. A specialist social worker there, Wolfgang Werner, told me there were some 700 East European boys, aged from eleven to seventeen, who had ended up in the sex industry in Berlin but, to his knowledge, many hundreds of others who had been taken off on a kind of underground railroad which fanned out to Zurich and Hamburg and Frankfurt and, most of all, to Rotterdam and Amsterdam in Holland. Werner told me about the boys from Polish villages who were selling themselves to support families back home who survived on only £30 a month; about the Bosnians who wash up on the banks of the Bahnhof Am Zoo not only financially destitute but also emotionally mutilated; about the steady trickle of lost boys from Turkey and Kurdistan; and about the group of Romanian boys who had been sold by their parents to a wandering Polish criminal, who had paid cash for some and a mere bottle of vodka for another, before putting them on to the streets of Berlin. All now ‘chicken’ for the pleasure of paedophiles.
I went to the cluster of ‘boy bars’ in Fuggerstrasse, fifteen minutes’ walk from the Bahnhof, and saw adolescent East Europeans bartering for trade. Just around the corner, in the PC Inn, Berlin police found Bosnian boys of only 12 on sale to customers. I followed the trail of two men, Peter Goetjes and Lutz Edelman, who have been identified as traffickers in the Berlin press. Eventually, I spoke to a close friend of theirs who shrugged and said, of course, they had been trafficking – it was easy money. They had started in the autumn of 1991 with a couple of boys from the Bahnhof whom they had driven to Holland. They had made a good sale. Yes, one of them was under 16, but who was counting? So they had started making regular runs, sometimes two or three times a week. They must have sold 150 between them, before Goetjes was caught on the Polish border in the summer of 1992 with a boy from a rundown industrial town called Gorzow Wielkopolski in his boot. He was charged with smuggling, released on bail and then simply drove away and never came back for his trial. At about that time, they had stopped trafficking, not so much because of Goetjes’ arrest but because they had been told that some of the boys were being used in snuff movies. There were plenty of others who carried on.
In May 1995, Bjorn Eriksson, then president of Interpol and chief of the Swedish police, told a conference on cross-border crime that organised paedophile networks were operating across European frontiers and that as many as 30,000 paedophiles were believed to be linked to organisations or publications throughout Europe. His warning went unheeded. In the late 1990s, the trafficking of boys from Berlin to Holland hit the north European press when police belatedly tried to find out what had happened to a 12-year-old Berlin boy named Manuel Schadwald who had gone missing on his way home in July 1993. At the time, Berlin police had told his family that he must have run away and they had done nothing. By 1997, however, Dutch journalists had dug out a history of sightings which suggested he had been put to work in a brothel in Rotterdam.
The brothel was one of several in the city which were being run by a German named Lothar Glandorf, now aged 36. After ignoring complaints for 18 months, Rotterdam police finally targetted him and found he had been selling hundreds of boys. Of those they could trace, nearly half were under 16, some by many years. One of them was only nine. Tapping Glandorf’s phones, they heard one customer say “I’m looking for a young boy, a very young boy, a nice little blonde one, who can stay the night”; and another who specified a pre-pubescent boy, “You know, no hair.” This was a kind of slavery. They heard Glandorf tell one boy that if he tried to run away, he would send his family pornographic pictures of him; another was told simply he would be shot in the head.
The Rotterdam police reported: “Even if Glandorf knew the perversions of a customer, he would still send a young boy to a customer who had a sexual preference for sado-masochism. Glandorf had one customer who specialised in deflowering young boys.” In one of Glandorf’s houses, they found an unmailed letter from a Turkish boy called Attila, written to a young girl named Aysum. “Don’t feel sad about me,” he wrote. “Things are the way they are and there is nothing to be done about it. You can do what you want. Don’t be sad.” They found the same boy in a video, with his testicles wired to a whining electrical generator while a Belgian customer abused him.
In the midst of all this, the Rotterdam police were looking for Manuel Schadwald. Three different boys had run away from Glandorf’s world and reported sighting the missing Berlin boy. Police logs which were leaked to the Dutch TV programme Network, reveal that three Rotterdam surveillance officers saw Glandorf with a boy whom all three of them believed to be Manuel Schadwald but they failed to rescue him: the leaked logs suggest that they were reluctant to break cover for fear of jeopardising their operation, asked for urgent advice from senior officers, received none and watched passively as Glandorf drove the boy away in his car. With the Dutch and German press baying for action, police in the two countries finally set about trying to find him – some four years after his disappearance. They failed. Manuel Schadwald has never been found. The last sightings suggested he was working in the dark bars on Paardenstraat in Amsterdam.
The same cross-border weakness persists. Investigating Glandorf, the Rotterdam police found that British paedophiles were routinely using his brothels. They found their names and details in Glandorf’s paperwork: one was crossing the North Sea on a weekly basis. The Rotteredam detectives produced a detailed report, De Handel In Kinderen – The Trade In Children – which the Guardian has obtained. It presents a detailed picture of the trade and of some of its British links, and yet they never even sent a copy to Scotland Yard. Glandorf, himself, had little fear of international policing. When a senior Dutch civil servant phoned him from Poland to say he was bringing back a boy for him, the police phone taps recorded Glandorf saying: “Be careful. When you get to the bridge at the border, let him out so he can go on foot so they can’t catch you.” That was all it took.
Within their borders, the Dutch did better. Having finally targeted Glandforf, they jailed him for five and a half years, and yet the Amsterdam paedophiles remain relaxed and casual about their world. I visited one in his cosy home next to a canal in the centre of the city. He is a chubby bespectacled man with a string of convictions, and he stood in his sitting room, ironing his shirts with considerable care, while he chatted about his hobby – the boys he had had recently, the videos that were on sale, and the trafficking from all over Europe. He didn’t like to think of it as a paedophile ring. “It’s a spider’s web,” he said, “people criss-crossing and finding interests.” In Utrecht, two years ago, I went to the home of Rudy van Dam, the most prolific boy pornographer in Holland and, although at first he pretended to be somebody else, he eventually let me in and sat in his neat parlour, in front of the old oak sideboard, and he talked about his career, apparently quite indifferent to the video-editing equipment behind his head, pouring out a constant stream of soundless boy pornography.
Van Dam is dead now. So is Alan Williams, a victim of AIDS and heroin. John Gay and Lee Tucker were jailed by the Bristol detectives, although Tucker jumped bail and was last seen heading for Amsterdam. The Berlin traffickers, Goetjes and Edelman, were never prosecuted. Warwick Spinks absconded from a London probation hostel before the end of his five-year sentence, ripped off several credit card companies on a spending spree in the boy bars in Fuggerstrasse in Berlin before settling in Prague. Some of the other key figures from Holland have joined him there, apparently drawn to the easy supply of vulnerable boys and the lack of police activity. Lothar Glandorf from Rotterdam served only four years of his sentence and is free again. In their report, the Dutch detectives noted that as soon as Glandorf and his men had been arrested, “other club owners moved in immediately.” The trains still pull into the Bahnhof Am Zoo with their consignment of vulnerable children. The international boy business is alive and well.
LOLITA
This is the man who wrote it.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVladimir_Nabokov&ei=djt2UbTuNqKM0wXz_oHQCg&usg=AFQjCNF2j9vHms7BiBvmPOX9PzILGDXxiQ&sig2=e2x9BO95BtALofX4E-AfVA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.d2k
After I was picked up by Stafford Police and clinically raped by them (two horrible police MEN kept me at Stafford Police Station all day and forced me to do a statement, after I was caught trying to run away from home and being abused, then they forced me to have a vaginal examination against my will, 4 policemen present, because I refused to take my jeans and knickers down to be examined so they threatened to hold me onto the table one limb each, a police woman was there and the male police surgeon, that makes 6 people who were present at that forced examination that felt to me like being raped, and Stafford Police have been trying to cover this incident up ever since) and put by Court Order into a "Place of Safety" Chadswell Assessment Centre near Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, (it was being run as a pimping house by the horrible bastards who were in charge of it) I was called LOLITA by the local newspaper. The clipping was in my medical file, and I found it when I read my medical notes at the doctors surgery in the 80's.
I didnt know who Lolita was, until I saw the James Mason film on television, and I was horrified, because she was nothing like me at all. My main feelings at that time were fear and loneliness.
This is the man who wrote that horrid book. I had to look up Lepidopterist as well, because I didn't know what that was, and as soon as I saw what it was I just suddenly thought THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
I feel so angry about all this.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVladimir_Nabokov&ei=djt2UbTuNqKM0wXz_oHQCg&usg=AFQjCNF2j9vHms7BiBvmPOX9PzILGDXxiQ&sig2=e2x9BO95BtALofX4E-AfVA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.d2k
After I was picked up by Stafford Police and clinically raped by them (two horrible police MEN kept me at Stafford Police Station all day and forced me to do a statement, after I was caught trying to run away from home and being abused, then they forced me to have a vaginal examination against my will, 4 policemen present, because I refused to take my jeans and knickers down to be examined so they threatened to hold me onto the table one limb each, a police woman was there and the male police surgeon, that makes 6 people who were present at that forced examination that felt to me like being raped, and Stafford Police have been trying to cover this incident up ever since) and put by Court Order into a "Place of Safety" Chadswell Assessment Centre near Uttoxeter, Staffordshire, (it was being run as a pimping house by the horrible bastards who were in charge of it) I was called LOLITA by the local newspaper. The clipping was in my medical file, and I found it when I read my medical notes at the doctors surgery in the 80's.
I didnt know who Lolita was, until I saw the James Mason film on television, and I was horrified, because she was nothing like me at all. My main feelings at that time were fear and loneliness.
This is the man who wrote that horrid book. I had to look up Lepidopterist as well, because I didn't know what that was, and as soon as I saw what it was I just suddenly thought THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
I feel so angry about all this.
Monday, 22 April 2013
PROFESSIONAL LOOKING GRAFFITI
This might be something or nothing, but a few seconds ago a thought came to me about professional looking graffiti, it was when I was trying to access the link that was posted on The Tap blog about the EU promoting paedophilia in a leaflet that was being distributed to children. I had seen the leaflet before and complained about it, but now I see the link to it online has been taken down.
Anyway, while looking for it online I stumbled upon Childlines puberty advice for girls.
http://www.childline.org.uk/EXPLORE/MYBODY/Pages/PubertyGirls.aspx
My first thought about this was, why are they showing a picture of a girl picking spots? Then, I just started wondering about the graffiti on the page, and it made me start thinking about graffiti in general. Theres three sorts of graffiti, the sort of scribbly scrawl graffiti and then the trained professional artists sort of graffiti, both types are in the picture on the Childline page, and then theres cry for help graffiti, the sort which was written in the celler cell at Haut de la Garenne, and on the beach wall in Jersey, and in other places where vulnerable people are desperatly trying to escape from paedophile gangsters.
Sorry if this post seems like nonsense, but I don't think it is.
Anyway, while looking for it online I stumbled upon Childlines puberty advice for girls.
http://www.childline.org.uk/EXPLORE/MYBODY/Pages/PubertyGirls.aspx
My first thought about this was, why are they showing a picture of a girl picking spots? Then, I just started wondering about the graffiti on the page, and it made me start thinking about graffiti in general. Theres three sorts of graffiti, the sort of scribbly scrawl graffiti and then the trained professional artists sort of graffiti, both types are in the picture on the Childline page, and then theres cry for help graffiti, the sort which was written in the celler cell at Haut de la Garenne, and on the beach wall in Jersey, and in other places where vulnerable people are desperatly trying to escape from paedophile gangsters.
Sorry if this post seems like nonsense, but I don't think it is.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
LORD MCALPINES TREASONOUS BOOK, THE RUTHLESS LEADER
P 134:
"There is a device that the Servant may find useful from time to time; that device is called the 'false accusation'. The Servant encourages his enemies to accuse him of some discreditable action or other, preferably the sort of action that the Servant clearly has no desire to commit. The Servant then allows all and sundry to believe that he is guilty. At the moment when the enemies of the Servant are celebrating the great currency achieved by their accusation, forgetting all other things of which they might accuse the Servant, it is proved by physical circumstances that the Servant could not possibly be guilty. The enemies of the Servant are discredited and it is hard, even impossible for them to accuse him of other misdeeds. This device of the mistaken accusation has been the salvation of more than one guilty man"
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST BLATENTLY WICKED THINGS I HAVE EVER READ. THIS IS TREASON.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThe-Ruthless-Leader-Classics-Strategy%2Fdp%2F0471372471&ei=05xvUaqYM6KM0wWA8IGgAg&usg=AFQjCNFSmz4NUj9ZTnw6VK5-BHCTLEtGYw&sig2=E7S50MM2cFPrSeIo22v6uQ
"There is a device that the Servant may find useful from time to time; that device is called the 'false accusation'. The Servant encourages his enemies to accuse him of some discreditable action or other, preferably the sort of action that the Servant clearly has no desire to commit. The Servant then allows all and sundry to believe that he is guilty. At the moment when the enemies of the Servant are celebrating the great currency achieved by their accusation, forgetting all other things of which they might accuse the Servant, it is proved by physical circumstances that the Servant could not possibly be guilty. The enemies of the Servant are discredited and it is hard, even impossible for them to accuse him of other misdeeds. This device of the mistaken accusation has been the salvation of more than one guilty man"
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST BLATENTLY WICKED THINGS I HAVE EVER READ. THIS IS TREASON.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThe-Ruthless-Leader-Classics-Strategy%2Fdp%2F0471372471&ei=05xvUaqYM6KM0wWA8IGgAg&usg=AFQjCNFSmz4NUj9ZTnw6VK5-BHCTLEtGYw&sig2=E7S50MM2cFPrSeIo22v6uQ
Friday, 12 April 2013
PRAYER CONCERNING THATCHER'S FUNERAL
Dear Lord Jesus,
Please confuse the plans of the evil ones. Please let there be no public disorder and rioting ect, and therefore no reason for the traitors and satanists who are presently controlling the affairs of the British Isles to bring in foreign mercenaries to quash it.
Please let the people of this country strongly show their anger in a self controlled manner, just as they expressed their sorrow at the death of the murdered Princess Diana, there wasn't any rioting or lawlessness, just pure heartfelt raw emotion, so be it on this occasion. Please protect the people of the British Isles against those who are plotting to destroy them.
Thank you for hearing my prayer, love Barbara xx
Please confuse the plans of the evil ones. Please let there be no public disorder and rioting ect, and therefore no reason for the traitors and satanists who are presently controlling the affairs of the British Isles to bring in foreign mercenaries to quash it.
Please let the people of this country strongly show their anger in a self controlled manner, just as they expressed their sorrow at the death of the murdered Princess Diana, there wasn't any rioting or lawlessness, just pure heartfelt raw emotion, so be it on this occasion. Please protect the people of the British Isles against those who are plotting to destroy them.
Thank you for hearing my prayer, love Barbara xx
Thursday, 11 April 2013
WHERE HAVE ALL THE NASTY IDEAS COME FROM?
I have just been reading a book by a German philosopher called Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, called The Antichrist. Apparently it was the last thing he ever wrote, before God seperated his soul from his body and required him to give an account of his life.
The book filled me with revulsion. I'm not a book critic, so I can't do a proper criticism of it, but reading it made me feel flat and sad, because what he seemed to be was saying was that selfishness is good and human kindness and care for the weak and vulnerable is bad. It was a complete reversal of the urging that burns in my soul, a complete denial of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was kind and good to the poor and weak.
I am wondering if this book and others this man wrote has helped cause a lot of the horrible mess we are all in now. I don't want to just blame this man, just see what on earth has happened. Another thing about it is that it was printed by Borzoi Pocket Books publisher Alfred A Knopf in New York in 1918, 1923 and 1924.
I know he's got a Jewish name, but I noted in his Wikipedia entry that the man who did the introduction, H L Mencken didn't think much of other Jews.
Its good to try to get to the truth of what happened in the past, it helps unravel what is going on right now. I think we who love the truth and hate abuse should find out and read the books they were reading, and try to see what has happened, I say this as a crafter who often has to deal with a big mess of tangled knitting threads, you cant make a nice jumper or whatever until all the wool has been unravelled from the tangle, hope people will understand that metaphor.
The book filled me with revulsion. I'm not a book critic, so I can't do a proper criticism of it, but reading it made me feel flat and sad, because what he seemed to be was saying was that selfishness is good and human kindness and care for the weak and vulnerable is bad. It was a complete reversal of the urging that burns in my soul, a complete denial of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was kind and good to the poor and weak.
I am wondering if this book and others this man wrote has helped cause a lot of the horrible mess we are all in now. I don't want to just blame this man, just see what on earth has happened. Another thing about it is that it was printed by Borzoi Pocket Books publisher Alfred A Knopf in New York in 1918, 1923 and 1924.
I know he's got a Jewish name, but I noted in his Wikipedia entry that the man who did the introduction, H L Mencken didn't think much of other Jews.
Its good to try to get to the truth of what happened in the past, it helps unravel what is going on right now. I think we who love the truth and hate abuse should find out and read the books they were reading, and try to see what has happened, I say this as a crafter who often has to deal with a big mess of tangled knitting threads, you cant make a nice jumper or whatever until all the wool has been unravelled from the tangle, hope people will understand that metaphor.
Thursday, 4 April 2013
GRAHAM OVENDEN
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fartanddesign%2F2013%2Fapr%2F03%2Ftate-removes-graham-ovenden-prints&ei=PC9dUbHrG6nE0QWhq4GADA&usg=AFQjCNEMez4Hcwrc3WfNc8lY8UK_amKouQ&sig2=oJ1UcUCbLxxC_PKw2UC_MQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.d2k
The Tate has removed from public view works by artist Graham Ovenden, including a screenprint that features an image of a young naked child, saying that his conviction on six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault "shone a new light" on his work.
The 34 prints the national gallery owns were removed from its website and will no longer be available to view by appointment in Tate Britain's prints and drawings department while the museum awaits "further information".
The Tate said it was "reviewing the online presentation of these editioned prints by him that are held in the national collection. Until this review is complete, the images will not be available online or the works to view by appointment".
All the works were acquired in 1975, many from Mayfair art dealer the Waddington Galleries, which exhibited Ovenden's work in the early 1970s.
The Tate said they were "part of a large gift of almost 3,000 works … at a point when Tate was proactively building its modern print collection".
At the time, Ovenden, a friend of luminaries such as Sir Peter Blake and Sir David Bailey, had a strong artistic reputation and was yet to be affected by controversies over his depictions of young nude girls.
The 34 works, dating from 1970-1975, depict children. One series of screenprints, titled Five Girls, includes a full-length image of a nude child that would be bound to raise concerns and comment if exhibited today.
Other works are drawn from a series based on Lewis Carroll's Alice books; others still take a Nabokovian theme, with titles such as Lolita Recumbent and Lolita Seductive. The Alice in Wonderland exhibition at Tate Liverpool in 2011 included a set of eight of Ovenden's Alice prints.
Ovenden was found guilty of six charges of indecency with a child and one allegation of indecent assault by a jury at Truro crown court on Tuesday. He was acquitted of two indecent assaults and the jury earlier found Ovenden not guilty of three charges of indecent assault on the direction of the judge, Graham Cottle.
Ovenden had denied all the charges relating to four children between 1972 and 1985.
Sentencing was adjourned until a later date by the judge and Ovenden was released on bail.
The Tate said Ovenden's work had been "widely shown over more than 40 years" and that they were only one of several public institutions to own examples of his work.
In an interview recorded in 2000 by the British Library, Ovenden said: "I'm aware of the sensuality of these young girls; I'm moved by their angelic side as well as their demon side; they have a total wonder in them. As an artist, I wish to explore that. Children are beautiful but I don't flatter them; I draw them with an edge."
The Tate has no plans to remove the works entirely from the collection. It is bound by act of parliament not to deaccession – remove – works from its collection unless in specific circumstances, for example where the gallery holds a duplication.
It is not the first time that the Tate has faced a controversy relating to images of nude children. In 2009, Richard Prince's work Spiritual America, an appropriation of a nude photograph of a prepubescent Brooke Shields, was removed from view at Tate Modern after a warning from the Metropolitan police that the image could break obscenity laws.
I AM ALSO REPUBLISHING THIS COMMENT FROM JOHN WARDS BLOG, LIKE SMEGSTER I AM GOBSMACKED READING THIS:
smegster76
April 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
John
I’d like to bring your attention to the Ovenden story as reported by the Sky News app. Reading it left me gobsmacked and I wanted to hear your view on my take of it.
Once you get past the headline it reads something like a cross between him having won an award and being the victim of a wrongful convition. It’s almost apologetic.
Below I will copy what the article says, with my emphasis.
Graham Ovenden: Artist Guilty of Sex Offences.
An internationally-famous artist has been convicted of sex offences against young children who modelled for him in the 1970′s and 1980′s.
Graham Ovenden, 70, was found guilty of six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault by a jury at Truro Crown Court in Cornwall.
(So far so good right??)
He was aquitted of five other charges of indecent assault.
(Heres where it start to smell a bit off)
Ovenden, who was not in court due to ilness, denied all the charges relating to four children between 1972 and 1985.
Christopher Quinlan QC, defending, told Judge Graham Cottle that Ovenden was resting at HOME, having received treatment at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth.
The incidents are said to have taken place at Ovenden’s former and CURRENT addresses in London and Cornwall respectively.
(So he’s tucked up in bed in the same house he committed these crimes? Very cosy huh)
Ovenden had been described in court by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife as ‘a paedophile’, who abused children while they modelled for him.
(at least that bit is accurate)
(Now we get into the meat and veg of what I’m referring to. Bearing in mind this article is reporting on the fact that this Paedophile has been found GUILTY of abusing children)
The four victims contacted the police LONG after the abuse is ALLEGED to have taken place, (is it still alleged after being found guilty?), and only when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls, the court heard. (surely this is implying that at the time they were children, it was a consensual bit of fun whilst modelling? I think it also implies that as he’s a renowned artist the pictures of young naked children have been wrongly labelled)
But Ovenden denied the abuse ever happened. (depiste the fact that a jury found him guilty) He told the court he had taken pictures of children – including those in various states of undress – but said they were not indecent. (even if this were true it doesn’t change the fact that he has been found guilty of indecent assulat against a child).
He described himself in court as a modest man, but told police he had a ‘major reputation’ for creating ‘some of the best portraits of children in the last 200 years’ (I’ll bet he did).
He also described the ‘witch-hunt’ against those who produce work involving naked children, accusing police of ‘falsifying’ images recovered from his home computer. (after all he is an ‘artist’)
Ovenden, of Barley Splatt, near Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, denied having a sexual interest in children. (OK then)
The judge adjourned sentence to a date to be fixed but told counsel the hearing would take place at Plymouth Crown Court (you have already alluded to the significance of that decision).
Ovenden was released on bail (although he never actualy left the house where some of the offences took place, incredible)
( The article closes with a roll of honour for this great artist)
A former pupil of pop artist Sir Peter Blake, Ovenden graduated from the Royal College of art in 1968.
He had exhibitions at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum. the Tate and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
(After seeing this late last night the story is no longer on the Sky News app. I’m sure it will be on the website, however I took screen shots of the article if needed. Maybe i’m reading too much into his but I honestly felt as though this was written by the Minisrty of Truth)
The Tate has removed from public view works by artist Graham Ovenden, including a screenprint that features an image of a young naked child, saying that his conviction on six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault "shone a new light" on his work.
The 34 prints the national gallery owns were removed from its website and will no longer be available to view by appointment in Tate Britain's prints and drawings department while the museum awaits "further information".
The Tate said it was "reviewing the online presentation of these editioned prints by him that are held in the national collection. Until this review is complete, the images will not be available online or the works to view by appointment".
All the works were acquired in 1975, many from Mayfair art dealer the Waddington Galleries, which exhibited Ovenden's work in the early 1970s.
The Tate said they were "part of a large gift of almost 3,000 works … at a point when Tate was proactively building its modern print collection".
At the time, Ovenden, a friend of luminaries such as Sir Peter Blake and Sir David Bailey, had a strong artistic reputation and was yet to be affected by controversies over his depictions of young nude girls.
The 34 works, dating from 1970-1975, depict children. One series of screenprints, titled Five Girls, includes a full-length image of a nude child that would be bound to raise concerns and comment if exhibited today.
Other works are drawn from a series based on Lewis Carroll's Alice books; others still take a Nabokovian theme, with titles such as Lolita Recumbent and Lolita Seductive. The Alice in Wonderland exhibition at Tate Liverpool in 2011 included a set of eight of Ovenden's Alice prints.
Ovenden was found guilty of six charges of indecency with a child and one allegation of indecent assault by a jury at Truro crown court on Tuesday. He was acquitted of two indecent assaults and the jury earlier found Ovenden not guilty of three charges of indecent assault on the direction of the judge, Graham Cottle.
Ovenden had denied all the charges relating to four children between 1972 and 1985.
Sentencing was adjourned until a later date by the judge and Ovenden was released on bail.
The Tate said Ovenden's work had been "widely shown over more than 40 years" and that they were only one of several public institutions to own examples of his work.
In an interview recorded in 2000 by the British Library, Ovenden said: "I'm aware of the sensuality of these young girls; I'm moved by their angelic side as well as their demon side; they have a total wonder in them. As an artist, I wish to explore that. Children are beautiful but I don't flatter them; I draw them with an edge."
The Tate has no plans to remove the works entirely from the collection. It is bound by act of parliament not to deaccession – remove – works from its collection unless in specific circumstances, for example where the gallery holds a duplication.
It is not the first time that the Tate has faced a controversy relating to images of nude children. In 2009, Richard Prince's work Spiritual America, an appropriation of a nude photograph of a prepubescent Brooke Shields, was removed from view at Tate Modern after a warning from the Metropolitan police that the image could break obscenity laws.
I AM ALSO REPUBLISHING THIS COMMENT FROM JOHN WARDS BLOG, LIKE SMEGSTER I AM GOBSMACKED READING THIS:
smegster76
April 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
John
I’d like to bring your attention to the Ovenden story as reported by the Sky News app. Reading it left me gobsmacked and I wanted to hear your view on my take of it.
Once you get past the headline it reads something like a cross between him having won an award and being the victim of a wrongful convition. It’s almost apologetic.
Below I will copy what the article says, with my emphasis.
Graham Ovenden: Artist Guilty of Sex Offences.
An internationally-famous artist has been convicted of sex offences against young children who modelled for him in the 1970′s and 1980′s.
Graham Ovenden, 70, was found guilty of six charges of indecency with a child and one of indecent assault by a jury at Truro Crown Court in Cornwall.
(So far so good right??)
He was aquitted of five other charges of indecent assault.
(Heres where it start to smell a bit off)
Ovenden, who was not in court due to ilness, denied all the charges relating to four children between 1972 and 1985.
Christopher Quinlan QC, defending, told Judge Graham Cottle that Ovenden was resting at HOME, having received treatment at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth.
The incidents are said to have taken place at Ovenden’s former and CURRENT addresses in London and Cornwall respectively.
(So he’s tucked up in bed in the same house he committed these crimes? Very cosy huh)
Ovenden had been described in court by prosecutor Ramsay Quaife as ‘a paedophile’, who abused children while they modelled for him.
(at least that bit is accurate)
(Now we get into the meat and veg of what I’m referring to. Bearing in mind this article is reporting on the fact that this Paedophile has been found GUILTY of abusing children)
The four victims contacted the police LONG after the abuse is ALLEGED to have taken place, (is it still alleged after being found guilty?), and only when they realised exactly what had happened to them as girls, the court heard. (surely this is implying that at the time they were children, it was a consensual bit of fun whilst modelling? I think it also implies that as he’s a renowned artist the pictures of young naked children have been wrongly labelled)
But Ovenden denied the abuse ever happened. (depiste the fact that a jury found him guilty) He told the court he had taken pictures of children – including those in various states of undress – but said they were not indecent. (even if this were true it doesn’t change the fact that he has been found guilty of indecent assulat against a child).
He described himself in court as a modest man, but told police he had a ‘major reputation’ for creating ‘some of the best portraits of children in the last 200 years’ (I’ll bet he did).
He also described the ‘witch-hunt’ against those who produce work involving naked children, accusing police of ‘falsifying’ images recovered from his home computer. (after all he is an ‘artist’)
Ovenden, of Barley Splatt, near Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, denied having a sexual interest in children. (OK then)
The judge adjourned sentence to a date to be fixed but told counsel the hearing would take place at Plymouth Crown Court (you have already alluded to the significance of that decision).
Ovenden was released on bail (although he never actualy left the house where some of the offences took place, incredible)
( The article closes with a roll of honour for this great artist)
A former pupil of pop artist Sir Peter Blake, Ovenden graduated from the Royal College of art in 1968.
He had exhibitions at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum. the Tate and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
(After seeing this late last night the story is no longer on the Sky News app. I’m sure it will be on the website, however I took screen shots of the article if needed. Maybe i’m reading too much into his but I honestly felt as though this was written by the Minisrty of Truth)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)