Lord Carlile, The Defender Of The Police, and High Court Is A Freemason Himself
We will remain on this topic like a broken record until Glastonbury and until we expose the likes of the Pimp of the establishment, Chris Tarrant, Lord Nigel Lawson, and the modern day Joseph Mengele, Dr. Liam Donaldson.
The trouble with an occasional publication now and then in the Times, The Mirror and the Daily Telegraph is that they are one off articles with no follow ups. We should remain on course, and build up momentum.
Bigger Freemasons and affiliates exposed as result of the last few posts are: Claire Rainer, Agony uncle (after the operation. Seriously, with that voice, she may be wearing a dildo on a belt underneath her skirt!) and the head of PALS, now Denise Robertson MBE, Piers Morgan (with a little reservation but not much), Nick Griffin of the BNP, Esther Rantzen, Police Chiefs Otter and Weber of Devon and Cornwall, Professor Sir Roger Scruten Philosopher, Oxford don, and author of 30 books – probably all crap and sold 10 copies of each to family and friends.
You’ve got to laugh, even in this hour of misery.
Others who must be brought to face justice are Yolande Lindridge, Judge Neglinnan/Nelligan (?) of Plymouth/Devon, Judge Wildblood of Plymouth, Anne Mitchell the fake and mad social worker, the government back bencher/head of Plymouth SS, Sandy Bruce Lockhart, Simon Fuller (?), The housing associations, and the entire leaderships of Plymouth and Devon Councils.
Don’t forget the sweet Teresa Cooper.
Buy her books “Locked Up”, “Pindown” and another.
Pester Jemila Dodge of Kent County Council
(Tel 01622 696265, Fax 01622 694383) and seek justice.
Hound Bishop Michael Nazir Ali of Rochester and enquire why he ignored Teresa’s desperate Plight.
(Tel 01622 696265, Fax 01622 694383) and seek justice.
Hound Bishop Michael Nazir Ali of Rochester and enquire why he ignored Teresa’s desperate Plight.
Seek justice for my team members, parents of the 3 old in Plymouth whose 3 year old daughter (with teeth pulled out) is subjected to giving oral sex to the leadership of Plymouth City Council.
Investigate the case of Julian Grail, Planning Officer with the Plymouth City Council who jumped off the Tamar Bridge and killed himself.
Was he “pushed” after exposing the sexual abuse of children and sex trafficking by Plymouth City Council?
Was he “pushed” after exposing the sexual abuse of children and sex trafficking by Plymouth City Council?
Since my revelation that Lord Nigel Lawson raped the under age D on a regular basis, I was expecting the senior Tories and other establishment chiefs to make their moves and cover for him.
I threw Michael Howard, the previous Tory leader, and the current leader David Cameron in the bag and enquired whether there was more to their relationship than the mentor – pupil relationship when Cameron was growing up.
In other words, was Howard buggering Cameron to make another Marilyn (Tony) Blair out of him to lead us to other wars by lying and feeling not guilty about doing so?
Cracks appeared thus: Bob Quick (a good policeman) made the Tories nervous.
Damien Greene accused Bob’s wife of running a dodgy ‘wedding car’ business. Bob Quick arrested Damien Greene because he must have pinned something big on him.
Damien Greene accused Bob’s wife of running a dodgy ‘wedding car’ business. Bob Quick arrested Damien Greene because he must have pinned something big on him.
Bob was leant upon by the minister of fun Jacquie Smith (Home Secretary) and made him apologise to the Tories.
The latter’s shadow Home Office spokesman Grayling threw his weight behind Greene. Both the ruling Labour and the Tory opposition master minded the 911 style case of the Waziristan 11, and made Bob Quick resign.
I am making great progress because others have joined in my having fun: Mr Damien McBride, Senior Advisor to Gordon Brown has started emailing gritty details about the Tories smearing them.
Emails are considered unpublishable by the UK political blogger Paul Staines. Fortunately, some of the emails have fallen into the hands of a British Sunday paper and may be published tomorrow, 11 April 2009.
This post is designed to go out in good time for Messrs Staines, McBride, and the Sunday paper to read and insure that the emails are published tomorrow.
I will then open new cracks a bit wider by driving my specially designed wedges through them.
Take the case of the late Mr Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who died as a result of the policeman’s knocking him down with his baton, possibly causing his hearth attack that killed him.
The TODAY programme on www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today had Fiona McTaggart (ex Home Office minister), and Lord Carlile, QC (lawyers are bad news) debating the issue.
While Ms McTaggart believes that the police shouldn’t be treated with kids gloves on the issue, Lord Carlile assured the public that both the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the High Court are there to ensure that Mr Tomlinson’s case receives the right justice.
Two things: I have been dying to lay my hands on Lord Carlile since my team had reported a case to me where Lord Carlile had sexually abused his own son, and both the IPCC and High Court are Freemason organisations and will do their damnest to cover up Mr Tomlinson’s case and exonerate the Metropolitan Police.
I ask my deer hunters, Eggheads, Student Unions and the world to dig in to Lord Carlile and investigate his child abuse case.
As said repeatedly, I will leave no stones unturned, and will not apologise to Lord Carlile if the allegations are unfounded.
It has been more than a week now and the IPCC have not even interveiewed the policeman, nor have they offered a provisional apology to Mr Tomlinson's family. That's how arrogant the IPCC is.
I appoint Bob Quick to join my deer hunters and expand on his case of arresting Damien Green of the Tories in the first place.
Bob must have had a strong case against Damien Green to have arrested him, initially.
His revelations will get me a step or two closer to closing the net on Lord Nigel Lawson.
Taliban, Student Unions, the new deer hunters with Bob Quick among them should visit British and Pakistani cemeteries and check tomb stones of the ancestors of the likes of Lord Lawson (Brooke Bond Tea Company?), Lord Carlile, Bishop Michael Nazir Ali and all others mentioned in post numbers 244 onwards.
The purposes of the exercise will be to establish their links with Freemasonry and paedophilia.
Some of them may have erected obelisks above their tomb stones, while others will have a history of Freemasonry. Reveal all and pass on to the newly commercially empowered BBC and Channel 4.
Link the death of Ian Tomlinson to Lord Myner (the city minister), BP, the helicopter crash killing 16 BP and other workers, Sir Fred the Shred Goodwin and RBC.
Note that the City of London is the equivalent of the Vatican.
The city is a state within a state according to my team where English and British laws do not apply.
The City of London has its own police and it is not answerable to any one including the IPCC.
So, let us wait and see what cock and bull the IPCC will come up with when concluding their report on the late Ian Tomlinson’s case.
Mohammad Karim Ahmadzai,
Team Leader, Earth Projects
mohammad-in-egham at 05:29
I've just had it brought to my attention that Abbot Martin Shipperlee was interviewed in the Universe in November last year, the full text of the interview was placed in the December 2011 edition of the parish magazine.
What is your reaction to Lord Carlile’s Report?
Lord Carlile’s report does not make very pretty reading, in fact, what it contains is a source of shame for us. That is why we have accepted the recommendations in the report and are doing everything that we can to prevent anything like this happening again.
The bit about having accepted all the recommendations of the report is just not true. Father Gregory Chillman was listed in the report as one of the monks against whom there were credible allegations, and one of the recommendations of the report was that any such people should not be permitted to live at the Abbey. And yet he is still there.
First of all, we have taken a great deal of expert advice on safeguarding and we now have in place trained safeguarding teams for the school, the abbey and the parish.
The school has detailed safeguarding policies and procedures which meet with the approval of the Department for Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate. The parish, of course, follows the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service policy and guidelines and the NSPCC are advising the Abbey on procedures. All key staff have had safeguarding training to the appropriate level.
The school's "detailed safeguarding policies and procedures" are still inadequate. Lord Carlile, though he has prosecuted and defended child abuse cases, is not an expert in how to organise effective safeguarding measures in an institutional setting. The Department of Education and the Independent Schools Inspectorate are only interested in ensuring that a school's policy meets statutory requirements, and given that the ISI and DfE managed not to notice anything wrong with the school until I explained it to them in words of one syllable, a reliance on their approval is not something that inspires confidence.
Lord Carlile advised that the governance of St Benedict’s School was, to be frank, no longer fit for purpose and that the school should become an educational charity, quite separate from the Abbey Trust.
"Work has already started on this and everything should be in place by September 2012. The new governing body of the school cannot take over formally until the educational trust is established, but the transition will start shortly and an interim governing body, or governing body designate, will gradually assume responsibility for the school.
The governing body will have a lay chairman and monks will be in the minority. New governors will be recruited with the appropriate expertise and experience."
On this point I agree with Lord Carlile. But Lord Carlile is mistaken if merely changing the governance to a more secular model will of itself make much of a difference to safeguarding. There are plenty of secular independent schools which have had serious safeguarding problems. So this is welcome but largely irrelevant to the reason Lord Carlile was called in.
"Over and above what Lord Carlile has recommended, I have commissioned an independent safeguarding expert to make unannounced inspections of the safeguarding arrangements in the school, parish and abbey."
He hasn't said who this expert is. We have been here before. Back in February 2010, long before Lord Carlile became involved, what purported to be the report of an "Independent Review" commissioned by the Abbot was published. I later learned who had conducted the inquiry, and a friend of mine spoke to him concerning the circumstances under which it had been carried out. It turned out that:
- the terms of reference were the Abbey only, not the school,
- it was a paper-only review, nobody was interviewed.
- the reviewer visited for only half a day
- the review addressed only the period covering the abuse of Pearce's last victim, when Pearce was already under restrictions
- the reviewer was not told about the duration and number of Pearce's other known crimes, though he inferred that other crimes not disclosed had been committed.
Despite this, the report was placed on the school website as being the fulfilment of the Abbot's promise of an independent review.
It is on record that abuse occurred over many years, why was nothing done about it?
"Hindsight makes everything clear, but in years gone past there was a general unwillingness to accept that such things could happen so that the children themselves found it difficult to find anyone to listen to them. The result was that often enough there was only gossip and rumour and little fact on which to act. That is why we have our present safeguarding structures in the Church, so that people are trained to notice, to listen and to act."
Many of those safeguarding structures were put in place by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, when he was Bishop of Birmingham and chairman of COPCA. However, when I raised concerns about Ealing Abbey with him, his response could be paraphrased as "nothing to do with me, guv". So much for the church's present safeguarding structures.
In his report, Lord Carlile states St Benedict’s rule of love and forgiveness appears to have overshadowed responsibility for children’s welfare. Is this the case?
"This I think, refers to my decision to allow Fr David Pearce to continue living in the monastery after a civil claim for abuse had succeeded against him. I could have sent him away, but that would have meant that someone about whom I had justifiable concerns would have been living without any supervision. I judged that it was safer if he remained in the monastery where we could be sure that he had no contact with the school or parish and thus with young people. As it turned out, I made a grave error of judgement and can blame no‐one but myself. What I was attempting was much more difficult than I had expected and a young man was put in harm’s way as a result."
It could also be taken to refer to the habit of the Catholic hierarchy (clear from many other reports into abuse) when talking about "welfare" of considering solely the welfare of the abusing priest. The welfare of the abused child rarely if ever gets a look-in. There are Benedictine monasteries in England which do not have schools attached to them. Pearce could have been sent to one of them. Shipperlee could have cooperated with the local Social Services to work out the best approach to keeping children safe from Pearce."
But he did none of these things. He kept Pearce at the abbey, he did not tell people the truth about why he was on restricted ministry, instead he put it about that the restrictions were "to protect Fr David from unfounded allegations", and worst of all, he allowed a pupil of the school into the monastery itself as an employee to wash dishes at weekends.
Is the situation as bad as has been reported in the national press?
"In some ways, yes, in others no. As I have already said, I am making no excuse and I don’t seek to minimise what happened in the past. The press are quite right to report this. However, some reporting has given the impression that abuse has been taking place up to the present day. Editorial comments have sometimes appeared to be biased against the school, again dwelling upon what happened in the past with no recognition of the school as it is today. Certainly since I have been abbot and since Christopher Cleugh, the present headmaster has been in post, which is over a decade, there have been no suggestions of abuse in the school."
That is quite simply not true. We can admire the Abbot's sophistry of "no suggestions of abuse within the school", in that while Pearce's last victim was a pupil of the school and Pearce was a monk and priest and former teacher at and Trustee of the school, his last victim was abused outside the school. But even allowing for that, the Abbot's statement is not true. The Carlile report refers to a further incident that occurred within the school in the summer of 2010, after Pearce's arrest and conviction. Admittedly no criminal charges followed, but additional training in "communication skills" was given to the teacher in question.
Furthermore, Social Services have been notified of incidents concerning Father Gregory Chillman's conduct as chaplain of St Augustine's Priory School as recently as 2005 - in other words during Shipperlee's time as Abbot.
Why was Lord Carlile chosen to carry out the inquiry into events at St Benedict’s School?
"As the situation unfolded, I quickly realised that I was out of my depth, that I needed guidance from professional people with experience in dealing with safeguarding matters in schools and within the Church. I had benefit of advice from a number of people from within the Church and others with no connection to the Church, including a senior social worker who has carried out high‐level investigations into the Church in Ireland. The consensus of advice was that a thorough independent investigation into past events was required, and Lord Carlile was recommended as someone eminently suitable to carry out that investigation. He has a track record of in depth investigations and has extensive experience in child abuse cases."
"Out of my depth" is about the most charitable possible interpretation of the situation.
It is worth noting that Lord Carlile, by his own statements, did not carry out "a thorough independent investigation into past events".
He did not report on individual incidents, he did not make recommendations concerning needed safeguarding improvements identified as a result of examining those incidents.
He included in an appendix to his report a child protection policy for the school which he stated was as good as any in the country, but which did not ensure that all allegations of abuse without exception would be reported promptly to the LADO.
If Shipperlee was wanting and expecting a thorough investigation, he didn't get it.
It has been widely reported in the press that (former Ealing monk) Fr Laurence Soper is on the run from the police.
What exactly are the circumstances?
"That is the case. For the past 12 years, he was working as bursar at the Benedictine University in Rome. Back in March, he agreed to return to England for an appointment with the police.He had returned at the request of the police on two or three previous occasions, it was a matter of trust. In March, he abused that trust. He left the monastery in Rome, ostensibly to come to London and he hasn’t been seen since."
Laurence Soper is not just a former Ealing monk. He is Shipperlee's immediate predecessor as Abbot. We have a former Abbot of Ealing who is on the run rather than face child abuse charges.
Don’t you have any idea where he could be?
"He could be anywhere, I have absolutely no idea. I have notified religious houses where he had stayed in the past about the situation, no one has any idea where he is. We have given every possible assistance to the police and we urge him to contact the police so that they can deal with allegations against him. He is an embarrassment to the Order of St Benedict and to the Church. He betrayed the trust placed in him by the police."
That photo was a bit slow appearing. It only appeared about 18 months after Soper went on the run.
Should you resign as Abbot?
"That is something I have thought about every day. As I have already said, I made one serious error of judgement but aside from that, all of the cases highlighted in the report happened in the past, many in the distant past, and all before my watch. The community has confidence in the measures I have taken and want me to see this through. Before I complete my term as Abbot I want to ensure that everything that needs to be done is in place for my successor."
By definition, all the cases in the report happened in the past, but there have been three known cases involving either Ealing monks or teachers at St Benedict's which have occurred during Shipperlee's time as Abbot. So "all before my watch" is not true. It is, to put it in the vernacular, a lie. What is more, it is a stupid lie because the dates of the incidents are recorded in the Carlile report available for anybody to take a look at.
What future do you see for the Benedictines in Ealing?
"There have been times in recent months when I have wondered if Ealing Abbey has any future at all. But if I step back from the immediate train of events I can see a school that has flourished in the past decade and which is larger and more successful than ever despite the stain of its past. As for the monastery, we will prosper if we can show that we have learned from this terrible story, that we can confront the past and be better people and better monks for it."
If that is the basis for his confidence in the future of the Benedictines in Ealing, then the monastery is doomed. There is no sign that he has "learned from this terrible story". The school's child protection policy is still not of very good quality through it scrapes by National Minimum Standards. (You can compare it with the new St Augustine's Priory School policy, which is very much improved and is now clearly and obviously designed to ensure that the authorities are promptly informed of all concerns.) The parish website simply makes a blanket reference to NCSC procedures, which is not at all the same as actually having a safeguarding policy.
I also wouldn't mind an apology for this astonishing outburst from Mr Cleugh, in his September 2010 prizegiving day speech, given in the presence of the Abbot, parents, children and assorted dignitaries.
"I absolutely refute that anyone associated with St Benedict’s School has misled the Inspectors or protected offenders - such allegations are at best misguided and at worst deliberately malicious.
Recent media and blog coverage seem hell-bent on trying to discredit the School and, at the same time, destroy the excellent relationship between School and Monastery.
Is this part of an anti-Catholic movement linked to the papal visit?
I do not know, but it feels very much as if we are being targeted."
Cleugh has never publicly retracted those words.
We must give victims of sexual exploitation confidence to come forward
|
| Laugh it up, Rat-Fuck. Your day is over. |
"High-profile child sexual abuse and exploitation cases have shown us that more needs to be done to give victims the confidence to disclose the harm they have suffered. It takes immense bravery for sexually exploited children to relive horrific ordeals, and the law must protect and assist them at every stage.
The director of public prosecutions has taken an important first step in making this possible in new guidance to be produced later this year with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the new College of Policing. I hope this will encourage the police and prosecutors to look in more detail at the evidence brought by children, while also importantly concentrating on the behaviour of the perpetrator, not the behaviour of the victim.
The Crown Prosecution Service currently has no policy relating specifically to child sexual exploitation, and it seems right to have one ‘overarching’ approach to the investigation and prosecution of such offences, as recently advocated by the DPP. Everyone would agree that a re-evaluation of the way sexual offences against children are dealt with by the justice system is welcome. The more we can encourage sexually exploited young people to feel comfortable in turning to the law, the more we can be sure that the system is working.
A campaign by Barnardo’s has communicated a simple message to everyone in the legal profession: to remember that victims are children and to set aside our judgements and perceptions. The campaign clearly demonstrated public support for the message that no child can truly agree to being sexually exploited.
This advice comes at an important time, not only for the reasons stated above but because of the Sentencing Council’s review of its guidelines on the sentencing of sexual offences. For decades these guidelines have referred to cases where a child under 13 ‘has been groomed into acquiescence’ and cases where an offender ‘has obtained the agreement’ of a child aged 13, 14 or 15 (section 5).
We have to ask ourselves whether there can ever be any circumstances in which we may see a child as a willing participant in their own abuse. Are our perceptions of the lifestyles and choices of some sexually exploited young people clouding our judgement of them as victims? What if the child is 15 and has had previous sexual relations with someone of his or her own age? Perhaps they look older than they really are. Maybe their behaviour is challenging and their life chaotic or dysfunctional. They may declare love for the person exploiting them sexually. Would these factors affect our ability to give credence to their testimony?
Can we sustain this view that a child can be a willing participant in their sexual exploitation if we really want children to have the confidence to come forward? If we do, we will continue to leave some children believing that they are to blame for the abuse they have suffered, even if the perpetrator is found guilty. How can our having this view give children enough confidence in our legal system to want to enter into it?
The fact that more than 30,000 people backed Barnardo’s view that no child can truly agree to being sexually exploited makes it unthinkable to continue to uphold any notion of children being willing participants in their own abuse. We know that for victims the horror of child sexual exploitation is great and the agony of reliving abuse in a court of law can be terrible. We must not allow our perceptions to affect justice being done. No child should be made to feel somehow responsible for their abuse.
The eventual aim is a legal system better able to safeguard children, which is ultimately a system they can trust. We can shift the focus away from the credibility of victims simply by remembering they are children. In doing so, we can build the confidence of sexually exploited young people to come forward and discuss the abuse they have suffered, giving us the chance to ensure their welfare and giving them the opportunity to improve their lives."
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
Schofield's List from Paul Coker on Vimeo.
The 'Kengate Tapes' were made by a TV company called Carlton.
The tapes allegedly reveal that the top UK government minister Ken Clarke groped a young child actor called Ben Fellows. Ken Clarke, is a senior member of Bilderberg on the steering committee, which has links to Dutroux.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron worked for the TV company, Carlton, when the Kengate Tapes were made to disappear.
"David Cameron disappeared the Kengate Tapes whilst Head of Corporate Communications for Carlton Television during the 'Cash for Questions' scandal back in 1994...
"The Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit confirmed this week to me personally that there was indeed a government and Carlton Television conspiracy over the Kengate Tapes.
"The police confirmed that Ian Greer along with Carlton Television conspired to cover up the 'Cash for Questions' scandal for Prime Minister John Major's government back in 1994...
Greer - involved in the scandal involving members of parliament being paid to ask questions on behalf of dubious groups.
"Now, as Prime Minister, David Cameron is preventing the Metropolitan Police from investigating my case against Kenneth Clarke MP, who was involved in the scandal of sexually assaulting me in Ian Greer’s office, which Cameron helped cover up!"
Detective Constable Ben Lambskin of the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit told me that Central Television had been bought by Carlton Television in order to shut down the Cook Report and control the now infamous Kengate Tapes...
Ben Fellows continues:
"I have discovered that the lawyer who took the tapes was indeed operating under the direct orders of our now Prime Minister David Cameron...
"David Cameron was rewarded by being made Prime Minister nominated at Bilderberg by, now Minister Without Portfolio and Chairman of the Bilderberg Steering Committee – Kenneth Clarke MP.
"In fact this year Kenneth Clarke MP is taking Prime Minister David Cameron to Bilderberg...
"Cameron spent seven years at Carlton, as Head of Corporate Communications...
"Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron 'with my daughter’s pocket money'...
"The Sun newspaper’s Business Editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a 'poisonous, slippery individual'...
"I’ll leave you with a final word from Detective Constable Ben Lambskin of the Metropolitan Police Paedophile Unit, in attempting to explain the disappearance of the Kengate Tapes, he said 'You wouldn’t want that kind of thing out there'.
Prime Minister frowns, hides behind gay people.
(Because he thinks we're all hicks and cattle who can't tell the difference).
In most legal systems, the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed not liable until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities.
However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth beyond reasonablle doubt..
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
"A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter. ”
A statement can include an implication; for instance, a photograph of a particular politician accompanying a headline reading "Corrupt Politicians" could be held as an allegation that that politician was personally corrupt. Once it is shown that a statement was published, and that it has a defamatory meaning, that statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant is able to raise a defence to his defamatory act.
Under English law, because companies are legal persons they can sue on the basis of libel the same as natural persons. Cases supporting this principle go as far back as the 19th century, such as South Hetton Coal Co. Ltd. v. North Eastern News Ass'n Ltd. [1894], and extend to more recent cases such as Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion [1972].
The following are actionable without proof of special damage/actual damage:
- Words imputing a crime punishable with imprisonment
- Words imputing certain diseases
- Words disparaging a person in his office, calling or profession, see section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952. Also at common law.
- Words imputing unchastity or adultery to a female, see the Slander of Women Act 1891
The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment