Earthling

National Archives kept secret: British Zionist War Cabinet 1917

Posted in Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on July 28, 2016

I think it’s pretty clear that I despise my government, the Judges who protect it, the Monarchy and the Armed Forces/Police who do their will in abject ignorance. I also some are not ignorant but, as one cop said to me recently: “It’s every man/woman for themselves. We all have families to feed and nothing’s gonna change”. So he/she knows it’s screwed up and that he/she is a part of it and simply does as he/she is told, BUT “Selfishness rules in society so we take care of ourselves”.

And you know what? He/She is right. What a pity huh?

So, when it comes to Arms and Defence companies etc, the people who work there are doing so because it’s a job even though they know (or don’t think or care about it) it kills tens of thousands or even millions of innocents. Not that long ago, I blamed them. I don’t any longer because I agree, it really is every man for themselves this life. Not what i would prefer but it’s how it is.

Does that stop me trying to bring facts and truth to your attention? No. I just did. What I just said above is the truth and a fact. Sure, sure there will be many of you out there saying “We’re not all like that” but you know what? You are!

So here we have Palestine attempting to sue the British government based on the agreement with Jews (NOT only zionists but JEWS!) re the Balfour Declaration. The treaty demanded by the Rothschild bitches!

Palestine to sue Britain BBC

Palestine to sue Britain 2

And can you blame them? I can’t. We’re a despicable, cuckolded bunch of monarchical subjects ruled over by a Zionist Occupied Government and we think we’re a “free nation” while we plod along in our empty fucking lives trying to scrape a living while our successive governments suck on the tit of the jewish diaspora of the west who actually hate our guts but smile sweetly at us (they’re so fucking good at that!) and most of us are outraged by anyone who steps out of line and shines the light on these bunch of leeches and we call those who do, “Anti semite”. It’s been drilled into us for our entire lives to believe the little hook nosed cretins can do no wrong, have been persecuted by every nation on the planet (I wonder why? – That was rhetorical if you didn’t suss it) and are “God’s chosen” ( a belief they projected onto Hitler and the NSDAP – Nazis to most of you – to demonise them. The irony!).

Well, if you tend to research a bit, you pick up on a lot (and some of you pick up on crap and believe it by the way) but when you dig further and further, you “stumble” upon more and more, deeper and deeper and facts that make your hair stand on end or your jaw drop.

I’ve had this for years but, only now for some reason, thought it pertinent to blog it. That is these pages out of the British National Archives. They make sickening reading.

B1

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8

B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19

B20 B21

 

But those infinitesimally small percentage of the human race are a tight little tribe and they owe so much of their wealth, position and power in all areas to just a few families who find the Old Testament or Torah a very VERY useful tool. One of those families you know well of course. They have their name emblazoned across the most central and well known street (they call it a Boulevard of course) in Tel Aviv and here it is in 1913 and today (notice the nice chequered paving):

Rothschild Boulevard 2843266734_66943526c3_b stock-photo-tel-aviv-isr-apr-rothschild-boulevard-street-sign-in-tel-aviv-israel-it-s-one-of-the-285217451 rotchild1w

 

They STOLE the land and they used terrorism to do so and Rothschild walks free today while people like Menachem Begin (a bloody terrorist) became Prime Minister. A terrorist that blew up the British Government HQ and killed British men and women as well as Arabs to achieve his goal. Today? Britain actually celebrates the founding of Israel. Founded upon British service men and women’s blood. And you expect me to “cry for our boys and girls in uniform” while they go abroad to STILL fight Jewish wars? You’re joking right?

I’d sooner join what you consider as the Nazi Party!

 

So yes Palestine, sue the shit out of the British Government because, before they clandestinely decided Palestine was going to be flooded with Russian and Eastern European Jews so they may create a “National home for the jews” (read: Israel), you lived and worked that land peacefully over generations. My government gave your land to these alien cretins for their own purposes (probably paid handsomely and why the British government and Monarchy suck jewish dick to this day) and without any discussion/negotiation with those of you who already lived there. But that’s nothing new. Our government have cause the misplacing of peoples from their homes for centuries. Ask the American Indian or ask those Chagossians who they threw off their lands at gunpoint to provide for a Naval and Air base on Diego Garcia for the Americans.

Balfour_portrait_and_declaration

 

As an aside and regarding the Chagossians returning to The Changos Islands, it is laughable. You see:

“Under the terms of the 1966 lease the US have an option to extend the lease for 20 years in December 2016.” and it is highly likely that the Americans will extend the lease. The problem is for them (and the Chagossians) is that the maximum elevation above mean low water of Diego Garcia, for example, is just 30 feet.

Our governments kind of ignore stuff like that (and don’t like you thinking about it) when it comes to this subject of the ever so scary “Climate Change”. Ever wondered why? ūüėČ

“Yes, sure you can go back to your Islands. Sorry about chucking you off, we thought you looked scary‚Ķ‚Ķ‚Ķ Oops! Sorry again! We forgot to tell you about sea levels rising due to global warming‚Ķ.. ummm I mean climate change‚Ķ.. ummm‚Ķ.. oh nevermind. Is it deep? Can you hear us?‚Ķ.. Well admiral, we got rid of them again. This time by “natural causes””.

 

Chagos islanders

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3557216/Deal-send-Chagos-islanders-home-closer.html

Diego Garcia: How it works

HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W

§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. [179700]

§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. [178580]

§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [178581]

§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61‚Äď11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?

§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.

 

 

 

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc528-9W

Jeremy Corbyn 

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [74654]

529W

¬ßMr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.

DG2

 

HC Deb 07 July 2004 vol 423 cc271-96WH271WH§2 pm

§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.

The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location‚ÄĒthe Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.

Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.

The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in¬†Granta¬†magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.

Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles‚ÄĒmainly Mauritius‚ÄĒfor medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.

When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so ‚ÄĒputting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up¬†272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.

The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.

Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.

When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.

Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.

273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.

On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.

There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it:¬†Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order‚ÄĒ¬†may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”.¬†The order then goes on to declare,¬†without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,¬†that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says:¬†All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the¬†Gazette¬†in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”.¬†We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.

The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says: An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10. That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says: A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive. 274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.

The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said:¬†Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.‚ÄĒ[Official Report,¬†10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.]¬†I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.

I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.

§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?

¬ßJeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences‚ÄĒabout ¬£50,000 a year‚ÄĒis taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for¬†275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.

I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands‚ÄĒat least‚ÄĒand that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.

I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:  

  1. “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
  2. 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
  3. 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
  4. 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
  5. 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
  6. 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”

‚ÄĒand, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.

Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?

§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.

The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical¬†278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights‚ÄĒsuch as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people‚ÄĒshould have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.

The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base‚ÄĒperhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.

Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states:¬†Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island.¬†The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The¬†Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.

It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament‚ÄĒthere are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow) (Lab)

Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.

Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands as¬†uninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population as¬†labourers from Mauritius and Seychelles¬†and misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had been¬†freely worked out with the‚Ķelected representatives of the people concerned”.¬†Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.

In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.

What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose¬†280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said:¬†It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account ‚Ķit would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”.¬†He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918:¬†Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”.¬†Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.

These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.

When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated:¬†The people are to be governed, not removed.¬†He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which had¬†no colour of lawful authority.¬†That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.

We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said:¬†I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”.¬†History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.

The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to¬†281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported:¬†This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.¬†I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.

The Minister further stated that¬†human interference within the Atolls‚Ķis likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming.¬†However, other things might accelerate global warming.¬†Thus”,¬†he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”.¬†Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3:¬†At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.¬†The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.

Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.

Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected: The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record. Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of. Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.

It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61‚Äď11.

My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers‚ÄĒone can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq‚ÄĒare to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.

2.45 pm

§Mr. Francis Maude(Horsham)I have only a few points to make and I shall endeavour to be brief.

First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention¬†52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.

Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.

Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech‚ÄĒI am afraid that I did not agree with much of it‚ÄĒthe threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.

We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan‚ÄĒregrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.

In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.

My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.

Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process‚ÄĒ

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc121-30

My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community‚Ķ…

In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.

Tony Blair, D notices, Princes, Popes, Politicians, “Pop pickers”, MI5, AND PAEDOPHILIA!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on October 27, 2012

Search Hansard for statements relating to paedophilia in the Cabinet and provide “assurances”?

Cameron! Are you off your fricking nut as well as a criminal acting for the very bankers that want this stuff to happen? Cameron, you’re a dead man walking as are all the Lords and MPs in this establishment. This country will eventually come to the point of also decapitating the royal family.

But that is exactly playing into the hands of the bankers who want this to happen while you think they’re the people who are going to keep letting you play this game. Once you’re of no further use mate, they will hang draw and quarter you. Mark my words!

The following is JUST the Labour Party. You can be sure that just as many reside in the Conservative and LibDem ranks. Edward Heath was a paedophile yet that still hasn’t “come out” while Tom Watson suggests paedophilia reaches into the core of the British Government. Was it Thatcher’s aide? Or was it Tony’s? It doesn’t matter in a sense because this country is now waking up to the FACT that this country is a corrupt, steaming pile of shit with paedophilia lurking in every dark recess and corner of the street as well as in the dark corners of Whitehall. Westminster, the Houses of Lords and Parliament AND, what shall never come out (although it is obvious to those of us who have researched this in any depth and who are not in the slightest surprised by the facts now being brought to the country’s attention and to those of the population who would simply call us “mad conspiracy theorists”) is that this paedophilia stretches into the core of the British Monarchy.

It is not a “Big Society” we have in this country, it is a sick society!

The Labour Party’s Convicted Paedophile List.

1. Liam Temple Labour Councillor Inciting a child into ‚Äėgross‚Äô indecency
2. Stewart Brown Labour Party Lord Mayor Child Pornography
3. Sam Chaudry Labour Party Lord Mayor Elect & Labour Party Councillor Child Rapist
4. Nicholas Green Labour Party Lord Mayor Labour Party Councillor 13 rapes & assaults on Children
5. Keith Potts Labour Party Councillor Junior School Governor
6. Alan Prescott Labour Party Councillor Molesting Children in a ‚ÄėCare-Home ‚ÄėWhere he worked
7. Terry Power Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks on boys
8. Joseph Shaw Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
9. George Harding Labour Party Councillor Indecent assault on a child
10. Lee Benson Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
11. Raymond Coates Labour Party Councillor Child rape
12. Les Sheppard Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks and rapes on Children
13. Martyn Locklin Labour Party Councillor Rape & Indecent assault on boys
14. Nelson Bland Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
15. Greg Vincent Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography Films
16. Alec Dyer Atkins Labour Party Councillor Member of the ‚ÄėShadows Brotherhood ‚ÄėPeadophile Ring. 42,000 images of Children being abused
17. Keith Rogers Labour Party Councillor 2,000 images of child pornography
18. Paul Diggert Labour Party Councillor Grooming children & child pornography
19. Peter Tuffley ( worked also for NSPCC & Barnardos ) Labour Party Personal assistant to Hazel Blears Caught in bed with a 13 year old boy
20. Mark Trotter Labour Party Member & Super Activist Child rapist with Aids
21. Yusef Azad Labour Party on the Greater London Assembly Computer seized in anti-Child Porn Operation
22. Gilbert Benn Labour Party Councillor Molesting a boy
23. David Spooner Labour Party Councillor Master…ed in front of Two little Children
24. Mark Tann Labour Party member & Activist Repeatedly raped Two girls under Eight years old.
25. Iestyn Tudor Davies Labour Party Councillor Repeatedly raped a Child

PLUS+

26. John Friary Labour Party Councillor Grooming a child on facebook
27. Steve Carnell Labour Party Councillor Downloading Child and Animal Porn
28. Toren Smith  Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of 94.000 Images of Children Being Abused
29. Johnathan Phillips  Labour Party Councillor Downloaded Child Porn on His Memory Stick. It Was Found in The Town Hall After a Labour Party Meeting
30. Phillip Lyon Labour Party Aide to Tony Blair His House of Commons Office Was Searched And He Was Found Guilty of Child Pornography
31. Mark Burton Labour Party Councillor Sexual molestation of child. Trial continues..
32. Neil Redrup Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of opening sexually explicit content in front of child.
33. Timothy Edmeads Labour Party super activist and events organiser to Labour Lord Mayor guilty of sex assaults on 3 children.
34. Adrian Cirket Labour Party councillor and GMB union official downloading hundreds of sickening images of child abuse in his family home where he lived with his wife and three children..35. Darren Geoffrey Pedley¬†Labour party councilor¬†and chairman of the board of governors at Sandbrook primary school found guilty of downloading and distributing child pornography‚Ķ36. Labour Councillor for Leicester Manish Sood found guilty of Grooming School kids for sex…37. Evil Labour Party Councill ¬†Candidate & Junior School ¬†Governor Richard Harris ¬†Found guilty of offering ¬†Junior ¬†school children ¬£500 for sex.

.

38. Ex Deputy Labour Party Lord Mayor John Johnson was charged with downloading hundreds of images of child molestation. Some of the images depicted sadomasochistic rituals with children being tortured and raped by multiple adults.

.  Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell РConvicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

.  Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys РConvicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on childre

.  Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor РStood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and    was forced to resign.

.  Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington РConvicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

.  Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy РCharged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

.  Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan РForced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

.¬†¬†Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory¬†GLA¬†website – Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

.¬† Tory Party¬†Councillor¬†(Folkestone¬†– in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert¬†Richdale¬†– 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences.¬†Richdales¬†enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of¬†A4¬†paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs¬†offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described¬†Richdale¬†as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”

.  Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman РConvicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire РSexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

.¬† Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

The Dunblane massacre:

Lord George Robertson (ex UK¬†Defence¬†Secretary¬†1997/98 and Sec Gen of Nato) was the referee on Thomas Hamilton’s shotgun¬†licence.

Blair government insider¬†Lord¬†Robertson¬†has threatened to sue Scotland’s leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun¬†licence¬†for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine¬†paedophile¬†ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite. On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a¬†practising¬†paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list ofLabour¬†MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides,¬†Phillip Lyon.
The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the¬†Dunblane¬†massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a¬†100-year secrecy order.¬†LordCullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a¬†paedophile, had obtained a firearms¬†licence¬†for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local¬†Labourluminary¬†George¬†Robertson¬†and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for¬†Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy’s club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

‘commons clerk on trial after IT find thousands of images of children performing sexual acts’

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a¬†practising¬†paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption.

The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

Lyon used his computer “to pursue his interest and perhaps curiosity in this type of material. He searched for it on the internet and, when found, downloaded it for his delectation later”, said Ms¬†Karmy-Jones.

Lyon, 38, from Stanford le Hope in Essex, denies 12 specimen charges of making an indecent image of a child between October 2001 and April 2002. “It is like a drug, you try one and you want to try something harder, and it has a snowball effect,” he is alleged to have told officers when arrested.

Lyon¬†worked in the Upper Table Office, where he met MPs, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker while checking parliamentary questions and administering early day motions. “He needed skills in computing and the internet,” said Ms¬†Karmy-Jones. “He is an intelligent individual, and knew full well what he was doing.” When first interviewed, he allegedly told police he did not distribute material – “I just look at pictures.”

Ms¬†Karmy-Jones¬†told jurors: “This case is about child pornography – what others might call photos of child abuse. When I say child abuse, it may sound harsh, but it is the nature of these images which is central to the case. They are unpleasant and disturbing.”

She said the issue might be whether it was Lyon who downloaded the images. “We say it is clear he was that man.”

Under Blair’s government¬†paedophiles¬†get off with a slap on the wrist and never seem to suffer the full weight of the law – no shock there then!

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles¬†run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in¬†the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.

However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

Tony Blair: stifling investigations of paedophiles in his Labour government.

According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Blair?Now let’s consider the Tony Blair connection. The supercilious, criminal, treasonous little twat who ran this country for his Rothschild handlers for a decade before handing over to another potential contestant for paedophile. Blair had a hunger for power and prestige (and money) and he still has. He is a ravenous, craving mass of corruption – he has to be. He has to follow the demands of his Rothschild handlers because one way or another, the little shit is compromised.

Now let’s consider the Savile situation. While the British Media, BBC etc etc wish to keep it all “Savile” and perhaps a few other celebrities, it all goes far far deeper than that.

Second Palace memoir links Savile to Charles and Diana

Andrew Morton warned of Jimmy Savile’s closeness to the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1992 in his Diana biography, as I noted on Friday.

Now I see Sarah Goodall, a Lady Clerk at St James’s Palace, talked about Savile’s role as a royal marriage counsellor to Charles and Diana in her 2006 memoir The Palace Diaries.

‚ÄúHe arranged for them to meet in Dyfed in Wales so they could comfort flood victims together in public,‚ÄĚ Goodall says in the book, ghosted by Lord Monson. ‚ÄúTheir Royal Highnesses weren‚Äôt speaking at the time, so to bring them together was quite a feat…

“I stand there stunned at the thought of Jimmy Savile, the TV personality who utters curious warbling noises and dresses in weird clothing, helping His Royal Highness and the Princess of Wales to fix their relationship.

‚ÄúJimmy Savile may do great work for charity and children but he hardly seems the best qualified or most appropriate person to give marital advice.‚ÄĚ

Later she expresses astonishment that the shell-suited star of Jim‚Äôll Fix It is given a knighthood ‚ÄĒ but concludes that,¬† if he manages to save the royal marriage, perhaps he deserves it.

Now switch your brain into gear for a moment: A man like Savile or ANY celebrity (or non celebrity) who would get close to the monarchy – they would be vetted. There is no doubt of this not even a ball hair of doubt. So MI5 and others would know PRECISELY what Savile was. MI5 know what Prime Ministers have for breakfast and how often they release a stool per day. So let’s not play STUPID buggers shall we? I mean, of course, you can if you wish, that’s your prerogative but, if you do, please don’t get upset if I call you a fcuking fool! Ok?

Just an example:

You need to understand ONE thing: MI5 are British Intelligence, yes BUT, as “british Intelligence” they do not look after the British Public. Their remit is to “Defend the Realm” That “Realm” is the interests of the British Monarchy and establishment. YOU are not “The Realm”. What a hilarious and naive thought!

MI5 protect the interests of the Queen and Monarchy and they vet the BBC! Now THINK about that! It doesn’t take a lot of thinking and it is fact. You may be a British Citizen (or “subject” of the Lizard) but if you do not act in a way that is acceptable to the power establishment, then that same MI5 shall treat you as the “subversive” you are. That MI5 also were involved in the 7/7 bombing – a false flag attack on the UK mainland to achieve the same goal as the false flag in the US called 9/11. ALL to have the populations of the UK and US believe there was a bogeyman out there just waiting to blow you up and, therefore, ensuring that you will accept the further infringement of your rights under the con of protecting you and that you would support the UK/US/UN imperialism against those countries who will not play ball with global world government and, therefore, they are “Rogue nations”.

They don’t vet the BBC? They don’t work for the Crown? Really? Then let me repeat:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

“There is no question whatsoever‚ÄĒI am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services‚ÄĒthat there have been people working in high positions in¬†MI5¬†and¬†MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The Crown¬†is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations‚ÄĒa state within the state‚ÄĒthat the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”

 

Now, if you think for one moment that the British Intelligence services did not know about Jimmy Savile and do not know about so many others – including those in the Royal Family of which Louis Mountbatten was just ONE – then you are, quite frankly, immensely naive, ignorant or, just a simple minded idiot. So then, WHY would Prince Charles and the rest of the Monarchy (while Diana couldn’t stand Savile, it seems, from reports) entertain this sleazy little entertainer? Do you also think that THEY did not know? This sordid little shit was on the inside of the Royal Family because the British Royal Family are into what he was into!

 

Now consider Esther Rantzen and the rest of the BBC multitude who knew what was going on. Think about who shut these people up. The heads of the BBC right? Noone else would or could have (assuming Esther isn’t into it herself and who could blame you if you now seriously questioned that?). So the head honchos at the BBC silenced anyone who would have been prepared to speak out. Now why would the heads of the BBC protect this sleazy little bastard? I mean, it wouldn’t just be for ratings. They could sack him, get rid of him and the BBC would carry on with other entertainers. No-one would really miss Savile as such. So why? Because Savile was being protected by even higher powers (OR the BBC Executives were a part of it). There are no two ways about it, it is one or both of the two scenarios. However, let’s look at the former: Who would be protecting him? Well, as the man himself would say, “I can get jobs done”. Those “jobs” would extend into the Royal family itself. They would include work on behalf of Israel. Was Savile a Mossad agent? Sound crazy? Well how about this man?

Cliff Richard – MI5/6 Agent.

Yes indeed! Cliff Richard was (and may still be) a British Intelligence asset.

Recently declassified MI5 papers sensationally reveal that Peter Pan of pop, Sir Cliff Richard, was recruited by British intelligence services in the late 1950s. He remained a frontline agent throughout the cold war.

Squeaky clean Sir Cliff went by the code name Harry Web-of-Deceit amongst Whitehall officials. Cliff‚Äôs paymasters gave the bachelor boy (although apparently ‚Äėa bit of a James Bond on the side‚Äô according to one anonymous source) a brief to release his soft pop balladry as a smokescreen for more clandestine activities. Having successfully established himself as a sleeper in the pop world he was ‚Äėactivated‚Äô in 1968, during his performance of Eurovision entry,¬†Congratulations, at London‚Äôs Albert Hall in 1968.

‚ÄėSir Cliff was Mr Wiretap himself‚Äô explained Tony Newbold, a retired intelligence officer ‚ÄėIt was bloody brilliant: nobody suspected a thing. He was the best bug-er we had ‚Äď a departmental accolade that spread, I‚Äôm afraid ‚Äď for which I would like to humbly apologise.‚Äô

Now look at this photo of Savile with Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno. What a VERY odd combination! But there’s something in that handshake that leads us back to George Robertson, Thomas Hamilton and the freemasonry fraternity.

You see, if you look at any freemasonry outfit, they are all heavily involved in child charity. The Freemasons get heavily involved with the disabled, children and families with “social problems” from alcohol to drug abuse. Now before going off on some rant saying “freemasons do good work” etc, perhaps some of them do. Perhaps. But the whole ethos of freemasonry is secrecy (just look up Parliamentary archives and you will see numerous instances of it). Good does not work in the darkness of secrecy, it works in broad daylight. What better wat to get your hands on kids who are vulnerable either physically, mentally, emotionally or all three? No better way than acting as Savile did! Does that mean all freemasons are paedophiles or even have the slightest idea of what happens higher up the chain? NO!. Freemasons, as we all know, do not get introduced to the “greater secrets” until they achieve the level above their existing degree so HOW could a freemason ever say “We don’t do that?” They do not even know the detail of the degree above!

 

BBC 5 LIVE 6th November 2012: Freemasonry paedophiles:

Somehow, I feel this video won’t stay up long on Youtube so download while you can.

You’ve got to ask yourself why Frank Bruno would want to visit Broadmoor and meet with people like Sutcliffe while he also met with Ronnie Kray. Again, introduced to him by Savile. What was the point?

Bruno is another big children’s charity man. I am not suggesting anything by that but it shows that even the innocent (if a freemason ex boxer who did cocaine can be called innocent) can be used by the users, totally unaware of the practices of the other.

No! Of Course Prince Charles would have not the foggiest idea of who and what Jimmy Savile was. Don’t be ridiculous! The Prince, his father and mother just happen to be the people who the British Intelligence services report to.

Ah! “The British Intelligence services didn’t know that Savile was a paedo”?

Please look in the mirror closely at your scalp to see if there are any scars left over from your lobotomy!

The Prince may regret his association with the master paedo? No, not at all. He’ll be reminiscing of the good times won’t you Charlie?

Meanwhile, isn’t it bizarre just how many Princes get close and have such good relationships with paedos? We had Philip with Louis, Charlie with Jimmy and Andrew with Jeffrey!

So what the hell is the problem with Harry flashing his dick and ass at the world? Quite normal really comparatively speaking! He’s perhaps just getting warmed up!

Then you have Harriet Harman! Bets please!

 

Anyone want the big fat cigar?

 

UPDATE 28th October 2012:

Thank you Sonia! The Daily Express (for those of you who require mainstream media outlets for your “truth”) states it:

“Then there is the question that overshadows the whole Savile ¬≠inquiry: why was he allowed to ¬≠become so close to royalty and government? Surely it is the job of the security services to investigate the lifestyle of those who have access to our figureheads?

Yes indeed it is Sonia and you can take it to the bank that the Security Services AND, therefore, the Royal Family knew exactly what he was!

And now another update: 5th November 2012:

The Sunday Times!

But while they get close and so many will ask these questions regarding Charles’ “judgement” in befriending Savile, they will NEVER go close enough for the sheer fear of being destroyed – either the reporter, the Editor or the paper itself and its owners. So, above we see the Daily Mail saying ANDREW BROUGHT THE ROYAL FAMILY INTO DISREPUTE. Now we have CHARLES DOING THE SAME – EVEN WORSE! While Andrew’s article points to “sordid association” and “unwise”. STRANGE HOW BOTH BROTHERS HAVE HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH PAEDOPHILES ISN’T IT? BUT WILL THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PICK THIS UP AND RUN WITH IT ASKING REAL QUESTIONS?

How is it just “unwise” of either of them? When you get TWO of them it becomes a little more than “unwise” don’t you think? How about a mainstream headline asking the question:

ARE OUR ROYAL FAMILY – the SAXE COBURGS of GOTHA who are defrauding the British people of ¬£millions by way of using a Constitutional office’s right to hold the mineral rights of the Commonwealth – also PAEDOPHILES?

And don’t say that is slander because ANY other family who just so happened to have long standing relationships with two different paedophiles would be investigated by the Police for paedophilia themselves while just about 100% of society would be demonising that family and shunning them. But no, not our royals eh?

This is a SICK COUNTRY and it is sick because it is run, at the very top, by sick people!

Rebekah shag you yet Davey boy?

Or is it just the norm with you, the wife, Rebekah and the Obama’s etc having an inter-racial gang bang in chequers? Do the girls and boys from the primary school down the road get called in occasionally to party too? Not suggesting anything, just asking a question. The answer is either yes or not so nothing to get hot and bothered about Davey boy!