Trendy ‘Phobia’ terminology hides the truth of ignorance.

Trendy (mostly vacuous) terms abound in society, and none more so that describing someone as a ‘phobic’ when they challenge someone else’s viewpoint.

‘Islamophobic’, ‘transphobic’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘homophobic’, and so on and on are terms we hear in the media – and perhaps in some conversations if we are unfortunate enough to come up against and idiot.

In psychological terms, a phobia is a fear or serious aversion to something which causes the person problems in their daily lives.  Such as, the fear of spiders, the fear of darkness, or anything else the which initiates a serious negative response in the individual. Although some phobias may seem irrational to people who don’t experience them, phobias are very real to (and can be severely debilitating for) the person experiencing them.

Apart from the use of a term ‘[something]phobia] being out of context, it is used as a mask. When challenged, rather than entering in to rational and objective debate, a person will use a ‘phobic’ term in an attempt to deride another person’s viewpoint and to prevent any meaningful dialogue taking place.

If meaningful dialogue were to take place, the knowledge and prejudices of the person using ‘phobia’ terminology would be exposed. It is highly likely that the person claiming ‘phobia’ is unsure of their own knowledge, validity of their claims, or have very little knowledge of the subject on which to base a cohesive argument.

An example is when a public figure is accused of being ‘xenophobic’ when criticising the government of Israel. Even though the criticism is levelled at a government it is also wrongly associated by the ill-informed as being a criticism of the Jewish religion.

The Israeli government is no different (or shouldn’t be) to any other government in the world when it comes to accountability for it’s actions to the international community. The government makes decisions, and if those decisions are perceived as being wrong in some way then it is a person’s or organisation’s right to express criticism or to make the government accountable.

Even so, whenever the Israeli government is criticised there is a parade of people and organisations claiming that the accuser is being ‘xenophobic’ (or ‘anti-Semitic’), which is absolute nonsense and attempts to deflect attention away from real issues.

Another situation where a ‘phobic’ reference is made is when the person using the term fails to understand alternative information or concepts. This can be though lack of capacity to understand a concept or through the person’s failure to listen objectively and properly analyse what is actually being said.

Through shoddy reporting and agenda driven news delivery mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media contribute to such ridiculous statements spreading in society and gaining popularity.

In the vast majority of cases where ‘phobia’ terms are used it is not an irrational fear that is driving the challenge, but a genuine concern that needs to be expressed and discussed. Sometimes the challenge may be wrong – sometimes it may be right – but shutting down any debate only leads to resentment and ignorance.

Challenging the myths of transgenderism






Sexual Orientation


Gender Dysphoria

Gender and Sexual Orientation

Gender Reversal

Clinical Diagnosis

Does any of this really matter?

Transgender Kids


Gender Identity Services and Kids

Puberty blockers

The presence and impact of non-gender mental disorders.

Mothers of transgender kids


Woman or man


The ‘professor’ of transgender studies

Impact on legislation

Conclusion (or why you should care)


Note: Links in this article will open in a new window (or tab). Many of the references are linked to information for professionals and are from reliable sources. If you would like to learn more on the subject, we suggest you do your own research and use those links as a starting point.

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
Albert Einstein


Before delving in to some of the details concerning transgender issues, let’s get something very clear. The aim of (or ‘agenda’ behind) this article is to address the propaganda and misinformation that has become popular myth and spread through society like a virus, to such an extent that people have abandoned common sense and objective analysis through fear of being judged as discriminatory.

This is not an attack on people who are experiencing genuine psychological distress because of confusion about their gender identity – which (ironically) has been made much worse by the relative minority of pressure groups who spread misinformation for their self-interest.

In denying fact and evidence people experiencing gender identity issues are not receiving proper diagnosis of their problems and consequently are not receiving treatment that is appropriate to help them. As will become clearer later on, misdiagnosis and mistreatment is a big problem in the area of gender identity, resulting in many people facing further turmoil and distress as their internal problems are not addressed or eased through following a course of ‘transitioning’.

Governments are damaging the health of citizens, imposing restrictions on the majority of society based on false perceptions and misinformation, and are failing in their basic duty of ensuring policies are based on accurate and objective information. Unfortunately, politics is a game of popularity, which significantly impacts the decisions of government.

Child abuse taking place because of ignorance of parents who believe popular myth, and by medical practitioners administering (or rather experimenting with) toxic chemicals with unknown long-term effects without the informed consent of their ‘patients’.

Sometimes fact and evidence are not what people want to hear – or want others to believe – but they remain the truth of reality none the less.

We currently have a situation where radical self-interested groups have infiltrated the establishments of medicine and education to such a degree that people working within them are doing so in a culture of fear. It has become virtually impossible for someone to break through the fog of misinformation without incurring some personal penalty, whether that is losing their employment or being bombarded with abuse.

It is time for change where truth becomes the basis for all decisions in society for the good of everyone and not just self-interested lobby groups who prefer propaganda to fact.

If a man or woman who is able to make informed choices decides that they wish to live as a member of the opposite sex then they should be able to without fear of rejection by society – the same as everyone else. However, it is important they understand the reasons for their perceptions and the personal responsibility they have to ensure their choices do not adversely affect society as a whole.


Males living as females and females living as males has been part of human culture and most human civilisations for as long as history has been recorded. It is far from a modern phenomenon with references in Ancient Greek writing, and some sources citing various forms of males acting as female activity as far back as 3000 – 2000 BC in Assyria.

In more recent times there were the Molly Houses of 18th and 19th Century England where homosexuals would meet socially and where cross-dressing was an integral part. There is also speculation that they were often used for male prostitution.

During the 20th Century and into the 21st Century there are numerous examples of sexes living as their opposite sex, although in the UK public display was mainly limited to lesbians dressing as men because there was no legislation against lesbianism, but there were severe penalties for gay men until 1967.

In most democratic societies today, men living as women and women living as men is accepted.

The vast majority of people who identify as ‘transgender’ live within society and get on with their lives much the same as anyone else. They live as valid members of their communities and are accepted as such.


The term ‘transsexual’ was a term used by campaigners and others to describe those who identified as the opposite sex, and is still used today by the ill-informed.

There can be no such thing as a ‘transsexual’ in the human species. It is a term that is illogical, inaccurate, and infers a false impression of people who identify as the opposite sex as ‘transitioning’ from their birth sex to the opposite sex.

The human species can not change from one sex to another under any circumstances – it is impossible, unlike Clownfish that can change sex at will.

Even with chemical treatments (such as hormones) and surgery, the changes are only cosmetic, and if chemical treatment is stopped the person will rapidly return to the natural state of their birth sex.


There are only two sexes in the human species, male and female. Even those who are born with both male and female biology who are referred to as ‘Intersex’ are predominantly male or female.

Some pressure groups and campaigners have claimed that Intersex people and transgender people are the same in principle. This is totally false. People considered as ‘transgender’ do not have male and female biology and gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder.

People with gender identity issues are often referred to by campaigners as being ‘assigned’ sex at birth. This is total and utter nonsense. A person’s biology determines birth sex, not some arbitrary process of assignment.

Sexual Orientation

In being sexually attracted to other humans a human can only be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. There are only two sexes in the human species to which a person can be sexually attracted, male and female.

Heterosexual people are attracted primarily to the opposite sex. Homosexual people are primarily attracted to the same sex. Bisexual people are attracted to both the same and opposite sexes to varying inconsequential degrees. Asexual people have no interest in (or feelings of) sexual activity or sexual attraction.

The numerous new terms generated by people who claim to have some other sexuality are junk. Terms such as ‘pan-sexual’ mean nothing whatsoever and are merely attempts by individuals to gain attention – to try and make themselves ‘special’ in some way.

Even though someone may identify themselves as heterosexual or homosexual does not mean that they are solely sexually attracted to the same or opposite sex all of the time in all circumstances. It means they are predominantly attracted to the opposite or same sex.


Gender is one of the most contentious terms used in society at the current time, with claims of numerous gender possibilities by some campaigners.

Gender is different to sex. Sex concerns the biological, and gender concerns the self-perception of a person within society’s generally accepted definition male and female roles.

For example, a biological male who perceives themselves as female could be described (or self-identify as) female gender. They identify with the roles of females in society.

This is where the term ‘transgender’ comes from. It is a more accurate way of referring to people who primarily wish to live their lives as members of the opposite sex than the term ‘transsexual’.

Gender identity is a personal psychological construct that is based on the person’s feelings and perceptions.

At the current time there is no correlation between gender identity and any biological influencer.

There have been claims by some campaigners that there is a link between biological differences in transgender people and gender identity. These claims are false and based on factual information concerning a much wider range of society with mental health conditions being taken out of context and manipulated. This will become clearer later on.

Gender Dysphoria

Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnostic term for the psychological disorder where someone feels they identify with the concept and behaviour of the opposite sex as defined by the society in which they exist.

Before DSM-5, transgenderism was referred to as Gender Identity Disorder. The change to Gender Dysphoria was made after pressure on the American Psychiatric Association when lobby groups demanded it was changed.

It is in the range of psychological disorders known as personality disorders.

In brief, personality disorders are where a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours cause problems for them or/and others in society. The person’s perception of their problems is often externalised as being because society (in general or specifically) does not accept them (for whatever reason they formulate in their minds). Personal interactions are generally dysfunctional or difficult to maintain. The person exhibits attention seeking behaviours that create chaos to some degree.

Personality disorders range from the relatively mild and harmless to extremely harmful disorders such as antisocial personality disorder (in which the person exhibits pathological psychopathic traits) and narcissistic personality disorder.

All personality disorders are formed from the person’s dysfunctional analysis of their world through which they create their own delusion that is significantly different to reality.

Gender and Sexual Orientation

Gender identity does not necessarily dictate sexual orientation. A person with an opposite gender identity to that of their birth sex can be sexually attracted (or not) to the same or opposite sex in the same way as anyone else. A male who identifies as female may still be sexually attracted to females, and so on.

Gender Reversal

Remarkably, at the current time there is insufficient reliable data to indicate the percentage of people who have undergone ‘sex reassignment surgery’ and who have sought to reverse the procedure, although there are those who do seek reversal surgery.

The same situation is true of people who have stopped ‘transition’ treatment who have not had surgical procedures. There is no reliable data although there are people who stop or drop out of medical processes whether in the short or long term.

There is information from official sources concerning the number of ‘sexual reassignment’ surgeries that have been performed, and the number of people seeking medical treatment to ‘transition’.

Clinical Diagnosis

Gender dysphoria/transsexualism can only be diagnosed after an in-depth period of assessment using defined measures by suitably qualified professionals in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. The criteria for diagnosis are defined in the  ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ Version 5 (DSM–5) produced by the ‘American Psychiatric Association’ (APA) – primarily used in the United States – and the International Classification of Diseases version 11 (ICD-11) produced by the World Health Organisation (WHO) – used globally. Both publications are updated as and when necessary.

Before it’s introduction in 2013 proposed changes for DSM-5 was widely criticised by professionals in the field of mental health and representative organisations, and criticism continues.

One of the more contentious criticisms is the medicalisation of mental health conditions and natural human experience. The APA has been accused of creating diagnostic criteria which serve the organisation’s own interests, including it’s relationships with the drug industry, the financial interests of DSM panel members, and a lack of cultural consideration or flexibility.

Dr. Allen Frances, psychiatry professor emeritus at Duke, and chair of the previous DSM-4 task force at the APA, described the DSM-5 as a ‘sad day for psychiatry’. In an article on the website ‘Psychology Today’ Frances states “My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public – be sceptical and don’t follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication.” He goes on to state that over fifty mental health professional organisations petitioned for a review independent of the APA to evaluate the APA’s evidence and to evaluate the risks and benefits of recommendations derived from the DSM-5.

It is important to note the controversy of the DSM-5 in relation to transsexualism. Medical professionals still cite the DSM-5 as their primary source of reference relating to gender dysphoria and treatment routes, despite warnings from their own professional licensing organisations, such as ‘The British Psychological Society’

In using a flawed or inappropriate classification system clinicians are failing to look objectively at their patients’ problems and needs, instead ‘shoehorning’ their patients in to inappropriate diagnostic categories rather than fitting the ‘category’, or diagnosis, to the patient. This is neither a recent problem, nor is it limited to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  Misdiagnosis in mental health by psychiatrists is a perpetual problem, particularly with the inappropriate diagnosis of people as suffering from schizophrenia. Once diagnosed with a condition it can be extremely difficult to be reassessed and get a real diagnosis. Psychiatrists rarely go against or challenge the diagnosis of a colleague.

Does any of this really matter?

In the scheme of worldly matters, the details of why or how someone chooses to live their lives may seem inconsequential. The world consists of individuals all with their own perspectives and quirks living their lives within their own version of reality in which ever society they exist in.

Whether someone wants to live as some form of analogue of the opposite sex or as something else, provided they cause no harm to others then there is a strong argument that it is not the task of a modern society to interfere with their personal decision.

However, the freedom to live as one wishes comes with personal responsibility and is not unconditional.

Whether we like them or agree with them or not, society is formed through mutual agreements and an understanding that fundamental principles are maintained by it’s members. In most progressive modern societies there is a general agreement that people can live as they want provided they do not have a negative impact on society as a whole or it’s individual members.

Some individual actions that could result in harm to others are dealt with through a legal framework of some kind (such as laws against taking human life) which can vary from society to society. Other rules or expectations are subtler and based on natural human interaction and accepted traditions – such as politeness, queuing in line, and so on (again, variable depending on the particular society).

Individuals are expected to comply with these societal norms to be able to live their lives as they wish – society expects the individual to contribute to the greater good.

Problems and conflicts arise when individuals (or groups) fail to consider the wider implications and ramifications of their choices and actions on society as a whole, and remain focused on their own interests – such as the issue of ‘transgender kids’.

Transgender Kids

Here we enter into an area that is in direct contravention of biological and psychological fact, let alone common sense and societal norms.

According to the Gender Identity Development Service at The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the number of referrals to the service has massively increased, from 97 in 2009 to 2,519 in 2018.

Significant concerns have been raised within medical professions concerning their members who actively engage in facilitating gender changes in children. The interventions used by these clinicians completely ignore fundamental factual science concerning human biological and psychological development.

Humans start to develop a conscience between the ages of nine and ten (or thereabouts). A conscience is necessary for the analytical process we all have which makes sense of the world we live in through informed decision making. It is impossible to make decisions or to understand concepts that affect us or others without a conscience being in place.

At such a young age a human is just beginning to understand some aspects of their existence, such as the basic difference between right and wrong. This is provided that the child is developing in a psychologically and biologically healthy manner and environment. This is why the age of criminal responsibility in most developed countries is set to around ten years of age, with leeway depending on the individual and their development.

A child’s perception of gender is NOT based on their own internal analysis and processing of informed data concerning themselves. It comes from a very basic perception based on the psychological environment they are exposed to. Children develop perceptions of themselves and the world through being mentored, mimicking, and learning which actions please other people in the child’s life they seek approval from – such as parents and peers. Children do not have the capacity to process or understand the complexities of gender and sexual identity, they only understand what gains approval and validation and what does not.

Children are in a continual state of experimentation within their environment. This is one of the most basic learning functions of a human being. As well as experimenting to see what gets them approval and what does not, children also experiment through play and interacting with their physical environment, and with other children where they start to develop basic social skills.

In common with many other species, human young will try things in order to learn what the outcome will be. Touch fire – ouch, it hurts – don’t touch fire again. A similar process is: child does something – child gains approval/attention – child repeats to get attention/approval.

A child that displays behaviour that may seem to parents to indicate some kind of gender conflict is not necessarily so, and is highly unlikely in younger children. Their behaviour is most likely to be because they like some particular aspect of their interaction, or because of perceived or actual conflicts with their peers.

As a hypothetical example, if a male child perceives some kind of conflict with (or rejection by) the groups of male peers they normally interact with (perhaps because of a bully in the group), they will probably be reluctant to engage with that same sex group. If they find they are readily accepted by a female group of peers, their natural reaction will be to interact more with the female group. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of gender identity. This kind of preference to interact with the opposite gender is more prevalent in girls who display ‘tomboy’ behaviour. It neither means the female child has a gender identity issue or that they may have lesbian inclinations – it is merely based on their preference for the male group’s activities at that time.

The most influential factor in a young child’s life is it’s parents. The child relies on the parents to fulfil it’s physical and emotional needs. The parents affect the child’s behaviour through establishing boundaries, teaching the child what is right and wrong, and develop the child’s view of themselves, others, and the society in which they exist.

In general, a child who is brought up in a dysfunctional environment will become dysfunctional themselves, and vice versa.

Parenting is a huge responsibility in modern society and there are serious ramifications for the parents, the child, and society if the parents fail to mentor and teach the child in an emotionally well-balanced home.

Although a child should be free enough to make their own discoveries through exploration and play, part of the parent’s duties is to help the child understand their role within society, both in terms of behaviour and by helping the child to understand the role of the sexes both biologically and within the norms set by society.

Allowing a child to explore their society without appropriate guidance will result in the child becoming confused and finding it difficult to put aspects of their life experience in to context. The child becomes overloaded with information about experiences that they do not have the fundamental skills to process and analyse as they get older.

A child overloaded with unresolved information will take whatever explanations they find and use them to process the information. This could be from peers, or as we see in this digital age, information from the internet. The child does not have the life skills to decide which information is correct or applicable, or which could be wrong or damaging.

If the parents are dysfunctional and lack the basic understanding of their role then the child will could be exposed to unhelpful and damaging mentoring and guidance. This is particularly the case where parents do not engage with their children and set appropriate boundaries. A big part of a child’s learning is understanding the boundaries within different relationships and society.

In essence, it is the parent’s job to instil survival skills in the child so they can cope with the challenges they will face throughout life and to ensure the child can cope with personal responsibility.

The role of the parents plays a huge part in the child’s understanding of gender. The child does not have an intrinsic knowledge or life experience to understand what ‘gender’ means in the real world. They are in a world of play and discovery – a world of fantasy that they use to filter information, learn behaviour, and to understand learning.

If a parent is unaware of their child’s social learning and mentoring needs, they can wrongly attribute the child’s interactions with the opposite sex (or objects normally associated with the opposite sex) as some kind of ‘gender identity’ problem rather than being a natural response to other influencers.

This kind of ignorance will have disastrous consequences for the child. Children shoehorned in to ‘gender identities’ are being forced (whether intentionally or not, and whether overtly or not) into a situation where they will comply with the wishes of those they want to please. Children will even magnify their behaviour and expression to ensure the approval of parents and others they perceive as important in their lives.

Children are hugely suggestible and extensive research into instilling false memories and concepts into children is well documented.

Children need to be allowed to be children with the safety and sensible guidance of parents who do not cosset (which is another form of child abuse) or read their own perspectives in to their child’s behaviour based on misleading or false information – which is available in abundance, especially from campaigners and organisations desperate to ‘normalise’ their own dysfunctional perspectives.

Campaigners will claim that the rise in children being presented with ‘gender dysphoria’ is the result of increased ‘awareness’ though media exposure. There is no evidence to support this claim.

It is much more likely that propaganda campaigns and the compliance of popular media outlets in covering the subject for fear of being seen as ‘prejudice’ in some way, combined with the vast array of misinformation on the internet, is responsible for parents and older children developing fantasies while looking for reasons for their feelings and/or perceived internal conflicts – particularly from the age of around ten when the conscience starts to develop.


A pivotal period in all humans’ lives is puberty.

Puberty is the only time in a human’s life where there are drastic biological and psychological changes that will determine the human’s sexuality and gender identity (regardless of any other factors, including societal constraints or influences) for the rest of their existence.

Although there are common traits we can identify in puberty across the majority of the human species, puberty is still an individual experience and can be a time of self-doubt, psychological turmoil, experimentation, uncertainty about one’s place in the world, and so on.

For some human’s puberty comes and goes without too much drama, while for others it can be an incredibly disruptive and confusing experience, both for the young person and those around them. It is the natural biological process of moving from childhood to adulthood.

Puberty is essential for a human development and for understanding the self.

In gender identity clinics there is a ‘treatment’ option which involves blocking the natural onset of puberty in males with chemicals as an aid to prevent the body from developing it’s natural male characteristics. The body also includes the brain, which will be prevented from developing naturally.

When we consider that a human’s sexual orientation and gender identity CAN NOT be naturally established until after puberty (and sometimes several years after the confusion of puberty has subsided), it is illogical that puberty prevention interventions are used to assist in maintaining a presumption of something that has not yet occurred.

With the limited knowledge and perceptions a child has of themselves pre-puberty, parents and medical practitioners who place a child in to a ‘gender identity problem’ category and administer such ‘treatments’ are abusing the child both physically and psychologically.

It is interesting to note that this is the only psychological disorder where the complicit actions of parents and medical professionals are permitted, and in some circumstances encouraged.

Gender Identity Services and Kids

Of particular concern in the UK (there are similar services around the world) is the ‘Gender Identity Development Service’ provided by the ‘Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’ located in London – a publicly funded service for children and adolescents and their parents, who claim the child is experiencing difficulties with their gender identity.

One of the problems with this kind of service is that they are based on a presupposition that gender identity issues experienced by young people (or perceived by their parents) are something other than serious mental disorders, and become complicit in reinforcing delusions before the child has had the opportunity to fully develop their sexual and gender identity as a natural human being.

These services plough ahead within their own narrow perspective regardless of wider held professional research and evidence that is incongruent with their methodologies, and regardless of concerns expressed by professionals and the wider public.

A major criticism of these kind of services is that they fail to compete a full analysis of the child, their parents, and the environment the child exists in and rush to the conclusion that the child is having an experience based on some kind of natural disparity within themselves.

Something of major concern is the way children are being experimented on in these clinics where there is no known outcome or known long term effects of the treatment being administered, particularly in the area of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Many children are given drugs whilst logically being unable to consent to such treatment or understand the effects or ramifications. This would not be permitted in any other area of medicine where there is not an immediate threat to life.

There is also evidence that health professionals are complicit in the delusions of parents through fear of being seen as discriminatory. In the High Court of Justice in the UK in 2016 the court found that a mother had caused “significant emotional harm” to her child by putting pressure on him to identify as a girl. The judge stated that rather than protecting the child, professionals involved in the child’s care had “accepted wholesale” that the boy should be regarded as a girl. The judge was highly critical and regarded that the professionals involved in the child’s case had failed to put the child’s wellbeing first.

The professionals criticised in the judgement were the medical practitioners, social services, and the child’s school, all who just accepted the mother’s statements and reinforced her delusional beliefs.

Puberty blockers

Puberty blockers (also known as hormone suppressors) are chemicals (such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)) that were original developed to treat very rare and potentially serious conditions that resulted in the abnormally early onset of puberty (precocious puberty), which has occurred in children as young as 5 or 6 years-old. They work by supressing pituitary hormones that result in sex steroid production.

Once chemical treatment is ceased, normal puberty resumes (or starts) between 3 or 12 months later. Long term use has the risk of causing osteoporosis, triggering cancers, and a high risk of compromised fertility. Other effects are largely unknown, but there is some evidence that prolonged use can cause problems with brain development.

The presence and impact of non-gender mental disorders.

Extensive research has been conducted in to people presenting with gender identity disorders and those diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and the presence of non-gender related mental conditions.

The presence of other disorders will influence a person’s perception of the society they live in, their views of themselves, the causes of their perceived problems, their relationships with others, and will influence future development.

Disorders develop early on in a person’s life through the child’s experience in their environment. There is some evidence to suggest that there may be genetic contributors, but this has not been reliably confirmed at the time of writing.

Although there are different types of disorder, each with their own diagnostic criteria, there are some common factors that could contribute to disorder development. These include:

  • A chaotic family life.
  • Family members (particularly parents) with mental health problems.
  • Family members (particularly parents) with substance abuse issues.
  • Poor social support from parents.
  • Poor social support from peers (particularly at school).
  • Poor social support from organisations such as schools.
  • Experiencing a traumatic event.
  • Verbal, sexual, psychological, or physical abuse.
  • Over-protective parents or environment.
  • Lack of boundary setting by parents or within environment.
  • Limited or restricted social interactivity.

Personality disorders are a personal experience in that each person will have developed the disorder through their own personal experience and analysis of that experience. The way the disorder affects the person also depends on their experience.

A person with a personality disorder may be disruptive and display antisocial and attention seeking behaviour, or they may be in constant internal conflict and distress to some extent and attempt to disengage from society. A person’s behaviour depends on the type of personality disorder they have.

In most instances, the person will:

  • Have difficulty forming or keeping close relationships.
  • Have difficulty engaging with others in general society.
  • Have difficulty engaging with friends or family members.
  • May be prone to get into conflict and trouble, sometimes leading to criminality.
  • Have difficulty controlling feelings or behaviours.
  • Have difficulty listening to other people, particularly those who may challenge aspects of the person’s perceptions.
  • May feel unhappy or distressed.
  • May be upset often.
  • May harm other people or living creatures.

Important note: The symptoms of mental health conditions can exist across a range of psychological, neurological, and biological conditions. Diagnosis can only be made by appropriately trained and experienced health professionals.

Research throughout the 1990s up to the present day has shown a significant relationship between people diagnosed with gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder (GID) as it was previously known) and personality disorders.

In their paper ‘Psychiatric comorbidity in gender identity disorder’, (2005, U. Hepp, B. Kraemer, U. Schnyder, N. Miller, A. Delsignore, Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland) researchers concluded ‘Lifetime psychiatric comorbidity in GID patients is high, and this should be taken into account in the assessment and treatment planning of GID patients’

Their research found that 41% of people diagnosed as having GID met the criteria for current and lifetime personality disorder or multiple personality disorders, with 71% meeting the criteria for mood disorders overall. This is high.

The prevalence of personality disorders in the general population ranges from around 7% to around 12%.

In another research paper, ‘Personality Disorders in Persons with Gender Identity Disorder’ (2014, Duišin, Batinic, Barišic, Djordjevic, Vujovic,Bizic, Clinic of Psychiatry, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.). As with the previous research, the authors concluded ‘The authors of the study stressed the great importance of including personality assessment in standard GID diagnostic procedures, as presence or absence of PD [personality disorder] comorbidity is one of the contributing factors to the successful or unsuccessful SRS [sex reassignment surgery] outcome’.

The findings of this research were very similar to the previous study. 46.66% of people diagnosed with gender identity disorder met the criteria for multiple personality disorders. The authors also conclude that people diagnosed with gender identity disorder ‘…have higher presence of PDs, particularly Paranoid PD, avoidant PDs, and comorbid PDs. In addition, MtF (transwomen are people assigned male at birth who identify as women) persons are characterized by a more severe psychopathological profile.’

In the study ‘The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder’, (2014, Mazaheri Meybodi A, Hajebi A, Ghanbari Jolfaei A., Iran University of Medical Sciences) the researchers conclude ‘The findings of this study revealed that the prevalence of personality disorders was higher among the participants, and the most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%), and borderline personality disorder was less common among the studied patients.’

In July 2018 an article entitled ‘Gender Dysphoria Differential Diagnoses’ on the medical professional website Medscape Mohammed A Memon MD (Psychiatrist/Geriatric Psychiatrist, Carolina Center for Behavioral Health and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine) states ‘Lifetime psychiatric comorbidity in this disorder is high, and this should be taken into account in the assessment and treatment planning of gender dysphoria. Twenty-nine percent of the patients had no concurrent or lifetime-associated disorders; 39% percent fulfilled the criteria for current and 71% for current and/or lifetime-associated disorders. Forty-two percent of the patients were diagnosed with one or more personality disorders.

There are many other researchers who have found definitive links between gender identity conflicts and personality disorders. Any argument that the presence of other psychological disfunction is a result of the person’s experience of gender dysphoria is false. The research clearly shows that personality disorders existed before the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and before the person expressed gender identity conflict.

Apart from personality disorders, there are other conditions that can contribute to gender identity conflicts.

According to the Gender Identity Development Service autistic spectrum conditions can be hugely influential in adolescents. They state:

‘There seems to be a higher prevalence of autistic spectrum conditions (ASC) in clinically referred, gender dysphoric (GD) adolescents than in the general adolescent population. Holt, Skagerberg & Dunsford (2014) found that 13.3% of referrals to the service in 2012 mentioned comorbid ASC (although this is likely to be an underestimate). This compares with 9.4% in the Dutch service; whereas in the Finnish service, 26% of adolescents were diagnosed to be on the autism spectrum (Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2015).

Why there is a higher prevalence of ASD in GD young people is still unknown. A review of the literature by Van Der Meisen et al (2016), groups underlying hypotheses into biological, social and psychological assumptions.

  • Biological: Extreme Male Brain Theory – ASD as a result of Extreme Male Brain. Prenatal testosterone may not only lead to a higher disposition towards ASD but also GD as an expression of extreme male characteristics- explains why girls with ASD would be more susceptible to develop GD.
  • Social: Poor understanding of social relationships, which is a characteristic of individuals with ASD, suggests that GD could develop as a consequence of difficulty in social interactions. E.G boy with ASD who had been bullied by other boys might have developed a feeling of belonging to female sex out of aversion to male gender. Parkinson (2014) described 2 birth-assigned men who had feelings of being different and interpreted these feelings as GD and therefore requested gender reassignment therapies.
  • Psychological: ASD – link with GD. From the literature review, we can conclude that knowledge on the co-occurrence of GD and ASD is far from complete. More research is needed to find out which factors are important in this co-occurrence. Despite the limited current literature on GD and ASD, there is now some replicated evidence of an over-representation of co-occurring GD and ASD compared to what would be expected by chance based on the prevalence in the general population. It is plausible that not only one suggested hypothesis but multiple suggested hypotheses may play a role in the GD-ASD co-occurrence. Alternatively, of course, the two may be present without being related to each other (Ristori and Steensma 2016).’

In addition, there could also be biological contributors such as hormonal difficulties or abnormalities.

Mothers of ‘transgender kids’

Research has been conducted into the way family dynamics influence a child alleged to be experiencing ‘gender identity’ issues.

In a study on mothers of children who were diagnosed with gender identity disorder (‘Mothers of boys with gender identity disorder: a comparison of matched controls’, 1991, Martantz and Coastes, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) researchers found that 53% met diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder (compared to only 6% of the control group) or clinical depression

The study also found that the parenting style of the mothers with ‘transgender’ children discouraged the development of autonomy and encouraged interdependence.


Campaigners on transgender issues claim that there is a high rate of suicide in people who have gender identity disorder, and that this is the result of prejudice transgender people experience in society because of their gender choices. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate these claims.

There is evidence that people diagnosed with gender dysphoria have a higher rate of suicide attempts than the general population, but there has been no reliable research into the causes, and claims of cause are anecdotal subjective, and unverified.

The suicide rate of 40% is thrown about ad hoc by the media and gender identity campaigners. This is misinformation.

The fact is that studies (such as ‘Transgender Adolescent Suicide Behavior’ (2018, Toomey, Syvertsen, Shramko, American Academy of Pediatrics) have found that around 40% of adolescents between the ages of 11-19 years-old with gender identity issues self-reported that they have attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

Claims that there is a suicide rate of 40% among people with gender identity issues as a group is incorrect. This rate is for adolescents who self-reported between he ages of 11-19 years old.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children and adolescents in the general population and occurs at a higher rate than in any other age group.

In the ‘Annual Research Review: Suicide among youth – epidemiology, (potential) etiology, and treatment’ (2017, Cha, Franz, Guzman, Glenn, Kleiman, Nock, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) state that the prevalence of suicidal ideation in adolescents ranges from 19.8 to 24.0%, starting after the age of 10 years and rapidly increasing up to age 17 years. Those who experience suicidal ideation during adolescence are 12 times more likely to attempt suicide by the age of 30 years. Suicide attempts typically occur after the age of 12 years-old and increase in prevalence during mid to late adolescence. The rate of suicide attempts in this group is between 8% to 11% depending on difference in research methodology between different studies.

The presence of mental disorders significantly increases the risk of attempted and actual suicide.

Research conducted in 2006 showed that the rate of suicide attempts in adolescents diagnosed with borderline personality disorder is around 70%. (‘Non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents: diagnostic correlates and relation to suicide attempts’, 2006, Nock, Joiner, Gordon, Lloyd-Richardson, Prinstein, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, United States).

Although any suicide rate is too high, in the context of age and mental disorders the attempted suicide rate quoted in adolescents with gender identity issues is about average moving towards the low side.

Claims that the ‘suicide rate’ among the ‘transgender’ group by campaigners is higher than any other societal group is false and misleading.

Woman or man

The claim that people who have had some kind of cosmetic alteration should be called ‘man’ or ‘woman’ to reflect that alteration is contrary to the meaning and origin of the words.

The origin of ‘woman’ comes from the Old English word wifmann which means ‘female human’. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘womb’. The word ‘man’ comes from the Old English word Mann (or monn) and was gender neutral, meaning ‘human’ in the context of ‘person’. The Old English world for man was wēr (meaning ‘male human’). In later Norman times ‘man’ came to mean ‘male human’.


Contrary to the claims of some campaigners, there is no relation between gender identity issues and transvestism. Transvestism is where people like to dress as members of the opposite sex for pleasure – not because they have gender identity issues or wish to change their gender. It is often a fetish, but can also occur for cultural, religious, or entertainment reasons. Although some people may gain sexual pleasure from the activity, some do not.

The ‘professor’ of transgender studies

The radical political agendas of campaigners have infiltrated the world of education. One of the most concerning examples is that of Nicholas Matte (not to be confused with the Canadian hockey player of the same name), a lecturer in ‘transgender studies’ at the University of Toronto.

Matte claims that there is no such thing as biological sex (link to YouTube video) and that it is a ‘popular misconception’.

Being involved in ‘transgender studies’ it would be reasonable to assume that Matte is suitably qualified to make such statements through possessing extensive experience and qualifications in the areas of psychological dysfunction – or at least some area of medicine.

The fact is that Matte possesses ZERO qualifications in anything related to medicine or mental health. He is in fact a ‘doctor’ of – well that is difficult to pin down. The University of Toronto profile of Matte seems to go to great effort specifically not refer to his qualifications with just a vague reference to him being an ‘interdisciplinary historian’. Further research in to Matte’s qualifications were equally vague at the time of writing.

What we can ascertain of Matte is that he is a radical campaigner for ‘transgender rights’ with a history of being totally intolerant of any opposing viewpoints from students (in particular), even those based in factual evidence (let alone common sense and objective thinking). Matte prefers to create confusing fluff and nonsense to mask the fact that he constantly fails to explain any evidence for his viewpoints.

Although Matte makes many claims none of them stand up to scrutiny, with most based on misrepresentation of fact out of context within his own subjective framework to reinforce his own deluded thinking.

The list of ‘research publications’ Matte is alleged to have produced or contributed to are nothing more than essays for very minor publications with virtually no academic readership or credibility, including mostly gay, lesbian, and transgender publications.

What is concerning (and suspicious from the author’s perspective) is that there seems to be very little information concerning Matte and his past academic involvement. Matte seems to have done a good job of ensuring any information concerning ‘him’ has been erased. Perhaps there is good reason for this or perhaps Matte is hiding something he doesn’t want the public to know about.

This kind of indoctrination style of teaching in educational establishments is wholly unacceptable., yet it is becoming more common as universities collude with the politically correct fascist radicals.

It is one thing presenting alternative viewpoints based in fact and evidence from suitably qualified people that give students useful information on which to form their own viewpoints, but totally another when universities are pushing nothing more than some individual or group delusion or agenda.

Impact on legislation

Something that affects everyone in society is legislation. Most developed societies have legislation concerning discrimination and rights, many with specific references to groups deemed ‘minorities’ or ‘at risk’ of perceived disproportionate discrimination. Depending on the society being referenced, these may include specific references to people who identify as ‘transgender’.

One of the problems with legislation is that it treats (or considers) people who identify as ‘transgender’ as being in the same general group as lesbian and gay people, yet they are totally different. As we established earlier, sexuality has little importance in criteria for someone identifying as ‘transgender’, who could be primarily heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual – much the same as sexuality in other groups. Although there may be greater numbers of people who identify as ‘transgender’ who happen to be homosexual, there are also numbers who identify as heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual.

Placing people who identify as ‘transgender’ under the same umbrella as people who identify through their sexuality is an error.

Sexuality may be of very little importance to a person experiencing gender identity issues, yet there is a presumption by governments that because a person may identify as the opposite to their birth sex it automatically follows that they are sexually attracted to the same sex that is the opposite of the sex they identify with. This is an error.

Because self-appointed groups based on sexuality claim to represent people who identify as ‘transgender’ because the majority of their ‘transgender’ supporters or members happen to be similarly sexually orientated is not representative of ‘transgender’ people as a whole.

We again find a situation where misinformation and propaganda are influencing decision makers in society because self-appointed representative groups lobby and protest hard spreading their own distorted interpretations of evidence and junk science.

Legislation and public policy affect every aspect of society, including the provision of healthcare, education, social care, and so on.

Governments are not addressing real gender identity issues when they implement such legislation and policies based on these false perceptions of people who are experiencing a severe mental disorder.

Conclusion (or, why you should care)

The evidence is very clear. Gender identity disorders are psychological constructs formed as a result of the person’s experiences and perceptions – there is no other reason.
To reinforce what gender identity problems are – they are disorders in a person’s thinking – not a mental illness.

The disorder can be formed from an early age based on the environment the child is raised in. In particular, parents play an essential role in the development of the child, and if parenting is dysfunctional, so this will affect the child. The mother’s role is very influential in the child’s life, and if the child is involved in an overly interdependent relationship with the mother, this can lead to serious problems for the child in developing autonomy. This can occur unintentionally, where the mother is unaware that their protection and/or dominance over the child is causing problems in the child’s psychological development.

Superficially, it may seem as though the child is in a caring and nurturing environment, but somewhere there will be problems in the family dynamics. Some research has indicated that there may be a genetic disposition to developing personality disorders, although this is still being research and there are no conclusive results at the time of writing.

The child may grow into adolescence, or even adulthood, before gender identity issues start to materialise or be expressed. Even so, the same basis for the disorder exists and careful in-depth analysis of the person’s life will reveal interpersonal and behavioural problems from an early age.

Rather than getting the help they need, a person expressing gender identity issues is steamrollered into a course of medical intervention that fails to properly assess their psychological condition, or explore their feelings and emotions and the real reasons for them.

In fact, the current system for the assessment and treatment of transgender issues reinforces the delusional thinking of people with very genuine and often debilitating problems.

This is further reinforced by institutions such as education, who out of ignorance and political correctness, plunge the child into an environment where their delusions are further reinforced.

Society has lost all sense of objectivity, rational analysis, and the reality of gender identity issues, instead taking on the misinformation of radical groups and their accomplices who have their own agendas to push on to society.

Mainstream media are also complicit in reinforcing the lie of gender identity issues, and are probably responsible for the huge increase in the number of children and young people being referred to specialist transgender clinics and services. They are promoting a convenient excuse for far deeper issues, which also appeals to those with personality disorders based in narcissism desperate to be perceived as being ‘special’ in some way.

Although gender identity issues may seem insignificant – or even a novelty or an interesting ‘quirk’ confined to a small group to most people going about their daily lives – the way they are perceived and addressed, and the wider damaging ramifications for society as a whole, are significant.

When we see public policy altered based on misinformation, or we see valuable resources being ploughed in to services that are inappropriate, it affects everyone. Pandering to the lobbying of small radical groups because of a fear of being targeted as discriminatory is of benefit to no one. Perhaps the confusion young people (in particular) feel in our society today is because we have failed to maintain truth and evidence as the basis for moving society forward.

As previously mentioned, there is nothing wrong with people living their lives as they wish provided they are aware of the personal responsibility their choices entail, and provided they do not negatively impact on society as a whole.

It is time that we realised that radical campaigners are very often agenda driven and use tactics to push those agendas that are not always based in fact or truth. We need to get away from the culture of fear and challenge them when needed.

Transgender issues have received a lot of attention in recent years, with a noticeable acceleration in the infiltration of radicals into fundamental institutions within our society.

We need to clear the clouds of misinformation and manipulation covering the truth.


If you want to know more about the tactics of radical groups you can read our article ‘The Rise of the Radical Fascist Idiot’.



Measuring equality on OUTCOME is illogical and clearly stupid

(Note: Links in this article will open in a new window/tab).

Something of a hot topic in recent times has been the claim that there is disparity between men and women in the workplace.  This disparity is claimed to be represented by differences in employment terms and in career opportunities.

The primary measure used in debates in the media is that of outcome – how many (or what percentage) of a sex is employed in whichever position of employment is being debated.

Measuring equality on outcome is extremely misleading and is based on unrealistic presumptions (Stanford, Equality of Opportunity and Education, Link here).

Although focusing on the topical debate concerning differences between male and female, the same principles apply to any measure of outcome based on difference between groups.

If the desired outcome is an equal split of employees between the two sexes then there must be a corresponding number of applicants equally split between the sexes. The same is true whatever percentages are used to measure the outcome – there must be a corresponding number of applicants representing the desired split in the outcome.

In employment terms, for the desired outcome to be valid each and every applicant must have EXACTLY the same qualifications, and must have EXACTLY the same experience required for the position. Measuring on quality of outcome makes three main presumptions:

  • Presumption one: Applicants are split equally between groups (in this case male and female).
  • Presumption two: All applicants have exactly the same qualifications.
  • Presumption three: All applicants have exactly the same experience.

If any of those three main presumptions are not met then the measurement of equality based on outcome is invalid – junk.

Those three main presumptions are quite concrete in their effect on the outcome measure. There are other factors that may not be directly related to the position that can affect whether someone is employed in a position or not.

These factors will depend on the type of employment, but some examples are:

  • Availability to work additional hours.
  • Availability to travel – perhaps at short notice.
  • Ability to communicate effectively.
  • Practicalities of working from home.
  • Ability to travel to and from work locations.
  • Membership of organisations (professional or otherwise)
  • Voluntary activities.
  • Following further education.
  • Leisure activities and hobbies
  • And so on…

There is the person’s previous work history (if any) and how well they coped with previous working environments and professional demands to also take in to account. Lastly there is the subjective interpretation of the person’s demeanour and presentation at interview (or during the recruitment process).

The possible number of differences between groups or people renders the quality of outcome measure useless and wholly inaccurate. The data still remains highly questionable (if not more so) when systems are implemented in an attempt to make the data more reliable. Junk in – junk out.

In order to facilitate a specific outcome (which in this case is an equal split between sexes) whoever is providing the opportunity would have to make significant compromises in standards and quality in order to attract sufficient numbers of whichever sex is claimed to be underrepresented. In effect, reducing the quality of applicants to such a degree that recruiting inappropriate applicants could (depending on the function) have serious ramifications on a range of much wider issues.

As a hypothetical example, a company is recruiting one new employee for a specific position to enable the company to maintain it’s function and standards. The position requires that the candidates meet specific criteria to maintain service or product standards. Let’s say that the candidates must have qualifications X, Y, and Z, and a minimum of five years’ experience.

  • Candidate One: Qualifications are X, Y, and Z with six years’ experience in the SAME role.
  • Candidate Two: Qualifications are W, X, Y, and Z with five years’ experience in a SIMILAR role.
  • Candidate Three: Qualifications X, Y, and X, with five years’ experience in a SIMILAR role.
  • Candidate Four: Qualifications X, Y, and X, with ten years’ experience in the SAME role.

All other things being equal, candidate four is the most likely best candidate based on qualifications and experience combined. In this example the sex of the applicant is immaterial – there is no requirement for the employee to be any particular sex. Anyone of either sex can apply for the position because here we have equality of OPPORTUNITY. Equality of outcome is immaterial.

If we take the same scenario and have to create an artificial environment where there is equality of outcome the situation becomes far more complicated.

The company has nine employees and is recruiting one more. Currently there are five males and four females employed. Therefore, to comply with quality of outcome criteria the company needs to recruit a female.

The company starts a campaign targeting females inviting applicants for the position. Note: Depending on the jurisdiction, specifically targeting one sex over another may be illegal.

The company receives three applications from females. However, none of them meet the minimum criteria for the position.

The company can do one of two things. It can continue it’s recruitment campaign in the hope that a suitably qualified female candidate will be attracted, or it can reduce the criteria for the position.

Either way, the function of the company is compromised. It will be forced to either operate with a reduced number of employees for longer than necessary, or it will have someone in a position who is not qualified to perform their function. Neither is desirable, and in some instances may be downright dangerous, or place further burden on the company by implementing systems to compensate for the employee’s lack of qualification and experience.

Another significant factor that throws the equality of outcome theory in to chaos is the natural inclination of males and females.

We often hear in the press that some organisation is claiming that some employment sector is ‘overrepresented’ by one sex or the other – usually male in current debates.

The inference of ‘overrepresented’ is hugely misleading. It presumes that there is an equal divide of interest between men and women in whatever the employment is, and also implies that the criteria for equality of outcome are valid – which they are not.

A hypothetical example could be that far more men are employed as truck drivers than women. If we use the term ‘overrepresentation’ it presumes that there are an equal number of men and women who want to drive trucks.

The reality is that women who want to drive trucks drive trucks – it is that simple.

We could factually state that women are ‘overrepresented’ in nursing. Again, the inference is that there are an equal number of men and women interested in nursing as a career.

The fact is that a man who wants to take up nursing as a career does so.

Research clearly shows that psychologically, men and women are inclined to have different areas of interest. Males tend to be interested in things and women tend to be interested in people. The fact that more men are employed in areas working with machines and more women are employed in caring professions is both logical and natural behaviour.

(One of a number of research projects is ‘Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests.’ Rong Su and James Rounds, 2009. American Psychological Association 0033-2909/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017364. Link to research paper in pdf format here).

There is a false perception that as society becomes more ‘equal’ so there will be a corresponding equal representation of male and female across all sectors of society, and on the surface may seem the logical outcome.

It is true that as society has become more equal in opportunities for males and females the number of each sex in the workplace has become more balanced, with far more women being in a position to work than they were 50 or 60 years ago.

However, a consequence of more equality of opportunity has resulted in a surprising result. The difference in the number of men or women employed in positions where they have a natural inclination increases dramatically. The representation of men in positions more concerned with things (mechanics, engineering, and so on) increases, as do the number of women in people-centred position (nursing, care, childcare, and so on).  Two recent studies confirm previous studies that people are far more likely to choose employment that fits their natural inclination when they have free choice.

(‘Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality.’, Falk and Hermie, 2018 Link here, and ‘Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding.’, Giolla and Kajonius, 2018, Link here.)

Equality of outcome purposely (or should that be ‘politically’) ignores scientific fact about the behavioural and psychological differences between the sexes.

The false overview generated through using equality of outcome as a measure will misinform the public and organisations who base their opinions and actions on that data. It can also lead to the groups involved having the false perception that they are discriminated against in some way, which can overshadow the fact that there are opportunities for the group if they choose to take them.

People who don’t have the time or resources to look past the claims will (naturally) readily accept them as true – especially if the claims appeal to their emotions and are presented by some perceived ‘authority’.

In our modern progressive societies, we should concentrate our efforts on EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY which is logical and beneficial to both sexes.

Equality of opportunity means that anyone, regardless of sex, race, religion, and so on, can take advantage of opportunities PROVIDED they meet whatever minimum criteria is in place. This then ensures that the quality of candidates is maintained and ensures that people who put personal effort in to developing their skills have real and meaningful opportunities – which they do in most modern societies.

Society will be engaging in very dangerous practices if it starts to implement different minimum standards based on which group someone belongs to. Minimum standards – whether that is in employment, gaining access to education, or other important areas of society – are established for a reason, and that reason is for the maintenance of quality and to aid society in moving forward.   If we start to reduce standards for no other reason that to cater for a specific group’s shortcomings quality will be reduced and evolution of society will slowly grind to a halt becoming a reflection of the lowest common denominator.

Equality can not be enforced through measuring outcomes. Equality is attained through offering people equality of opportunity. Whether they choose to accept or take advantage of those opportunities is up to them, and people will choose what suits them.

The Rise of the Radical Fascist Idiot

Wherever you consider yourself to be on the political spectrum, if you have been paying any attention to developments in western society over the past decade or so you will have noticed just how plainly stupid it is becoming.

The days when evidence, truth, logic, and common sense could be relied on to have some meaningful influence on the evolution of society are fading very fast.

Within any modern progressive society decisions have to be made for the common good, a balance of societal need and personal interests. Inevitably this results in some members or groups within society not having their personal interests met, even though their basic human needs are (or should be) catered for.

The basic needs of members of most western societies are legislated for through various human rights legislation that set a minimum entitlement or expectation for each human within the society.

As an example, the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) was established in the aftermath of World War Two and aimed to ensure such atrocious human rights violations as had occurred throughout that period would not be repeated in the future. A European court was established where citizens of member states could find legal redress in case of a rogue government abusing their fundamental rights under the legislation.

The ECHR came into effect in 1953, and the 18 Articles that make up the ECHR still have the same core duty – to protect fundamental rights and freedom of expression.

The Articles are:

  • Article 1 – obligation to respect human rights
  • Article 2 – right to life
  • Article 3 – prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
  • Article 4 – prohibition of slavery and forced labour
  • Article 5 – right to liberty and security
  • Article 6 – right to a fair trial
  • Article 7 – no punishment without law
  • Article 8 – right to respect privacy and family life
  • Article 9 – freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 10 – freedom of expression
  • Article 11 – freedom of assembly and association
  • Article 12 – right to marry
  • Article 13 – right to an effective remedy
  • Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination
  • Article 15 – derogation in time of emergency
  • Article 16 – restriction on political activity of non-nationals
  • Article 17 – prohibition of abuse of rights
  • Article 18 – limitation on use of restriction of rights

One of the myths that as been part of the propaganda of various radical groups over the years is that the ECHR allows individuals or groups to do as they please, often being cited as giving offenders of heinous crimes unreasonable protection and benefits they ‘should not’ be entitled to.

Depending on your viewpoint, perhaps morally perpetrators of certain crimes should not be entitled to the full protection of human rights legislation, but we can not be selective in who the legislation applies to, otherwise it would be pointless.

Although human rights legislation gives protection to everyone, it does not necessarily mean that everyone can do as they please, or even be covered by the legislation in certain circumstances.

Within most Articles there are exceptions where a person’s human rights covered by the Article can be restricted if they are against the greater good of society or a direct threat to the safety and security of citizens.

How these restrictions are implemented within each member state depends on the state’s implementation of it’s own human rights legislation, which must include the basic principles of the ECHR which are adjudicated on within the country’s own legal system.

The ‘European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) only adjudicate as a last resort once the member state’s appeal process has been exhausted, and only on cases the court deems to have grounds for appeal. Despite propaganda, far more cases are rejected and adjudicated against than are heard or adjudicated for by the ECtHR.

An example of how radical propaganda which was wholly inaccurate was believed by the majority of UK citizens was in the case of the extradition of hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri to the United States.

Under human rights legislation the UK (as a signatory) can not extradite anyone to a territory where the person would face a death penalty or be subjected to inhumane treatment.

Hamza appealed to the ECtHR on the grounds that in the United States he could face a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole – which his legal representatives presented as being inhumane treatment under the ECHR.

The ECtHR directed the UK government to seek assurances that Hamza would not be subjected to inhumane treatment if he were extradited, and that these assurances must be presented to the court by a specified date – giving the UK government plenty of time to seek and present the assurances.

However, the home secretary of the time, Theresa May, failed to present the assurances on time. The court had to adjourn it’s decision and gave the UK government further time to present the assurances.

It was at this time that there was a propaganda campaign by radical elements and the UK government that the ECtHR had ‘blocked’ Hamza’s extradition. This was totally untrue. It was the failure of the home secretary to comply with a simple directive that caused the delay.

Eventually the home secretary did present assurances (after other delays due to the home secretary’s incompetence) and Hamza was extradited.

Even so, much of the UK public is still under the impression that the ECtHR was obstructive and tried to prevent the extradition – which is untrue.

Although Hamza was a despicable human it doesn’t detract from the fact that he was entitled to protection under human rights legislation – whether we personally agree with it or not.

You can look up ECtHR cases and decisions here (opens in a new tab/window) as well as statistical information concerning member states.

The problem with this kind of misinformation is that it becomes stuck in people’s minds as truth, and once something is generally believed as a ‘truth’ it is very difficult to dispel the lie, even with undeniable evidence.

The reasons why people will continue to believe misinformation are varied, but often include social compliance, the misinformation appeals to their own prejudices or view of the world, lack of analytical skills or capacity, laziness, elitism, personal financial or perceived social gain, and so on.

In the Hamza case, this becomes problematic because the opinion of a large number of the population is that the ECtHR was purposely obstructive in allowing justice to be done. In fact, the ECtHR were ensuring justice was done despite the incompetence of the UK government department involved. This then has a knock-on effect when there are decisions to be made concerning the UK’s interaction with the European Union (which is a separate agreement but perceived by many as being the same thing), as in the current Brexit situation. When analysis of the people who voted to leave the EU was conducted 49% (opens in a new window/tab) cited their perceived lack of judicial autonomy as one of the reasons. ECtHR ruling myths contributed to this perception.

In another example (within the UK) in recent times are the claims made by radical feminist groups of a ’gender pay gap’.

Their claim is that women in the same employment as men are being paid less.

There has been legislation in the UK since 1970 prohibiting less favourable conditions of employment and pay based on gender. Current legislation is the Equality Act 2010 which also protects the rights of women who become pregnant while in employment, with severe penalties for employers if they commit an offence under the act.

The claims of a ‘gender pay gap’ have been proven to be wholly false. They are based on ‘research’ being taken out of context and extremely poor analysis of information.

A woman working in the same position as a man working the same hours is paid the same. Where the alleged ‘pay gap’ is seen is where women have taken time off from the workplace (perhaps to look after children), not worked the same hours as men, do not have the same experience, or are less qualified. This ‘gap’ would apply in the same conditions regardless of gender.

Even though the factual data shows there is no difference unless a criminal offence has been committed, the propaganda from radical feminists still gained popularity in the media and various popular internet platforms. This was to such an extent that the government and political parties cited the ‘gender pay gap’ as a hot issue, and established various committees to investigate and address the matter – a total waste of public money.

In these two examples, we can see that radical groups can have a significant influence on the society we live in purely through their propaganda that they remain unaccountable for.  All they have to do is get the misinformation ball rolling and it will gain it’s own momentum if enough people accept the spoon-fed false version, rather than investigating the matter further.

The way radical groups operate is very similar whatever their cause.

A group may be established through a defined ‘representative’ organisation (or collective of organisations) or a collection of individuals with the same claimed concerns. Some remain small and others evolve into large commercially driven organisations.  Whether an identifiable organisation or a collection of individuals, they are usually formed and evolve in much the same way.

A group of people come together in some common perceived cause. Their claimed concerns may be genuine or false, it makes no difference to the process. If the ‘cause’ gains popularity the process of evolution is the same.

Initially the group (or organisation) may consist of people who genuinely believe in their cause, whether based on factual information or not. Equally, they may be manipulative individuals attempting to gain attention and some form of credibility for their self-interests.

They will present information they perceive as ‘fact’. It is at this point that an organisation can become radical or accepted as authoritative.

If the information presented by the organisation is factually based and objectively analysed, then they gain credibility because independent analysis validates the campaigner’s claims. In general, such organisations seek to engage in genuine debate to bring about change through democratic process and negotiation.

Unfortunately, there are many more organisations or groups of campaigners that do not present valid factual information. This is particularly evident in relation to social issues which are emotionally charged, such as race, gender, children, disability, women’s rights, the environment, sex, and so on.

A common tactic in the attempt to gain credibility is for an organisation to claim it represents the group in society that is the subject of the organisation’s cause. This is usually a lie. The organisation has appointed itself as representative even though there has been no process whatsoever where the organisation has been appointed by the affected group, or a process where the people in charge of the organisation have been approved or appointed. The fact is that the organisation is merely representing itself even though it’s cause may affect a group in society.

For example, a trade union will state that it is representing it’s members, even though it works to make change happen that will benefit all workers. The union membership elect representatives and leaders through democratic process and votes on policies that affect them. The union then engages in various campaigns. It is clear what the union is and who they represent.

In contrast, there are thousands of organisations claiming to represent the interests of various social groups.

Stonewall is an organisation in the UK claiming to represent the interest of LGBT people even though it has never been appointed to do so through any democratic process within the group(s) they claim to represent. They claim (or strongly infer) that they have been instrumental in changes to legislation affecting the ‘LGBT community’ and that they conduct ‘research’ about, and education in, ‘LGBT issues’.

The reality of Stonewall is very different. It has been criticised on many occasions by various organisations and individuals (including members of the ‘LGBT community’) for spreading misinformation, using bullying tactics, and damaging the public perception of the ‘LGBT community’.

The vast majority of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people do not recognise Stonewall as an organisation that represents their interests. It is (as many other organisations are) a self-interested organisation more interested in it’s own existence and agenda than true representation of a social group.


Stonewall only started to include ‘transgender’ people in their campaigns in 2015, having previously excluded the ‘trans community’. In 2017 they produced a document called ‘The School Report’ that claimed to represent ‘The experiences of lesbian, gay, bi, and trans young people in Britain’s schools’. In the report it is claimed that 45% of ‘trans’ young people had attempted suicide.

Since the report was published, the claimed attempted suicide rate has been extensively used by various ‘transgender’ advocates and organisations, and is still quoted as researched fact.

However, the report is nothing but an online questionnaire to which 3713 (presumably) young people with self-identified gender responded, with no standardised or recognised academic controls or research methods in place to collect or analyse data. In research terms, it is junk – it has no meaning whatsoever as any form of useful (let alone reliable) data.

Requests by academics and others interested in the study to clarify and justify any research methods used have received no response at all from Stonewall or it’s agents in the survey.

The FACT is that attempted suicide by young people identifying as ‘transgender’ is EXTREMELY rare, and is no higher than statistics for general children’s mental health services in the UK. Dr Polly Carmichael, Director and Consultant Clinical Psychologist at the Tavistock clinic (considered to be experts in children’s gender issues) stated in October 2017 at a conference in Bristol that ‘research’ presented by Stonewall has “deeply flawed” and did not represent factual data.

It is concerning that Stonewall present themselves as some kind of ‘authority’, even including ‘advice’ for organisations, employers, and schools.

In particular, if schools are fooled into considering Stonewall an authoritative source and implement any advice from the organisation, this could have very serious detrimental effects on the mental health of young people.

Stonewall is one of hundreds of organisations in the UK, and thousands across the world that operate in much the same way without any credibility whatsoever.

When these organisations make claims that appeal to the emotions of affected groups, they tend to become popular ‘fact’ very quickly as they spread from person to person and organisation to organisation, sometimes being embellished along the way with subjective and presumptive reasoning and anecdotes.

As an organisation or cause gains popularity so it attracts the attention of more people. Some of these people will attach their own meanings and perceptions, or create an identification with the cause for their self-interest, often adding further subjective experience or ‘truth’ into the mix.

The organisation or cause can then become a magnet for more radical self-interested individuals or groups, who effectively attempt to hijack them. This can occur through infiltration into the organisation or through associating themselves with the activities of the organisation.

The most obvious example of this kind of behaviour is where an organisation or people involved in a cause organise a peaceful demonstration that is then infiltrated by various undesirable radical elements whose behaviour is aggressive or unacceptable.

The process by which an organisation or cause can become hijacked by radical elements is described in detail by Professor of Psychology, Andrew Lobaczewski in his book ‘Political Ponerology’.

In essence, an organisation can be infiltrated by radical elements who then spread their false information within the organisation as ‘truth’, primarily using psychologically weaker members as vessels. Even if the new ‘truth’ defies common-sense and objectivity it can become accepted as ‘truth’ through social compliance. In effect, the new ‘truth’ becomes so pervasive that it dilutes or overshadows attempts to counter it by the more psychologically robust members of the organisation or supporters of the cause.

If the more psychologically robust members of the organisation or supporters of the cause are unable to redress the balance one of two things tends to happen. They will either capitulate and give up trying to redress the balance, perhaps making the occasional gesture when the opportunity presents itself, or they will leave the organisation or detach themselves from the cause altogether.

In either scenario, the significant reduction in the influence of the more psychologically robust members or supporters allows the radical element to attract like-minded or similarly inclined individuals in to the organisation or as supporters of the cause – further reinforcing misinformation to a wider audience.

Other organisations or groups can be radical from their inception, in which case the aforementioned process doesn’t need to happen to fulfil the attention seeking self-interest of group members.

Once established, the method of operation of a radical group is much the same regardless of cause. They enter into campaigns where they attempt to supress any alternative or opposition to their viewpoint.

Common tactics include:

  • Look for anything that will support their claim regardless of relevance.
  • Cite highly dubious ‘evidence’.
  • Misrepresent real evidence.
  • Develop unsubstantiated theories based on flawed or manipulated evidence.
  • Present subjective opinion as fact.
  • Will not engage in genuine debate.
  • Will not answer directly challenging questions.
  • Will attempt to personally attack those with alternative or opposing viewpoints rather than attempting to disprove them.
  • Will attempt to prevent anyone with an alternative or opposing viewpoint from expressing themselves.
  • Will organise disruptive interventions against those with alternative or opposing views, or who question the validity of the group’s claims.
  • Will attempt to gain support through emotive tactics and the use of slogans or/and buzzwords such as the currently popular and vacuous use of ‘phobia’.
  • Will enforce ‘safe spaces’ – which are used to shy away from answering challenges to dubious viewpoints.
  • Will attempt to gain support from those they perceive as psychologically vulnerable and/or suggestable.
  • Will castigate any member of the group who questions the group objectives or ‘facts’.
  • Will claim victimship in an attempt to garner sympathy or support.
  • Attempts to criticise them will be called ‘hate speech’ or some kind of ‘violence’.

Although these tactics are specific to radical groups they are also used by individuals.

These tactics and general method of operation strike a resemblance to the core principles of fascism.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the following definition of fascism:

“a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”

The basic principles of fascism are:

  • The state is everything to which every member must conform. The ‘state’ being the individuals in control at the core.
  • Everything outside the state is a threat and must be ‘conquered’ and forced to conform to the state.
  • No criticism of, questioning of, or opposition to the state is permitted.

The ‘state’, or in this case the ‘group’, becomes the only authority without question or accountability with the primary interest of protecting itself (or rather, the core members) from external threat.

Fascism is generally referenced in political terms as being the domain of the far-right, but the core principles and actions can be attributed in modern form to any radical (or extreme) organisation regardless of politics.

Even though there may be discussions within the group where there is a perception that members can express their views, opinions, and share knowledge, individuals within the group are inconsequential to the core members other than as agents to facilitate the spread of core propaganda that they sanction. Anyone who shows any sign of opposing the core view will not be permitted to be in a position of influence within the group, and if considered to be a threat to the core ‘truths’ will be put under duress to leave, or will be expelled.

Group members within a radical group will follow whatever the core dictates, often regardless of common sense let alone real evidence that contradicts them.  In this form of social compliance individuals may feel validated through being a member of the group, especially if they feel invalidated by society in general.  They will use the group as a place of safety where through their compliance they mitigate any uncomfortable challenge, or exposure of their ignorance or perceived weaknesses. Sometimes the group will seek to maintain members through claiming to provide them with ‘safe spaces’ where views, opinions, and motivations are not challenged. This reinforces the individual’s loyalty to the group and it’s doctrines.

Members of radical groups often make claims of being ‘free thinkers’ or possessing some special knowledge, or of being ‘individuals’ separate from the indoctrination of society.

The irony is that members of radical groups are far from being ‘individual’, and in many respects are some of the most compliant individuals in society.

Becoming part of a radical group inhibits ‘free-thinking’ and merely appeals to the person’s subjective (often emotionally based) perception of the ‘cause’ or of society in general. Although there may be elements of real evidence and ‘truth’, these are often perceived out of context with no real effort by the individual to objectively consider the matter in question in context. Having a lack of understanding or knowledge, the person automatically takes on the ‘truth’ of the group as fact.

In order to affirm their validation within the group the person will take on generalised attributes of other members. This can include behaviours and the way they present themselves, such as dressing in the group’s ‘uniform’. If we take away the influence of any fashion in place at the time, looking at a radical group reveals that the majority dress in very similar ways.

An argument for why people form or join radical groups could be that they have no outlet or voice within general society. This may be true in some instances, but is rare in modern ‘democratic’ societies where non-radical groups create awareness or influence society based on genuine and well-presented arguments.

One of the things that make radical groups so problematic in today’s society is the ease with which they can spread misinformation.

Before the days of widespread social media, or even availability of the internet, there were natural societal filters involved in the process of getting information to a wider audience. This would involve engaging in face to face exchanges, organising meetings with people in society who might have interest in the cause, getting articles or letters published in physical media, or gaining the attention of mainstream media such as radio and television.

This presented a more challenging process for any idea that was based on false information or which was of dubious credibility. It would be rejected and remain within a small circle of followers rather than being pushed in to the wider public domain. There were exceptions, but in general most radical ideas were limited in their exposure. In today’s society this process is short-circuited. Anyone with any idea can transmit it around the world in a matter of seconds and will probably find people with similar ideas which may lead to the formation of a ‘community’ – thereby normalising and self-reinforcing delusional, dysfunctional, and untrue information.

Radical groups do no good for any cause, and make life more difficult for those they represent.

Societal norms are slow to change and are formed through a process of gradual negotiation and acceptance on both sides of an argument. If the argument is genuine then it will become accepted – if not it will be rejected.

The one thing that does not work is force. Trying to force a concept or argument on to a society will immediately meet resistance, and if continued, will generate resentment which could lead to the societal group concerned becoming targets for undesirable elements in society, or society as a whole in extreme circumstances. Bringing adverse attention to a cause through radical initiatives significantly delays, and could prevent, wider acceptance by society. In effect putting the cause or idea back and undoing any work that may have been done by genuine groups.

A radical group that gains media attention by associating themselves with a group in society or cause may be perceived by the public as having some authority, or as being representative of a societal group, when this is not the case. This becomes dangerous for society as a whole if the radical group becomes involved in any form of consultancy with other organisations, such as government.

The knock-on effect is that the misinformation of the radical group will influence processes such as law and policy making by politicians even if the misinformation does not influence them directly. There is then a situation where the whole of society is affected by the self-interest of a very small minority.

A society can only evolve effectively if it bases it’s decisions on fact and truth. Otherwise we end up with a divided and confused society lacking in common direction and purpose. Different societal groups end up pulling in different directions and slow down, or even inhibit, progress.

Ideally each individual in a society would have the capacity, resources, and motivation to objectively investigate or research the claims presented by various outlets as fact on which decisions are made that affect society as a whole. The reality is that most people are busy with day-to-day tasks and take small pieces of information from various sources of varying quality on which they base their opinions.

If those sources are misinforming a society’s members then opinions formed on that information will be at best faulty. And so, society continues on a dysfunctional and messy path.

No matter what we personally think of real evidence and truth – whether it fits our personal view of the world or not – it still remains fact whether we like it or not – no matter how we wriggle and squirm trying to find justification for our own faulty thinking.  Denying truth only results in us denying ourselves the opportunity to develop as human beings and evolve past the state of ‘group-think’ and prejudicial bigoted lies.

Truth comes from many sources, even sources we may not personally agree with or even like. But truth is truth wherever it comes from.

Truth is that which is undeniable, obtained through recognised objectively measured and robust systems of analysis for which there is no alternative that meets the same criteria.


Is there a ‘spirit world’? A theory on why the answer is ‘yes’. (#spirituality #religion #awakening)

spiritworldDoes the spirit world exist? In other words, do we continue to exist after we ‘die’ in the physical world?

Throughout the history of mankind there have been religions and belief systems based on the belief of ‘life after death’.

Tribes that remained unconnected to the outside world until very recently (such as the Z’oe) historically hold beliefs that they are spirit and their physical bodies are merely disposable containers through which they interact with what we perceive as the physical dimension. When the physical body no longer supports them their spirit is released and they move into another realm – the ‘spirit world’.  They believe that they are part of a greater energy system we often refer to as ‘nature’.

The same core beliefs have been and are held across the spectrum of humanity wherever they have existed on this planet, regardless of whether they have had contact with other human groups or not at some point in history.

Some belief systems and religions believe that the cycle of birth and death is a never ending process of reincarnation, while others believe that entry into a spiritual realm is the ultimate and only goal.

There has never been proof beyond doubt that any of these beliefs are fact. But that doesn’t mean there is not fact contained within them.

Human beings like to be able to explain things – even those things we have little knowledge of or for which we have little understanding. So it is of no surprise that tales and stories have emerged from the strong belief that our physical existence is temporary. Folklore, religions, and myths have all developed in an attempt to relay concepts or information to other humans within the context of understanding at the time.

We are no different today. We often see opinions and presumptions (including misinformation) presented as factual evidence of some concept, when they are nothing of the kind. These ideas then gain popularity and before we know it masses of people are believing them as authoritative fact through their desire to be socially compliant and accepted. In some cases, vast organisations have been based on them – such as Scientology.

If we think back a few centuries, the perception of electricity was as some kind of mythical magical thing related in some way to ‘the Gods’ – yet now it is something that is such an integral part of our everyday lives that most of us hardly give it a second thought. As our knowledge progresses as time passes much of what we consider to be ‘mythical’ or ‘paranormal’ today may be run-of-the-mill fact in the future.

What follows is my own theory of why a belief in an afterlife has been so prevalent throughout human history. It is based on my knowledge and understanding through life experience and learning.

I have based this theory on logic and factual information based on our current scientific understanding of the world we live in and which is readily available. I have made some presumptions which will be influenced by my personal views and processing of the world, and these will be clear as you read on.

The first thing is that for the same core belief or beliefs to have existed through to the present day means (of course) that there is a reason for it. Either there has been some kind of perpetual mass delusion or cultural compliance for a significant proportion of the time we humans have existed, or there are very real and tangible reasons.

I have chosen to leave aside reference to the texts of established religions. The reason being that at best they are flawed interpretations of events within the context of the time their documents were written by man, and at worst are manipulative mechanisms designed to control populations.  Either way, they are distractions which are unnecessary and wholly unhelpful and are as much value as any folklore or myth.

We can start this exploration with the fact that our species exists, and has existed on this lump of rock for some time in some form or another.

Our physical form is a complex organic life-form which controls an incredible amount of electrical activity. In turn this electrical activity enables us to perform physical functions, such as breathing, walking, and so on. In addition, this electrical energy facilitates something else which is an important aspect of our presence – our perception that we have an individual personality, soul or spirit – mental functioning – which we consider to be separate from our physical form, and from the reality of the physical world.

Even though they are interdependent, we perceive two main aspects to our existence – the physical and the mental.

Our mental functioning includes our perception of the world around us, the memories we form as we progress through life’s journey, our emotions in response to our processing of information, and our thinking through which we analyse complex information.

Everything we do with our minds has a purpose which will affect our immediate and long-term actions and how we process information in the future, whether we are processing the steps in a manual task or thinking about more abstract concepts in our lives.

Understanding the relationship between the mind and the brain is something scientists have been struggling to achieve for many years. Although some progress has been made with the help of modern technology, they are a long way from understanding the complex interactions that facilitate our range of mental functioning we refer to as the mind.

For example, scientists know that there are areas of the brain which are more active for certain functions, such as our ‘fight or flight’ response, visual information processing, storing memories, and so on. But understanding the mechanics of how emotions such as sadness, altruism, and empathy are generated and processed by the brain remain a mystery.

The scientific world tends to be dogmatic and gets bogged down in its own mess which does as much to inhibit progress and it does to aid it. As scientists are discovering – especially in the world of physics – the laws and theories that have been relied on for decades – sometimes centuries –do not apply to many discoveries made in the modern world.

Fortunately, there are more progressive researchers who use a wider spectrum of evidence and knowledge – the ‘mavericks’ or ‘free-thinkers’ within the scientific community who push the boundaries of research into new areas.

In considering the question of ‘spirituality’ the area of scientific study that is of interest to us is that of ‘consciousness’.

When we experience something (such as looking at a picture, or hearing a piece of music, and so on) our brain processes sensory information such as sight and sound, which in turn is responsible for our emotions and thoughts. It is this subjective awareness and perception of information that is consciousness.

The two leading researchers and experts in the area of consciousness are undoubtedly Professor Roger Penrose and Professor Stuart Hameroff. Through their own research and collaboration with others in the field, they have been able to develop real and viable theories (Orch OR) for the complex workings of consciousness within our brains.

Subatomic particles stored in microtubules in the brain take on specific formations which relate to our memories and consciousness – the mind. In quantum consciousness, when these particles are disrupted they quickly return to their previous formation – maintaining their structure and therefore the information they represent.

It was once thought that when the brain experiences deficiencies or problems on one side, the task would be passed over to the other side of the brain to perform.  Although it is true that the brain will attempt to form new connections to perform basic functions (such as manual tasks) when part of it is damaged, the same is not true in activities of consciousness.

Research by Hameroff et al has proven this is not the case when referring to the mind, and the task of storing memories etc. is duplicated somewhere else. In other words, whatever the mind creates is also stored somewhere else in space and time. Therefore, the mind is able to exist independent of the body’s energy control system. So when the physical body starts to change through the process of morphing from one state to another (the process of dying) the mind is still able to exist.

From Professor Hameroff’s website:

“My research involves a theory of consciousness which can bridge these two approaches, a theory developed over the past 20 years with eminent British physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Called ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’), it suggests consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in protein polymers called microtubules inside the brain’s neurons, vibrations which interfere, ‘collapse’ and resonate across scale, control neuronal firings, generate consciousness, and connect ultimately to ‘deeper order’ ripples in spacetime geometry. Consciousness is more like music than computation.”

There is also a video of the science programme ‘Through the Wormhole’ in which Hameroff explains his theory. It is available on YouTube (as of September 2016).

Although many have tried, no one in the scientific community has been able to provide tangible criticism of the theory. In fact, experiments that have been completed thus far reinforce it and have proven that particles can exist in more than one place at the same time, and as one experiences change so does the other – no matter where they exist.

Another theory which has implications when we consider other realms is that of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics (in simplistic form) state that energy can not be created and can not be destroyed.

If these laws are correct, it means that the same amount of energy must exist in the universe all of the time.

Therefore, because we are part of the universal energy system then we must continue to exist.

The laws of thermodynamics have been proposed as proof by advocates of the existence of a spiritual realm. However, there is an error of thinking in many references to this theory.

Energy is composed of different forms. Just because something is one form of energy does not necessarily mean that it will maintain that form.

For example, when an organism dies it does not continue to exist in the same form as when it was alive. The structure changes and the lifeform morphs into one or more other types of energy. When we use compost or fertilizer made of plant material, what we are doing is using a morphed form of the ‘live’ plant to provide energy to other forms of life – such as flowers or vegetables.

Similarly, when we eat something, we are using the energy contained within whatever we are eating, not to create energy, but to morph into another form of energy our bodies can use.

This process occurs when our organic bodies ‘die’. They do not continue to exist in the same form as when they were when alive, but morph into other forms of energy which provide fuel (energy) to other organisms. Similarly, if we are cremated, the energy contained in our bodies is quickly transformed into other energies which go on to provide fuel (and building blocks in the form of carbon) for other things.

So although our organic material does continue to exist, it exists by changing into several other forms of energy. It is feasible that the same energy would be recycled to such an extent that at some point in time (most likely a mind-boggling period) we would contain bits of our former selves.

In many ways, energy represents the ultimate form of recycling. But as I mentioned previously, this is within the confines of our current knowledge so could change dramatically in the future as our knowledge expands.

The time the human species has been in existence in relation to the age of the universe (or even the earth) is miniscule. Our development of scientific theory has occurred within an even tinier time frame.

It would be illogical and arrogant to think that we have advanced knowledge of the complexities of the universe. We are still at a very early stage of discovering the wonders which exist around and in us, and although we are relatively advanced compared to times past we are still very ignorant of the foundations of our existence.

So is there a ‘spiritual realm’ (or whichever other label one chooses to use to describe it)?

I would propose that there is.

At the most fundamental level we are part of a greater energy system, and whether we consider it to be nature or some kind of supreme energy/being the essence is the same.

We exist in the physical world, which is defined by the things we can interact with and experience on a normal daily basis. The reason we can experience these things is that they are constructed and vibrate within a range we can detect. It is important to remember that nothing is solid – not even the densest material known to man (Osmium with a density of 22.6 grams per cubic centimetre) is solid.

For some things we need specialist equipment to experience them – such as radio, internet, television, forms of light and sound, and so on. At our current stage of scientific knowledge, we are able to experience a tiny amount of the whole frequency spectrum which scientists know exists and that which they theorise exists beyond.

Although descriptions of spiritual realms are often referred to as external to our physical world, it is feasible that another realm (or realms) of a different construct exists within the spaces in our own fabric and vibrational range. In effect worlds within worlds.

As more mysteries of the universe are solved so our understanding of why billions of people over the course human existence have and do believe in a spiritual realm will expand.

The facts that our minds can independently exist somewhere in space and time, and that our physical bodies are recycled rather than disappear is only the start.

Once we start to separate the concept of spiritual realms from the flowery explanations provided by belief systems we can see a much clearer picture of tangible answers.

Quantum consciousness and thermodynamics are two of many scientific theories which could lend themselves to providing information from which we can discover what happens to us when our physical bodies ‘die’, and how our ‘self’/mind/spirit/etc. could continue.

If different dimensions exist within one another I would propose that it is reasonable to speculate that these realms or dimensions could occasionally cross-over or interact with each other in some way – thereby manifesting as paranormal activity of some description.

I would also speculate that some people who claim to have had paranormal experiences, or who claim to be able to access the ‘spiritual realm’ (with the proviso that they are not one of the many charlatans who plague this area) are using a limited range of natural abilities.

Perhaps these natural abilities in all of us have become diluted over time as we have evolved under the distractions of living in the physical world.

As to the ‘physical world’, well it only exists in our minds – nowhere else. What you perceive as the physical world will not be the same as someone else’s perception.

For example, when you see a colour you have internal processing which tells you which colour it is. These references are only processed in your mind – nowhere in the external world. When another person sees a particular colour they also have their own internal processes which only exist in their mind. You will both agree on the colour because each of your personal internal processes indicates that the colour has the name/label you have learned is assigned to the experience.

There is no way to know if the processes we use give us the same experience of reality as another person. Although the mechanics are the same (or very similar) it is the processing in the mind that is different.

If you are open minded enough to accept that the universe is full of infinite possibilities –  or at least that this world we live in is full of discoveries yet to be made –  then the existence of some other realm is highly probable and can not be denied at the most basic level of logic.

After all, you believe that wind, electricity, radio waves, and so on exist, yet you can not see, hear or touch them without other things that interact with them or suitable instruments.  They are energy, the same as any potential ‘spiritual realm’.

In my opinion the existence of a ‘spiritual realm’ is not such a mystical and unknown thing. What does remain a mystery to me is its purpose and functioning. But perhaps sometimes things just exist – things with no labels – things that just ‘are’ – and things which rely more on our natural feelings and deep senses to understand them rather than rational and logical investigation and thought.

At the very least, I hope that this theory has made you stop and think a little about our function and purpose in the world, and how we are part of a universal system. You may agree or disagree with my theory – it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that you look for reliable and factual information for yourself to help in your own evolution and understanding.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Alan Watts – You are God (#humanity #Spirituality #philosophy #oneness)

A short extract of the much missed Alan Watts talking about how we are our own ‘Gods’ and an integral part of the universe and what happens to us.



Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#ISIS – A Foundation of Lies (#Syria #Islam #Iraq #jihad #Religion #Politics)

isisliesThe more we delve into the reasons for Islamic extremism (ISIS in particular) the more ridiculous they become.

People are free to believe in whatever they want, and rightly so. What they are not free to do is impose their beliefs on others.

Most people seem to want to feel as though there is a reason for their existence other than the daily routine/grind they are subjected to in our economically driven world. Those reasons vary greatly depending on many factors in the person’s life.

What is particularly disturbing, is when those beliefs are based on something which is so obviously false it is baffling why anyone would believe them in the first place.

Of course, it is not uncommon in belief systems for some people to believe in obvious falsehoods or outlandish theories. But generally such belief systems are limited to a few hard-core believers and everyone else exposed to the theory sees it for what it really is, or seriously doubts its validity.

In the case of Islamic extremism, the belief system is often cited as being a pure interpretation of Islam from the original texts and teachings of Abraham. A myth that has been propagated among ‘believers’ across the world, and which has been used to radicalise the gullible.

Delving a little below the surface of their beliefs reveals a different story entirely.

Modern Islamic extremism is based on the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a little-known Egyptian writer who was born in 1906 in the Egyptian village of Musha.

As a boy, he memorised the Koran and later became a teacher in the Ministry of Education in Cairo and a writer of novels. His novels had little impact, but he gained a reputation as a literary critic.

In the aftermath of World War One with the Ottoman empire totally destroyed Qutb became increasingly vocal about new governments in the region being established by Western powers. His writings in various publications became more political and critical of the Egyptian government in particular.

According to Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz (who Qutb had championed during his early days as a writer, and who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1988) Qutb’s friends in the Ministry of Education were sufficiently worried about his situation that they contrived to send him abroad to the safety of the United States.

Qutb began his stay in the United States at Washington at Wilson Teachers College and then moved to Greeley, Colorado, home to Colorado State College of Education, where he spent the bulk of his time.

Although Greely was a conservative town founded by Utopian idealists looking to make a garden out of the dry plains north of Denver using irrigation and where alcohol was banned, Qutb still found the town distasteful. Writing in a booklet entitled “The America I Have Seen” in 1951, he said “Nobody goes to church as often as Americans do. . .. Yet no one is as distant as they are from the spiritual aspect of religion.”

As well as presenting a distorted history of America, he was also highly critical of the conservative culture.

Qutb denounced the primitive jazz music and loud clothing, the obsession with body image and perfection, and the bald sexuality. The American female was naturally a temptress, acting her part in a sexual system Qutb described as “biological”:

“The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.”

Even an innocent dance in a church basement is proof of animalistic American sexuality:

“They danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire…”

More than presenting valid fact, much of Qutb’s writing seemed to reflect his own primitive and misogynistic views on women and the society in which they existed. Greeley was his first experience away from the ‘Old World’ where the most powerful time for civilisation was in the Middle Ages where it was carried triumphantly by Muslim armies.

In 1951 Qutb cut short his stay in America to return to Egypt after the assassination of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the nationalist, religious and militant movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

He resigned from his post in the civil service and became editor-in-chief of the Muslim Brotherhood’s weekly publication ‘Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin’. Later he became head of the organisation’s propaganda department as well as an appointed member of their working committee and guidance council.

Being in a position to influence others suited Qutb. He could now spread his own bigoted and warped view of the world to a willing captive audience. Based on his very limited experience of another culture, Qutb claimed that the whole world as a just and viable target for Jihad.

Qutb refined his extremist views during various spells in prison as a result of his criticisms of the Egyptian government.

The theories of Qutb were accepted by a minority Muslims in the region, with the majority criticising his understanding of Islam and his denial of centuries of Islamic learning and culture.

Of course, Qutb’s theories are extensive and detailed, and we are unable to address them in-depth here.

Historians disagree on whether Qutb would agree or not with the way his theories have been interpreted and used as an excuse for terrorist activities since his death.

John Calvert, a history professor at Creighton University and author of “Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism,” states “Qutb would have condemned the violent actions perpetrated by the Egyptian jihadis of the 1970s and 1980s and by al-Qaeda and its regional affiliates today.  He would not have understood al-Qaeda’s desire to attack a Western power, such as the United States.  In Qutb’s mind, the jihad targeting “iniquitous” Muslim regimes was always paramount.”

Calvert said the modern Brotherhood is politically savvy enough to know that there’s little appetite for radicalism in today’s Egypt. While the Muslim Brotherhood has a violent past, it forswore violence in 1970.

“The younger generation of Brothers are more eager to engage in the Brotherhood in the political process and play by democratic rules,” Calvert said. “They regard Qutb as problematic, as something of an embarrassment.”

Qutib was arrested (again) by the Nasser government in August 1965 and accused of plotting to overthrow the state, with many of the charges against him taken from his last book – a manifesto of political Islam called “Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq” (Milestones).

Along with six other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutib was sentenced to death for their part in the conspiracy to assassinate the President. He was executed on 29th August 1966.

After his death, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, the teenage al-Zawahiri (later to become the leader of al-Qaeda) formed his first violent cell, dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government and the creation of an Islamist state. Meanwhile, Qutb’s brother Muhammad went into exile in Saudi Arabia, where he taught at King Abdul Aziz University. One of his students, an heir to the country’s largest construction fortune, was Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps the most well-known of the Islamist extremist groups is al-Qaeda.

The group was first active around 1988 under the leadership of Osama bin Laden after receiving significant funding and resource from the CIA as part of the Thatcher/Reagan anti-Soviet policy of the time. The aim was to oust the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan as Soviet forces withdrew from the country.

Up until then, the Mujahideen had mounted a guerrilla war against government and Soviet forces.

Osama bin Laden believed that the Muslim world was in crisis and that violent jihad and strict adherence to sharia law was the only solution. His beliefs were firmly rooted in the writings of Qutib – beliefs he was responsible for promoting throughout the factions fighting against the Afghan government and Soviets.

As al-Qaeda attracted more attention other affiliate groups and offshoots emerged. All of them had their roots in the core principles of jihad based on Qutib’s writing and the concept that civilians from enemy countries, including women and children, were legitimate targets for jihadists to kill as Osama bin Laden had stated.

This idea was promoted through the poor of Muslim countries, and it the west through self-styled ‘teachers’ in mosques and other Islamic institutions – usually where there were large numbers of poor and ignorant immigrants.

Far from being ‘teachers’ of a genuine belief system, many of them were individuals more interested in their own power within Muslim communities. So much so that they have successfully developed systems of radicalisation which specifically target the gullible and those who feel disenfranchised from society.

The methods they use are exactly the same as those used to recruit cult members.

Others attracted to these terrorist groups include those who are quite simply psychopaths. Individuals who see joining the organisation as a means to dominate and control numbers of people while at the same time indulging themselves in their own perverted fantasies.

ISIS is the most recent of these offshoot organisations.

Known by several names (ISIL, ISIS, Daish, Daesh, and Islamic state group), the group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A petty criminal and high-school drop-out, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi joined the Mujahideen in 1989 where he became a ‘reporter’ for an Islamic newspaper and met bin Laden.

According to a report by the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “Zarqawi’s criminal past and extreme views on takfir (accusing another Muslim of heresy and thereby justifying his killing) created major friction and distrust with bin Laden when the two first met in Afghanistan in 1999.

After returning to Jordan he was sent to prison in 1992 after guns and explosives were found in his home. During his time in prison he had a reputation for violence and as a cellblock enforcer.

In 1999 he was released as part of an amnesty but within months he was involved in a plan to bomb the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman, Jordan. The plan to bomb the hotel was discovered and Zarqawi fled to Pakistan.

When the Pakistan authorities revoked Zarqawi’s visa he went to Afghanistan, where he met with Osama bin Laden and was given funds to establish a training camp in Herat.

It was from this camp that the organisation we know as ISIS emerged which carries the barbaric and primitive doctrine of Zarqawi.

As with al-Qaeda, ISIS became a natural magnet for psychopaths, criminals, and the radicalised.

The rise of ISIS – as we can see – was not spontaneous. It has a very definite path of development based on purposely manipulative doctrines and barbarity.

The recruitment process of the psychopaths and manipulators in control is still based in the cultish methods of radicalization and on subjugating the population of invaded/occupied villages and towns.

People in ISIS occupied areas have two choices. Convert to Islam and acknowledge the ISIS doctrine or face incredible barbarity.

In the meantime, the leaders are busy amassing incredible fortunes through the theft of resources, including antiques and artefacts, making ransom demands, donations from other gulf states – including Saudi Arabia – illegal drugs, and through extortion of the population they control.

As more evidence of the inner workings of ISIS filter through by way of disillusioned recruits and supporters escaping from the organisation, it seems that religion is far less important than making cash.

At the lower ends of the hierarchy followers are forced to live in very basic conditions, and are subjected to harsh discipline, while the upper levels live lives of luxury and are free to indulge themselves in any perverted desire.

Although the doctrine of ISIS is rooted in the writings of a bigoted and ignorant Egyptian, successive ‘leaders’ of Islamic extremism have added layers of brutality to suit their own power hungry agendas.

ISIS has very little (if anything at all) in common with modern Islam, and have ignored centuries of development and knowledge that have influenced how Islam has maintained a place in one and a half billion people’s lives in a modern world.

If it were not for the violence and barbarity ISIS would be treated with the contempt it rightly deserves – verging on the comical.

As we hear ISIS idiots spouting diatribes of religious nonsense with warped justifications and false claims, we should keep in mind that their ‘value system’ values nothing at all of benefit to humanity.

While politicians around the world try to ignore the issue of Islamic extremism – let alone do anything about it in their own countries – hundreds of thousands of ordinary people with the same basic core wants as the rest of us are being subjected to the most horrific barbarity by ISIS morons.

It is going to take someone in power to make a very brave and controversial move to thwart the spread of this poison – let alone eradicate it.

It is illogical that the rise of ISIS came as a surprise to western powers as some have claimed. They are very well informed of developments in the region, and as we can see, in some instances have encouraged and contributed to the situation we see today.

A monster was created because of political manoeuvring and has been allowed to either get out of control or run its course because it suits the agenda of western powers, which is to destabilise the last remaining obstacles to gaining total control of the region and its resources.

Whether ISIS will continue is indeterminable. But if it is defeated we shall no doubt see other organisations full of the same psychopathic types emerge.


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Did you know VIP Paedophile investigations are still ongoing? (#UK #childabuse #VIPaedophile)

pcabFor those of you who have been keeping up with reports of high profile figures being involved in child abuse, you may have thought that investigations have been dropped.

According to mainstream media investigations into historic child sexual abuse cases (involving politicians in particular) stopped when Operation Midland was forced to abandon its investigations due to lack of evidence.

However, nationwide investigations involving high profile figures still continue, and the number of suspects has increased during the past year.

Operation Hydrant, established in 2014, continues to coordinate and oversee investigations concerning ‘persons of public prominence’ and investigations into historical abuse in institutional settings. Their role as coordinators gives police forces investigating allegations which meet the criteria a central resource where they can cross check information and obtain guidance on conducting their investigations.

According to Operation Hydrant’s webpage in the National Police Chief’s Association website, current live investigations into alleged offenders total 2777 and break down as follows:

2358 allegedly offended in institutions.

585 are classified as unknown or unidentified.

348 are classified as persons of public prominence. These comprise:

  • 164 from the world of TV, film, or radio
  • 99 are listed as politicians (these include local level politicians, not just national figures)
  • 49 are from the music industry
  • 15 are from the world of sport
  • 21 are PPP’s of another description

1084 different institutions feature on the Operation Hydrant database. These comprise:

  • 424 Schools
  • 296 Children’s Homes
  • 110 Religious Institutions
  • 53 Medical establishments
  • 28 Prison/Young Offenders institutes
  • 26 Sports Venues
  • 18 Community institutions (such as youth clubs and community centres)
  • 119 “other” institutions (military, places of entertainment, guest houses, etc.)
  • 10 classified as Unknown

Heading up Operation Hydrant is Chief Constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey

In an interview with Exaro Bailey said that there had been an increase of 449 cases since February of this year, and figures are set to increase dramatically as adults who claim to have been abused as children have increased confidence in the police.

Recently, Wiltshire police have been appointed as the lead investigation force in investigations into the late Prime Minister Edward Heath. In total, there are currently twelve police forces from all over the country who are investigating allegations against Heath.

Many of these investigations are difficult for police to investigate in a timely manner because of the time that has lapsed, and (particularly) because of the lack of cooperation from the government and associated organisations.

Of course, not all of the allegations will turn out to be as they are portrayed by some alleged victims, and others will be rejected by the CPS because of the level of evidence required for a prosecution to go ahead. But one thing is for sure, at least some of the allegations will prove to be true and may well provide valuable leads which warrant further investigation by the police.


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#TTIP after #Brexit #UK – What now?

ttipbrexit.fwDuring the campaign in the lead up to the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, both ‘leave’ and ‘stay’ camps have made reference to TTIP (The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), often in inappropriate and misleading ways.

Here we present a fairly simple explanation of what TTIP is, how it has progressed, and if it still has any presence in the future policies of the UK government.

Although negotiated through the EU, the UK government has played a pivotal role in developing crucial aspects of the proposed agreement, which it has ‘championed’ as a trade agreement – which is also misleading.

This is not a trade agreement in the traditional sense where parties agree on levies, taxes, and other financial initiatives to stimulate trade. This agreement is designed to change the legal and social framework in which trade between the parties takes place.

It challenges any law or regulation in the host country that does not enable foreign companies to conduct trade as they would in their country of origin.

In effect, this means that any company can require the host country to remove or change any law or regulation which could prevent the company from making profit as it would in its own country. It reduces regulatory restrictions to the lowest denominator between the signatories to the agreement.

It further permits companies established in the host country to also require that the government of the host country allow it to conduct business on an equal footing with foreign companies.

In effect, this means that the host country is forced to allow business to be conducted based on the lowest regulatory requirements – totally overriding that country’s sovereignty.

Under the agreement, if the host country inhibits or refuses companies to conduct their business in the manner stipulated in the partnership agreement the companies can take the government of the country to a special court and claim compensation.

This is called the ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ mechanism (ISDS), which will most likely be called an International Investment Court in the final agreement.

Such mechanisms have been in place since the early 1960s as part of various trade agreements, and are more a form of arbitration.

A few past cases are:

  • French utility company, Veolia, is suing the Egyptian government for loss of profits as a result of the country’s decision to raise the minimum wage.
  • US company Lone Pine is suing Canada for the ban on fracking in Quebec.
  • US tobacco company Phillip Morris are suing Uruguay and Australia for enacting anti-smoking legislation.

Under TTIP, the proposals for the dispute settlement mechanism have expanded on previous mechanisms. As yet there is no final agreement so the terms and operation of the mechanism could change significantly.

The part of this that should concern UK citizens is that in EU negotiations many of the controversial elements which gave a strong bias towards corporations have been changed or removed – although the mechanism still remains a threat to member’s sovereignty.

The UK government, however, have proposed and lobbied for a system which is wholly bias in favour of corporations.

If the UK government were to implement an independent agreement now that the vote to leave the EU has been cast, we can be sure they will want to implement their own version of dispute resolution based on their previous proposals.

Public services, such as social care, welfare, health care, etc. are all under threat by the TTIP agreement. Under the agreement monopolies must be abolished, and public services were included.

So far, the EU negotiations have sought to protect public services from the agreement as most member states rejected the inclusion of public services, again, something the UK government was firmly against.

Even though including public services were effectively rejected by the majority of EU members, UK Trade Minister, Lord Livingston admitted that talks about the NHS (in particular) and its inclusion were still taking place.

In May of this year (2016) the UK government was forced to revise its position after an alliance of MPs from all parties (including the government’s own Conservative party) supported an amendment to the Queen’s Speech which would explicitly protect the NHS from the TTIP agreement.

Again, we can see the government’s intention is to make the agreement as advantageous for corporations as they can regardless of the cost to citizens and public services.

Considering the past history of the current UK government it is reasonable to assume that future trade agreements (which will have to be negotiated if the UK exits the EU) will be conducted along similar lines to the government’s input into the TTIP agreement and be a threat to public services and sovereignty.

Food and environmental safety and security is another area where TTIP would have a significant impact.

In the United States in the region of 70% of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

So far the EU has blocked the use of GM crops as a widespread form of agriculture, and food grown throughout the EU is subjected to much tighter regulations on the use of pesticides than the United States.

In the United States, giant corporations such as Monsanto have established themselves as sole providers of genetically modified seeds which farmers have no choice but to use under highly restrictive an unfair licensing conditions at a much higher costs than traditional non-GM crop seeds.

Monsanto is also the supplier of several pesticide products that have been banned across the EU.

In 2013 Monsanto was forced to withdraw all of its applications for approval of GM crops in the EU. This was because Monsanto continually failed to meet the basic safety requirements demanded by the EU.

In contrast the UK government has actively been pursuing the introduction of GM crops directly into the UK by attempting to implement an ‘opt-out’ of the EU ban.

Both the Environment Secretary of the time, Owen Paterson, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made several public statements supporting the introduction of GM crops into the UK during 2012, and again in 2014. The government has continued to release propaganda concerning GM crops through mainstream media on an irregular basis since then.

Many GM crops are entering the EU and the UK in the form of animal feeds, with meat and dairy products fed on GM not being labelled as GM fed. Other product which use GM products are entering the EU and UK in the form of commercial cooking oils, and other retail products.

As recently as July last year the UK government temporarily lifted an EU ban on the use of blacklisted pesticides linked to serious harm in bees and other pollinators. Controversy followed as it was revealed that the government had ordered its own advisors to postpone publishing a report criticising the decision.

Growth hormones are widely used in livestock in the United States, while their use in the EU is significantly restricted because of their link in contributing to the development of cancer cells in humans.

Personal privacy is another area where TTIP will allow companies and governments unprecedented power to collect and use data on its citizens.

Fortunately, the European Parliament has already blocked the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by a massive majority of its members which was proposed in 2012.

This agreement was very similar to the UK government’s Communication Data Bill which was rejected by parliament, but which the government keeps trying to introduce in repackaged form. The UK government’s proposal goes beyond the rejected EU agreement in that it contains many grey areas which the government can use to do as it wishes without redress for its citizens.

With the checks and balances, and the right of appeal removed from the government if the UK exits the EU, there is the potential for government abuse of its citizens, including restricting information citizens have access to, and severe penalties for attempting to access ‘unapproved’ information. This is worryingly similar to Chinese censorship laws.

Jobs will be at risk through the agreement. The US has much lower levels of protection and employment standards than EU countries. This includes working hours, leave, pay rates, and other benefits employees within the EU take for granted.

If TTIP were to be introduced the lower US standards would apply to US companies operating in the UK (or any other signatory state) and would eventually result in the lower standards being applied across the nation’s workforce under equal trading clauses in the agreement.

The UK government has already reduced much of the protection employees used to enjoy and ensured unions have become severely diluted in their power.

In recent times the government has proposed further restrictions on union strike action and has allowed the widespread use of draconian zero-hours contracts.

In exiting the EU UK employees will no longer have the protection of EU labour rights, including the Working Time Directive, and will no longer be able to seek redress through the EU for unfair and exploitative work contracts.

TTIP negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy, and many citizens have remained totally unaware of the proposed agreement or of the serious impact this will have on their lives.

During the recent ‘leave/stay’ EU campaigns TTIP has been falsely attributed solely to the EU, with no mention of the significant input the UK government has had in some of the most worrying aspects.

In fact, what exiting the EU means is that the government removes many of the restrictions on its activities, and remains free to negotiate its own agreements along similar lines – if not worse for UK citizens.

It has been widely stated that the UK will have to negotiate new trading partnerships – not only with EU partners but international partners such as the US too.

Considering the timescale for the UK to exit the EU, it is highly likely that we will see these agreements start to take effect over the next two years.

TTIP is more than just about facilitating mutually beneficial trade agreements. It is about changing society to maximise profits for corporations.

It is economic slavery which pushes boundaries beyond what is acceptable in making a profit.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Investigatory Powers Bill WILL affect YOU. (#politics #ToriesOutNow #UK #surveillance)

invpwrbillYou may have heard of the Investigatory Powers Bill which the government is desperate to get through parliament after the failure of its Communications Data Bill (Snooper’s Charter) last year.

The Bill has been presented by the government as being essential to combat terrorism and serious criminal activities, and you may think that it doesn’t really affect you because you have ‘nothing to hide’ or are not a criminal – think again.

Clauses within the draft Bill give unprecedented powers to the government (not just security services and police) to collect personal data (not just internet activities) on every citizen and use it as they want with no meaningful judicial checks or balances in place.

You may think that the Bill covers investigations by security services and police. However, the proposed legislation allows a range of organisations not involved in security matters to access your personal data.

If the Bill is passed into law, there will be no other European or Commonwealth country that would have such wide sweeping power over its citizens. In effect, the UK will embark on surveillance which is more akin to an electronic version of former East Germany’s Stasi than a supposed democracy.

This is why many organisations and individuals are campaigning against the Bill’s introduction.

In addition to the content of the Bill and the proposed structure for implementing the legislation, the government has come under criticism for the reduced amount of time it has given interested parties to consider the full implications of a law which will significantly change the foundation of UK law.

In effect, the government is attempting to railroad through very similar legislation that was contained in the Communications Data Bill. They have been trying to get this kind of legislation introduced in its entirety for over 6 years.

When considering this proposed legislation, we need to keep in mind that the police and security services already have power to intercept communications and data on every citizen – provided they get a warrant through due judicial process.

Also of concern are the two types of information targeting contained in the bill.

Targeted: this form of interception is used on UK citizens. It can be done to a person, a group or an organisation by the police, the intelligence agencies or the armed forces. The request must be specific as to who or what will be spied on and where.

Bulk: involves mass interception which is not related to any current investigation. Intelligence agencies will be able to engage in this kind of interception.

The main publicity around the Bill has been concerning the requirement of telecommunication providers to retain each customer’s communication activity for one year.

These data are referred to as Internet Connection Records (ICR), and under the Bill will be accessible to organisations named in the bill. In addition to police and security services, this data will be accessible (on production of a warrant – see about warrants later on) by other government organisations. These include:

  • Department of Health
  • Home Office (Immigration)
  • Ministry of Justice (National Offender Management Service)
  • Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
  • Department for Transport (Coastguard Agency, air, maritime, and rail investigation branches)
  • Department for Work and Pensions (Fraud and Error Services, Child Maintenance Group)
  • Competition and Markets Authority
  • Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland
  • Financial Conduct Authority
  • A fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
  • Food Standards Agency
  • Gambling Commission
  • Gangmasters Licensing Authority
  • Health and Safety Executive
  • Independent Police Complaints Commission
  • Information Commissioner
  • National Health Service Business Services Authority
  • A National Health Service Trust
  • Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
  • Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
  • Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
  • Office of Communications
  • Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
  • Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
  • Scottish Ambulance Service Board
  • Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
  • Serious Fraud Office
  • Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

Internet Connection Records will contain a log of every website you visit and all app/software you use which uses a data connection, whether that is a static (such as a smart TV, computer, etc) or mobile device.

The record will contain the date and time the device connected to obtain data, the data it obtained, as well as other devices it connects to.

As we use data communication more and more in our daily lives, we reveal much more about ourselves than we realise. In addition to factual data, inspection of the information contained in ICRs can reveal our personalities, our interests, our concerns, and all other aspects of our lives.

Using advanced logarithms, the government can build a detailed profile of every citizen who uses data communication.

As we mentioned before, the purpose the government has put into the public domain is that this legislation is needed to combat criminal activities.

However, the real purpose is to profile citizens who may be problematic and pose a threat to the government’s power.

A couple of the most obvious examples are activists and union members who may engage in private conversations between themselves expressing concern about a particular aspect of government, and who may discuss action to address their concerns.

On a much subtler level, the analysis of collected data could be used for more targeted social engineering, or attempting to implement more oppressive legislation or policies if the government perceives a threat to its power.

The information could also be used to shut down or restrict access to information sources the government deem to be a threat to their power.

At the current time, our basic browsing history is considered to be personal information. Intrusion into this data could potentially breach Article 8 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, namely a right to respect for a private life and the right to freedom of expression and information.

Another major problem for telecoms providers is the collection and retention of such huge amounts of data.

The collection of data will require telecoms providers to spend considerable resources on technology. They will also have to make considerable investments in secure storage of data, and in ensuring that the data remains secure.

At the current time, the Bill does not address data security and the measures that will need to be in place.


Organisations who wish to access the records will require a warrant.

However, the term ‘warrant’ is misleading.

When we think of a warrant being issued we generally think that there has been some kind of due judicial process and a judge has considered the warrant application.

This is not the case under the Bill.

In fact, there is no meaningful judicial process whatsoever for the issue of a warrant under the Bill.

Intelligence agencies will be granted warrants by the Secretary of State.

Police forces will have warrants granted by a Chief Constable.

Local authorities will have their warrants approved by a magistrate, and other public bodies will have their warrants approved by a designated senior person.

In all cases the granting of warrants is ‘reviewed’ by a ‘Judicial Commissioner’, and the police have an alternative review process through a ‘Single Point of Contact’ within the police.

The ‘Judicial Commissioner’ can review the granting of warrants already made, and can disagree with a decision in writing, but there is no process (in the current proposals) where a ‘Judicial Commissioner’ can stop a warrant being granted in the first place.

This differs considerably to the current system where a warrant application must be approved by a suitably qualified member of the legal profession (such as a judge) before being in force.

If a ‘Judicial Commissioner’ disagrees with a decision they can explain their reason in writing. But their word isn’t final. The Secretary of State can go over their head and ask the more senior Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to review the warrant again.

In essence, there is no judicial authority involved in the issue of a warrant under the Bill, only a ‘review’ (rubber-stamping exercise) after the fact.

The Bill also allows for a warrant to be changed or modified after it has been issued, with no limitations on the time within which changes can be made.

Depending on the warrant a modification can include the adding, removing or varying of:

  • Names
  • Organisations
  • Descriptions of a person, organisation, location
  • Any factor specified on the original warrant
  • The operational purpose specified for examination of data

In effect, once a warrant is issued it can be changed to suit the purpose of the investigating authority to which it was issued. Again, there are no meaningful checks or balances in place.

Secrecy in the courts

Evidence gathered by intercepting data can not be used in court, and can not be disclosed, questioned, or referred to in any way.

The government claim that that the majority of MI5’s investigations use interception to identify suspects and the police repeatedly point to interception of phone calls as critical to investigating crime, but they both claim that revealing how they use this power would be damaging to their work.

Equipment Interference

Equipment Interference (EI), Computer Network Exploitation (CNE), and property interference are names the government have given to hacking in relation to the Bill.

Under the Bill, hacking can be used by the police and the intelligence agencies; MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, to change, destroy, or obtain data in secret.

In addition to surveillance and obtaining evidence, this would effectively give any organisation with a warrant the ability to restrict and change information or other data to which the public have access – thereby allowing secret censorship.

Any communication device can be hacked under the Bill, including permitting the remote control of devices (including microphones and cameras).

Bulk Personal Datasets

Anyone who is a UK citizen will be on one bulk personal dataset or another.

These datasets include things like the electoral role, NHS records, banking and credit card data, credit reference agency data, DVLA information, and so on.

No company or organisation can refuse to surrender their data to the authority under a warrant, and can not query its use.

Our Conclusion

There are already systems in place that serve to assist in the prevention of crime – systems which have been in place for decades.

The systems are efficient and offer checks and balances which go some way to restricting the political use of surveillance by the security services.

It has only been since the Conservative Party has become involved in government during the past six years or so that proposals for far reaching surveillance powers have been thrust into the public domain.

Despite repeated attempts, the Conservatives have failed to gain any ground in implementing their draconian and oppressive legislation to any significant degree.

As with any proposal which will meet with public concern, the government have embarked on a propaganda campaign to try and justify introducing the proposed powers.

First of all, it was alleged that the powers were needed to intercept paedophiles – which has since been proven to be untrue, and the number of arrests for this type of crime continue to increase with current legal powers in place.

When the government realised that this particular area of propaganda was failing to win favour with the public, and was constantly being exposed as being untrue (despite rolling out pseudo-experts), they turned their focus to terrorism.

According to the government (and yet more ‘experts’ – aka cronies) they need these powers to be able to monitor and investigate potential terrorist threats. Again, this is possible within the current legal structure and does not need changing. The security services are perfectly capable of intercepting communications (as the revelations of Edward Snowden demonstrated) without additional powers – especially powers as far reaching as the Bill would permit.

The list of organisations the government proposes to give the new powers to is also of concern. Effectively, they are proposing that every area of government has the power to obtain and use the data the Bill refers to.

Apart from this being unnecessary, another major concern of critics of the Bill is that of security.

The government are barely able to keep the information they already have secure, let alone the phenomenal amount of data that would be generated through their proposals.

As we have seen with this government time and time again, the ostensible reason is very rarely the real reason for introducing oppressive legislation and policies.

If this Bill is introduced it sets a precedent for future legislation and will have serious ramifications on the daily lives of every person in the country.

The government have already abused their power by introducing back-door legislation, usually through the issue of statutory instruments (amendments or clarifications) to existing legislation – a process with minimal checks and balances.

This is of particular concern when the proposed Bill contains many grey or vague references which can be changed quite easily in the future if the government wishes to do so.

As we mentioned before, even if you are not engaged in criminal activities or think you have nothing to hide, the introduction of this legislation is extremely dangerous to every citizen in the UK.

It gives the government total control over what they do and how they do it with no effective checks or balances in place – by the way, this is also the real reason the government want to leave the EU.

You can be sure that as we become subjects of more government profiling they will design policies for their own benefit, and the benefit of their cronies – which will inevitably lead to more economic slavery and a grossly unbalanced social system.

If you are concerned (which you should be) about the introduction of this legislation, the Joint Committee considering the draft legislation want to hear your opinions.

Submissions will be considered up to the 21st December 2015, and you can visit their website here for more information. You can also contact your MP concerning this Bill.

The primary source for the information contained in this article is Big Brother Watch, and further information together with fact sheets can be obtained from their website here.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Syrian President Assad exposes Cameron’s new ‘episode’ in Cameron’s ‘classical farce’ (#UK #Syria #ToriesOutNow #politics)

assadIn an interview with the Daily Telegraph, President Assad described Cameron’s claims of 70,000 moderates waiting to take over Syria “a new episode in a long series of David Cameron’s classical farce… Where are they? Where are the 70,000 moderates he is talking about? There is no 70,000. There is no 7,000.”

During the interview, Assad also said “How many extremist cells now exist in Europe? How many extremists did you export from Europe to Syria? This is where the danger lies. The danger is in the incubator.”

The interview took place before the UK government’s decision to commence air strikes against ISIS targets with Syrian borders. He stated that if the plan to bomb Syrian territory was approved by the UK government “It will be harmful and illegal and it will support terrorism, as happened after the coalition started its operation a year or so [ago] because this [ISIS terrorism] is like a cancer”.

It wasn’t that long ago that Cameron was desperately seeking allies in arming the Free Syrian Army – an organisation that has been responsible for sabotaging potential peace talks, using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, and giving western manufactured armaments to ISIS. Let alone that the majority of FSA fighters were/are Islamic extremists.

In June 2013 Cameron (along with Obama) sought the cooperation of member states attending the G8. However, he was sorely disappointed when his (and Obama’s) proposals were rejected out of hand.

When Cameron was directly questioned as to why he was so keen to support a terrorist organisation with definite links to Muslim extremism, Cameron embarked on a tirade of personal insults and refused to answer the question.
The fact is that Cameron has done more to add to the suffering of Syrian civilians than making any serious attempt to alleviate it.

On more than three occasions Assad has expressed that he was willing to enter into peace talks at any time, and has also said he would welcome the intervention of western governments as part of a combined initiative (with Russia) to combat ISIS. Each time Cameron has rejected Assad’s invitations and willingness to bring peace to Syrian citizens.

Cameron could easily have entered into a cooperative agreement to combat ISIS yet chose not to, citing the most ridiculous reasons – mostly based on lies – to justify his inaction. The UK could have been part of a LEGAL initiative rather than embarking on action which is ILLEGAL under international law.

Cameron’s claim that there are 70,000 moderate rebels ready to take over the country is ridiculous.

The most accurate estimate from independent sources indicate that the FSA is made up of around 90,000 to 100,000, with around 20,000 being part of the extremist group Jabhat Al-Nusra, and up to around 70,000 coming from the extremist Islamic Front. In addition, there are still ISIS members fighting on behalf of the FSA.

So where Cameron gets his figures from is anyone’s guess – perhaps they are just yet another lie as usual – the same as false government figures bandied about concerning other areas of British society. Or perhaps the latest flurry of activity to appease Saudi Arabia has something to do with it.

Although we are not approving of the Assad regime, the facts we are presented with about his government (particularly by the BBC and other government supporting media) is false and mere propaganda.

Having kept a close eye on developments in the Syrian conflict over the past few years, one thing is for sure, the version of events we are presented with through our media is nothing like the actual situation in Syria.

Cameron is merely carrying on the work of Margaret Thatcher. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, she proposed the establishment of the Free Syrian Committee, which would be tasked with destabilising Syria and their communist support from the inside. Backed by MI6 and the CIA, the plan was to topple the government of the time, install a puppet government, plunge the country into impossible to repay debt, then take control of the region and its assets – such as oil.

Territory hungry Israel has also played a significant part in fuelling conflict on the border with Syria.
In addition to sabotaging peace negotiations with Syria mainly over the Golan Heights, Israel has conducted covert cross-border missions into Syrian territory to aid the ‘rebels’. With Israeli military supplies being discovered in the hands of ISIS.

Is Assad right in his views on the conflict? Yes. Having seen several interviews with Assad on various media sources he seems to hit the nail-on-the-head when it comes to western motivation to keep the conflict going and their lack of action to defeat what is supposed to be a common enemy – ISIS.

As we always say, it is up to you to make your own minds up – bit one thing is certain, Cameron should never be trusted and should never be able to propagate the agenda he and his government have been following since gaining seats in government. There is another agenda in play here and it is not one which will be to the good of anyone except their own cronies.

Disgraceful: Tory Social Experiments to ‘Nudge’ Sick and #Disabled into Work (#politics #ToriesOutNow #welfare)

tsnudge.fwThe following is an excerpt from an article written by Sue Jones on the Welfare Weekly entitled ‘ Revealed: Social Experiments To ‘Nudge’ Sick And Disabled Into Work’.

You can read the full article (which is quite detailed) on their website here. (Opens in a new window)


The Government’s ‘Nudge Unit’ team is currently working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, to trial social experiments aimed at finding ways of keeping or pushing sick and disabled people into work.

“These include GPs prescribing a work coach, and a health and work passport to collate employment and health information. These emerged from research with people on ESA, and are now being tested with local teams of Jobcentres, GPs and employers.”

This is a crass state intrusion on the private and confidential patient-doctor relationship, which ought to be about addressing medical health problems and supporting people who are ill. Not about creating yet another space for an over-extension of the coercive arm of the state to “help”people into work.

Of course the government haven’t announced this latest “intervention” in the lives of disabled people. I found out about it quite by accident, because I read Matthew Hancock’s recent conference speech: The Future of Public Services.

Hancock is the appointed Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, and was previously the Minister of State for Business and Enterprise. He headed David Cameron’s “earn or learn” taskforce which aims to have every young person earning or “learning” from April 2017.

He announced that 18- to 21-year-olds who can’t find work would be required to do work experience (free labour for Tory business donors), as well as looking for jobs or face losing their benefits. But then Hancock is keen to commodify everyone and everything – including public data.

However his references to “accountability and transparency” don’t stand up to scrutiny when we consider the fact that he recently laid a statement before parliament, outlining details about the five-person commission that will be asked to decide whether the Freedom of Information act is too expensive and “overly intrusive.”

He goes on to say: “And this brings me onto my second area of reform: experimentation. Because in seeking to improve our services, we need to know what actually works.”

But we need to ask for whom is it being “improved” and for whom does it work, exactly.

And did any of the public actually consent to being experimented upon by the state? Or to having their behaviour modified?

The Tory welfare “reforms” are a big business profiteering opportunity

From the shrinking category of legitimate “disability” to forcing people to work for no pay on the exploitative workfare schemes, “nudge” has been used to euphemistically frame punitive policies, “applying the principles of behavioural economics to the important issue of the transition from welfare to work.” (From: Employing BELIEF:Applying behavioural economics to welfare to work, 2010.)

And guess who sponsored the “research” into “nudging” people into workfare? Steve Moore, Business Development Director from esg, which is “a leading welfare to work and vocational skills group, created through the merger and acquisition of four leading providers in the DWP and LSC sector.” Fancy that.

Of course the “aim” of the “research” is:  “breaking the cycle of benefit dependency especially for our hardest to help customers, including the “cohort” of disabled people.”

However, there’s no such thing as a “cycle of benefit dependency”, it’s a traditional Tory prejudice and is based on historically unevidenced myths. Poverty arises because of socioeconomic circumstances that are unmitigated through government decision-making. In fact this government has intentionally extended and perpetuated inequality through its policies.

The politics of punishment

I had already made a connection between the Nudge unit’s obsession with manipulating cognitive bias with sanctions, though most people raving about nudge think it’s just about prompting men to pee on the right spot in urinals, or persuading us about organ donation and to pay our taxes.

For anyone curious as to how such tyrannical behaviour modification techniques like benefit sanctions arose from the bland language, inane management speak, acronyms and pseudo-scientific framework of “paternal libertarianism” – nudge – read this paper, focused almost exclusively on New Right obsessions, paying particular attention to the part about “loss aversion” on page 7.

And this on page 18: “The most obvious policy implication arising from loss aversion is that if policy-makers can clearly convey the losses that certain behaviour will incur, it may ‘encourage’ people not to do it,” and page 46: “Given that, for most people, losses are more important than comparable gains, it is important that potential losses are defined and made explicit to jobseekers (e.g.the sanctions regime).”

The recommendation on that page: “We believe the regime is currently too complex and, despite people’s tendency towards loss aversion, the lack of clarity around the sanctions regime can make it ineffective. Complexity prevents claimants from fully appreciating the financial losses they face if they do not comply with the conditions of their benefit.”

The Conservatives duly “simplified” sanctions by extending them in terms of severity and the frequency of use.

The paper was written in November 2010, prior to the Coalition policy of increased “conditionality” and sanctions element of the Tory-led welfare “reforms” in 2012.

Sanctioning welfare recipients by removing their lifeline benefit – originally calculated to meet the cost of only basic survival needs – food, fuel and shelter – isn’t about “arranging choice architecture”, it’s not nudging: it’s conditioning.

It’s a brand of dystopic, psychopolitical neobehaviourism and is all about a totalitarian level of micromanaging people’s lives to ensure they are obedient and compliant to the needs of  the “choice architects” and policy-makers.

It even permeates language, prompting semantic shifts towards bland descriptors which mask power and class relations, coercive state actions and intentions. One only needs to look at the context in which the government use words like “fair”, “support”, “help” and “reform” to recognise linguistic behaviourism in action.

It’s rather difficult to see how starving people and threatening them with destitution can possibly “improve the well-being of many socially excluded people, and help to bring them to inclusion.”

No amount of bland and meaningless psychobabble or intransigent, ideologically tainted policies can mitigate the economic sanctioning of people who are already poor and in need of financial assistance.

Apparently, citizenship and entitlement to basic rights and autonomy is a status conferred on only the economically productive.

Source: Welfare Weekly. Read the full article on their website here. (Opens in a new window)


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#Religion – do we need it? (#spirituality #knowledge)

doweneedreligionThe news and other mainstream media seems to be dominated by reports of conflict around the world related to some religion or another.

So many times we see religion used as an excuse for abominable atrocities against our fellow humans. Of course, those who use religion to justify their disgusting acts are not necessarily representative of everyone who follows the religion. However, there are a significant number of ‘believers’ who succumb to the propaganda and manipulation of these so-called ‘leaders’ to cause serious concerns for the rest of humanity.

But do we really need religion at all?

The three major religions in the world (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are all basically the same, and are derived from the same theoretical teachings of Abraham. Yet there is constant conflict where one or other of these religions are the aggressors against the other(s) and their followers and cultures.

Some claim that without religion there would be no social or moral structure. This is nonsense.

Our closest biological relatives, the Bonobo, manage perfectly well without (as far as we know) religion. The Bonobo society is peaceful and empathic.

‘Lost’ tribes such as the Zo’é have lived at least as long as other humans in the developed world, yet live in peace with (and value) each other. Again, they have developed a social and moral structure that the rest of the world should envy. They are spiritual people who recognise their connection to everything around them and live their lives as part of their environment.

People among us who have no belief in religion are as ‘moral’ and engage in society as much as any other ‘sector’ within our world. They are no more or less prone to behave in a way which is contradictory to the rest of society as any other group of people – ‘believers’ included.

Another aspect of religion that is often used for justifying its existence is that without religion humanity would have no purpose and become lost.

Again, this is total nonsense. The theory that without religion a person has no reason to exist or comply with society is a manipulative control mechanism born from a ‘hellfire and brimstone’ style of religious delivery – which still exists today.

Human beings are not born with the purpose of engaging in conflict and violence with or against others. Our natural instinct is to live peacefully together in mutual cooperation. It is society (in most cases, although there are exceptions) which creates environments where a person may develop dysfunctional behaviour.

For example, the pressure placed on the individual through real or perceived expectations that they should ‘aspire’ to becoming financially wealthy and contribute financially to society is in conflict with the core values most normally functioning human beings experience. This conflict can transpire as guilt if the person feels they are failing to attain these false aspirations, or confusion when a person realises that these false aspirations are damaging to other members of humanity. This is one of many false aspirations placed on individuals, and most are manipulative and designed to be of benefit to a small sector of society.

Leaving aside the biological, dysfunctional behaviour is the result of frustration, guilt, confusion, and abandonment. A person is unable to reconcile the core feelings they have with the realities of their environment and the society they live in.

The mainstream religions mentioned previously are significant contributors to these false aspirations and are purposely designed to control large numbers of people. Some people will comply and believe these false aspirations are how they (and everyone else) should live their lives, and will place pressure on those they see as dissenters and non-believers.

Within every one of us there is purpose to our existence.

Our basic biological functioning gives us reason to exist and a purpose to continue our lives. Continuation of our species is one of the most basic natural driving forces, with each of us playing a role – whether that is to produce offspring or to maintain an environment where members of our species live safe and healthy lives.

Biological functioning is only part of why any human being, regardless of ‘belief’, continues to exist in this world.

Within each of us there is knowledge that we are part of something much bigger than the small space we occupy on this planet. It is irrefutable and all pervasive – but can be elusive at times.

For some people, part of these feelings may be interpreted in concrete logical terms, in that we are generally social animals and need to belong to groups containing other humans – a matter of instinct and survival. For others, it may be a much deeper feeling and have much deeper meaning, such as being part of the universal energy which exists all around us – or being part of some esoteric creation.

An interesting point is that atheism is not a belief system or religion. Because someone considers themselves to be atheist does not necessarily mean they do not believe in other forces or energies relating to the spiritual. It merely means that someone does not consider the religious explanations of a god or gods to be evidence of a god or gods (or other supernatural beings) existence. For example, some Buddhist sects are atheist in nature.  So atheists may hold some form of belief system or none at all – it depends on the individual.

Whether we have a belief system or not we are all aware that we exist, and will continue exist (at least until the body’s demise) for an inner reason that we may or may not be consciously aware of.

Religion provides a convenient answer to many questions about the nature of life and existence.

Instead of embarking on their own path of seeking and discovery, many humans willingly accept the most convenient answers from those who have manipulated themselves into positions of perceived influence and authority. Others will form opinions and perceptions based on little or flawed information, even though this information may not be in congruence with their inner most feelings and knowledge.

This is hardly surprising when most humans are kept busy for most of their lives and are bombarded with information from varied and sometimes conflicting sources. Taking time out to really consider the questions and analyse vast amounts of information can be difficult in the modern world.

The basis for all mainstream Abrahamic religions are (what they claim to be) ancient texts, being the Bible, Koran, and Torah (Pentateuch) which are claimed to contain the direct word of a ‘God’ as spoken to Abraham. Over time, the majority of these texts have been translated and edited to suit the needs of various regimes throughout history – including churches, governments, and royalty.

Abraham is claimed to have existed around 2000BC and his story is first written about in the Pentateuch (Torah) around the period 520-320BC (the Persian period), which scholars believe was as a result of land ownership disputes by Jewish landowners – claiming they had rights to the land through their lineage to ‘Abraham’. From this we have the book of Genesis – authors unknown.

In the context of the time, claiming rights to land through a direct link to ‘God’ would have been a very convenient bargaining tool with others who were superstitious and feared the wrath of the ‘gods’.

It has since been established that many of the Abrahamic religious texts are inaccurate in their historical references as new archaeological and historical evidence has been discovered.

To all intents and purposes the religious texts on which Abrahamic religions are based are nothing more than man-made stories written in the context of knowledge and the needs of that society (or those in control of it) at that time. In effect, it was the propaganda/spin-doctoring of the time which aimed to manipulate and control vast numbers of people.

In times past the general population did not have access to science, education, or information which would help them come to their own conclusions about life. Most of the time they were living in fear of repercussions if they went against the majority view in society, or acted against the interests of those in power.

Effectively, religion was used as a way to enslave the population and subdue any alternative view of life which may expand and threaten those in power. Dissenters were branded as heretics and witches – practitioners of sorcery that was an affront to ‘God’. The result was (and still is to some extent) that people became afraid to access their inner selves and find their own meaning. Instead they accepted what was spoon-fed them by those in power.

We see this in our modern society.

Despite progress which has been made in understanding the world around us (although still fairly primitive) people are still convinced that religion provides the answers to the meaning of our existence.

A collection of stories written around two to four thousand years ago by people with little understanding of the world still maintains a controlling influence over billions of people. It is estimated that around 70% of the world’s population identify with one of the major Abrahamic religions or their derivatives.

Quite astonishing, but also understandable when we consider that the world’s population has been subjected to constant religious bombardment for centuries.

The infiltration of these religions into our society has been so relentless that many people have no idea whatsoever why they have belief in them. If questioned, they may provide some reasoning based on their perceptions, but none will be based on first-hand knowledge that can be attributed their particular ‘brand’ of religion – nor any particular belief system.

Perhaps the majority of people with belief in these religions would cite ‘teaching’ or inherited beliefs as their prime reasons – which could be from relatives (who have been subjected to the same bombardment of religious information), peers, schools, churches or temples, and so on.

The hard fact is that there is no real evidence at all which supports the overall claims of these religions. If anything, they have been disproven time and time again yet people still believe in them through their selective analysis of our world.

If people continue to blindly believe in the easy answers these religions give them for their questions about life, they are distracted from the reality that is around them, and which has been part of every human being since our species has been on this planet.

People also become complacent, and stop looking for real answers and knowledge, instead readily accepting various stories which do not necessarily represent truth.

Even though we exist in the reality of the world and the earthly and universal energies that surround us, often we take them for granted, using a combination of ‘science’ and ‘religious belief’ to dismiss their real meaning or to look further into how we are directly connected to them.

Even though we can not see the wind and can not see the heat or cold, we know they exist because we can feel them. We see the effects of these energies all around us, whether that be the clouds moving in the sky or the grass and trees turning colour throughout the seasons.

In our modern world we can not see radio signals yet we know they exist because we can connect to the internet, watch television, or listen to the radio. We can communicate vast distances – even into outer space. We can not see electricity, but we know it exists, and we know how dangerous it can be to us mere mortals if we fail to treat it with respect.

Energy is everything and everything is energy, working in a fine symbiotic relationship.

Even though modern science is still fairly primitive, we know that everything in our world vibrates – if it didn’t then it would have no energy and therefore could not exist.

So far scientists have developed instruments to measure a tiny, tiny part of the frequency spectrum that is part of our world, and the visible range is an even tinier part of that.

As an analogy, if a standard piano keyboard were used as a measure, modern science is able to measure one octave (8 notes), yet it would take thousands of keyboards stretching from the earth to the moon to represent the estimated range of frequencies which exist.

Scientists are discovering that they are unable to measure much of the energy within the universe, and many of the ‘laws’ which govern science just result in garbage data.

Fortunately, there are maverick scientists who do not conform to the institutional dogma which plagues scientific development and knowledge. In fact, if it were not for maverick scientists we would probably still be in the dark ages in many ways.

An area which may be of interest to anyone who is interested in spiritual matters is that of quantum consciousness.  The research of Professor Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose have advanced understanding of consciousness immensely and had withstood the test of time, with much of the criticism coming from the established dogmatic scientific community (with their criticisms being proved wrong as time passed and research developed).

In a nutshell, the theory proposes that our consciousness (spirit, soul, thoughts, etc.) exists in particles within microtubules in the brain. Despite attempts to disrupt them, they always stay or return to their original pattern, and continue to exist (in more than one place in the universe) when the body’s system stops supporting other bodily function. Therefore, they will continue to exist when our biological bodies morph into other energies.

And this is another interesting fact – our bodies do not ‘die’ (as in ‘cease to exist’) because that would be impossible. Our bodies continue to exist as they change into other forms which provide life and substance to other things in the universe. Whether buried or cremated, our bodies morph from one energy source to another energy source which other things use in order for them to exist. Whether that is the biological changes that provide energy for animals and plants, or carbon which is the building block of everything living on our planet.

Many events and phenomena people have experienced are often attributed to the supernatural, whether that be religion or other belief systems.

In one way these events and experiences are supernatural in that they are not explained by our current understanding of the universe. In another way, they are not supernatural at all because they are perfectly natural and within the fabric of the universe. – it’s just that we don’t know how or why they are part of it yet.

In perspective, it wasn’t that long ago that scientists and mystics considered the sky to be the ceiling of the planet because it was the only way they could understand its existence within their limited knowledge.

Similarly, theories of today’s science will become expanded on or disproven as time passes.

There are many unexplained things in this world, and those who try to give explanations are often basing their theories on dubious information or within the framework of their own particular flawed views. Some of these are close to the truth, while some are outright wrong.

Mainstream religion is more often wrong and (as with any cult) is nothing more than a control tool used by manipulators and psychopaths for their self-interest.

More pain and suffering has been bestowed on humanity in the name of religion than any other influence in our existence.

The information provided by religious leaders has been based on the needs of the controlling power, whether that is a church, or some self-appointed leader claiming ‘divine’ rights and is nonsense.

We are in an age where vast numbers of people have become disillusioned with the disparity between the preaching’s of religion and the reality of their existence and the actions of so-called ‘leaders’. Religion does not provide answers, it only provides confusion and conflict.

As we are seeing in the Muslim world, it is the manipulated, the vulnerable, the psychopathic, and the lost who choose to embark on violence which is against every concept of humanity and inner most truth.

They justify their actions in the name of their ‘God’, but all they are doing is believing those whose only interest is in control and domination. There is nothing ‘religious’ about their actions whatsoever.

It is within each of us (with the exception of the clinically psychopathic and narcissistic) to find true meaning. There is no mystery other than our lack of knowledge. And whether we consider the world around us factual, spiritual, or a combination of both, the truth stares us in the face every day of our lives.

In time there will be increased understanding of the nature of our existence and the undeniable connection we have to each other and everything around us. But for now, we must embrace the unseen and the ‘supernatural’ as part of the rich experience of being human beings and our spirituality.

There is nothing to fear, there is nothing to feel guilty about. The ‘rights and wrongs’ of being a human being are already known to you.

Don’t be afraid of rejecting the manipulative chains which bind you. Don’t be afraid to explore yourself and the world. Most of all, don’t be afraid of rejecting the dogmatic belief systems which have plagued humanity for thousands of years.

We are entering an era of discovery – more so than any other time in our recent history. There is a path for each of us, and the direction of that path, how far along it we go, and what we discover along the way is our choice.  


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

‘Artificial Society’ – video


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Some facts about the VIP paedophile network (#UK #childabuse #VIPaedophile @ExaroNews)

pnfactsIn the ridiculous aftermath of the Panorama shambles of a programme on the claims of a paedophile ring involving political figures and VIPs, it is time to take notice of FACTS rather than speculation, propaganda, and outright smear campaigning.

What the Panorama programme did achieve (as it was designed to do from the outset) was cast doubts on the claims of alleged victims, investigations by Exaro, and MP Tom Watson, thereby fogging the realty of the issue.

What did Tom Watson do? He passed on information he had received concerning high-level cover-ups of the sexual abuse of children to the police – as any concerned person would do.

Exaro received information from alleged victims of the abuse and passed them on to the police. They acted as go-betweens for people who would not (at that time) approach the authorities directly for fear of retribution – something which many had experienced in the past, or had had their claims dismissed by the authorities before being investigated.

The alleged victims then made statements to the police directly once a certain amount of trust had been established.

The police then investigated the claims, and looked for corroborating evidence before mounting a full investigation. The police found corroborating evidence which indicated that the statements of alleged victims were credible. The police then mounted the full investigation as Operation Midland.

On mounting the investigation, the police also appealed for people with any information on a potential high-profile paedophile ring to come forward – which they did.

The people who came forward included alleged victims, former police officers (including former Special Branch officers), and others who had knowledge of events during the time in question and/or knowledge of high-profile figures being suspected of being involved (or in some cases clearly involved) in the sexual abuse of children.

This resulted in material evidence being obtained by the police, who then investigated alleged perpetrators and others who they believed could have knowledge of activities relating to their investigation.

It was the accumulated evidence which constituted the core of Operation Midland’s investigation – not just Tom Watson, Exaro, or the unverified statements of witnesses.

In addition, there is the huge amount of evidence of child sexual abuse in other areas of the country and through other related investigations which contribute to the investigation being conducted by Operation Midland.

More than half of the claims of high-level cover-ups by authorities have come from former police officers.

At the time of writing, the Metropolitan Police are investigating more than 30 allegations of child sexual abuse by political figures and other high-profile people – all based on evidence of former police officers.

One retired officer says that in a search of a paedophile’s home he found a document from the Houses of Parliament listing prominent individuals involved in a child sex ring.

Another claims an operation targeting rent boys in London’s Dolphin Square – said to be the HQ of one ring – was stopped “due to officers being too near prominent people.”

An outraged officer says no action was taken against VIPs during a probe into a paedophile ring that led to other abusers being convicted.

Up to five other retired ­officers claim VIPs were shielded.

Their allegations – of serious corruption and criminal activity by senior officers dating back to the 1970s – are in papers sent by the Met to the Independent Police Complaints Commission which the Sunday People obtained after a freedom of information battle.

Even the Daily Mail – which has embarked on a smear campaign of epic proportions in light of the Panorama documentary – ran an article in March 2015 which provided evidence that David Cameron and Nick Clegg were purposely obstructing investigations into the VIP paedophile ring.

The Daily Mail were involved to the point of threatening the Cabinet Office with High Court action if they did not comply with a Freedom of Information request the newspaper sent to them – a very different tone to this week’s debacle claiming to be ‘journalism’.

It is interesting to note that David Cameron and his cronies have been particularly obstructive concerning the investigation of child sexual abuse by high-profile figures – at one point Cameron calling them ‘conspiracy theories’, only to be proven a liar the next day.

Despite the propaganda and mainstream media feeding frenzy, the facts remain the facts. Opinions and prejudices have no place in investigating possible serious crime, and ONLY the facts matter – whatever agenda certain publications may be pursuing.

Officers at Operation Midland have a very tough job to do. They are investigating matters which high-profile people and their inner-circles do not want investigated – let alone being taken to court.

One thing is for sure. There are those who have been directly involved or complicit in child sexual abuse who are still alive and kicking and will do everything they can to put up smokescreens and resist exposure.

Time will tell what will become of Operation Midland’s investigation (and other investigations of high-profile figures) and if any of those who have knowledge or have been complicit in facilitating the abuse will be brought to justice.


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Doctors Without Borders (#MSF) call for ‘war crimes’ investigation over #US bombing of #Kunduz hospital.

msfwcIn a speech delivered by Dr Joanne Liu, MSF International President, given yesterday (7th October 2015), Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has called for a full investigation by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission into breaches of the Geneva Convention after the bombing of Kunduz hospital by United States forces.

Dr Joanne Liu’s speech:

“On Saturday morning, MSF patients and staff killed in Kunduz joined the countless number of people who have been killed around the world in conflict zones and referred to as ‘collateral damage’ or as an ‘inevitable consequence of war’. International humanitarian law is not about ‘mistakes’. It is about intention, facts and why.

The US attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz was the biggest loss of life for our organisation in an airstrike. Tens of thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most. Today we say: enough. Even war has rules.

In Kunduz our patients burned in their beds. MSF doctors, nurses and other staff were killed as they worked. Our colleagues had to operate on each other. One of our doctors died on an improvised operating table – an office desk – while his colleagues tried to save his life.

Today we pay tribute to those who died in this abhorrent attack. And we pay tribute to those MSF staff who, while watching their colleagues die and with their hospital still on fire, carried on treating the wounded.

This was not just an attack on our hospital – it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts – including patients, medical workers and facilities.

They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.

The Geneva Conventions are not just an abstract legal framework – they are the difference between life and death for medical teams on the frontline.

They are what allow patients to access our health facilities safely and what allows us to provide healthcare without being targeted.

It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected.

And yet, 10 patients including three children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.

The facts and circumstances of this attack must be investigated independently and impartially, particularly given the inconsistencies in the US and Afghan accounts of what happened over recent days.

We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the US, NATO and Afghan forces.

Today we announce that we are seeking an investigation into the Kunduz attack by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission.

This Commission was established in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions and is the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.

We ask signatory States to activate the Commission to establish the truth and to reassert the protected status of hospitals in conflict.

Though this body has existed since 1991, the Commission has not yet been used. It requires one of the 76 signatory States to sponsor an inquiry.

Governments up to now have been too polite or afraid to set a precedent. The tool exists and it is time it is activated.

It is unacceptable that States hide behind ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ and in doing so create a free for all and an environment of impunity.

It is unacceptable that the bombing of a hospital and the killing of staff and patients can be dismissed as collateral damage or brushed aside as a mistake.

Today we are fighting back for the respect of the Geneva Conventions. As doctors, we are fighting back for the sake of our patients. We need you, as members of the public, to stand with us to insist that even wars have rules.”



Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

BBC’s ‘Panorama’ – a journalistic travesty (#UK #childabuse #VIPaedophile)

bbcpanoramaYesterday evening the BBC showed an edition of the Panorama programme entitled ‘The VIP Paedophile Ring: What’s the Truth?’. (iPlayer link)

The programme is described by the BBC thus:

Panorama investigates sensational allegations of historical child abuse and murder by some of the most prominent people in Britain: a paedophile ring at the heart of the Establishment. Why were the allegations described by police as “credible and true” with no hard evidence or corroboration? What role have senior politicians and the media played in promoting this story around the world? And what price will genuine victims of child abuse pay if it turns out not to be true?”

Having followed allegations of a VIP paedophile network involving politicians and senior civil servants for some years (even before the current allegations came to light), we were interested to see what the Panorama team would produce.

The background to the screening of the programme is interesting.

From the outset, the programme producers were accused of having the intention of rubbishing the claims of alleged victims of the abuse, causing conflict within the BBC, particularly BBC News, with BBC sources stating that the Panorama programme seemed to be taking a ‘very odd angle’.

BBC management were nervous about the programme going ahead as scheduled because of negotiations taking place around the corporation’s charter and the upcoming general election. In March 2015 it was unclear if the programme would be screened at all.

It seems the agenda of the programme was also in conflict with investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into abuse cover-ups involving MPs by Scotland Yard.

Management at the BBC were also concerned that allegations of letting down abuse survivors could be levelled at them again, with the corporation already coming under fire for the Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall cases.

It was decided that the programme would be aired because of the enormous costs involved in making it – primarily because of the amount of legal advice – and the time spent on the production (a typical Panorama episode takes two to three months to produce).

And so, last night we were treated to the fruits of all that work and high cost.

Overall the programme was a waste of time and licence payer’s cash. It was inaccurate, clearly biased, and failed to cover important evidence in the investigations.

The focus of the programme seemed to be (as previously stated by BBC sources) rubbishing alleged victim’s claims, and attacking the reporters (Exaro) who significantly contributed to the current Operation Midland investigation.

The impression the Panorama programme gave was that Exaro had pushed alleged victims to make statements and that the police had wholly believed those statements and started an investigation solely from them. It also sought to attack Chris Fay, a person who has significantly contributed to the investigation of activities at Elm Guest House.

This is totally untrue.

Those who have been following developments leading up to Operation Midland being established know that the police did a lot work prior to embarking on a full investigation.  They did not take the statements of alleged victims at their face value, and sought corroborating evidence – as any police investigation would. It was only then that a full investigation under Operation Midland took place.

The police have not only received evidence and information from alleged victims as the programme tried to portray.

For instance, other evidence has come from former police officers (including former Special Branch officers) who witnessed activities during the years the abuse is alleged to have taken place. This is one of many other sources that have led police to continue investigating these allegations.

The Panorama programme tried present Harvey Proctor as a ‘victim’ of a witch-hunt, without going into the details of how Proctor came to be investigated in the first place. The officers of Operation Midland did not suddenly become storm-troopers stamping over anyone someone may have named or accused. The decision to investigate Proctor (and search his property) was taken because of a culmination of evidence which gave the police reasonable suspicion.

Proctor has been very public and vocal about the investigation by Operation Midland. Just because he is shouting from the rooftops does not mean he is innocent. Of course, the fact that officers from Operation Midland are continuing to investigate him does not mean he is guilty either.

Conveniently, Proctor seems not to have been vocal at all about his ex-lover voluntarily coming forward after an appeal was made by Operation Midland for witnesses.

Another prime subject of the Panorama programme was Leon Brittan.

If the producers of Panorama were to be believed the only evidence against Brittan was information obtained from alleged victims.

This is inaccurate and misleading.

As far back as 1982 Brittan was featured in a child sex video seized by Customs and Excise from businessman Russel Tucker, along with other child pornography. Brittan was also featured in other unrelated videos seized by investigators, where Brittan was taking full part in parties where men abused boys.

The fact is that those being investigated by Operation Midland are being so because of more than one person’s statement. There is also other evidence which warrants further investigation of the individual. There is no ‘witch-hunt’ taking place.

Panorama – which considers itself to be involved in serious investigative journalism – has failed to present an accurate representation of the investigation into VIP paedophile activities by Operation Midland, instead focusing on a few aspects which do not reveal the depth and extent of evidence.

The programme also fails to address the investigations currently taking place into police corruption and cover-ups relating to the activities of senior political figures and child abuse.

One of the investigations concerns a senior police officer who accessed information concerning Operation Midland (even though they were not involved in the operation) and leaked the secret identities of complainants to the Panorama programme.

Considering that it is claimed that the programme took an unusually long time to produce and cost significantly more than a ‘normal’ Panorama programme we fail to see where that time or money has been used.

The information presented in the programme (the parts which are based in fact) could be obtained from public domain sources within a few hours. The rest of the programme is made up of statements by random people – many of whom have had no direct experience of the Operation Midland investigation – and theory and supposition – much of which is in direct opposition to evidence.

Our overall impression of the programme is that it nothing more than amateurish propaganda aimed at appeasing the BBC’s lords and masters – the government – who have been desperate to try and divert public attention from the abuses allegedly carried out by members of their ‘power circles’ since they first surfaced in their recent incarnation.

Claims of deviant sexual abuses by those in power are nothing new. There have been many accusations made in the past which have been covered-up (hence the current investigations by the IPCC).

The BBC is nothing more than the government’s mouth piece, which has become more prevalent over the past few years as the BBC is exposed time and again as failing to address important issues or, at the very least, accused of very sloppy, shoddy, and biased reporting.

If you have any information which could be of help to the investigation by Operation Midland please contact the team though Exaro or Scotland Yard.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#Political #Correctness – Devolving #Society [video]

Dr Jim Walters and Professor James Allen express their views on how political correctness inhibits critical thinking and dumbs down society.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Syrian refugees – why they are here (#UK #Syria)

srefugeesHere is a concise timeline which explains the truth behind today’s crisis is Syria, the number of refugees in Europe, and the rise of the Islamic state.

First of all, we have to understand a little history which directly relates to the situation today.

On 24th December 1979 the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan to assist the communist government (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)) battle the Mujahideen – Islamic extremists fighting against the unpopular Afghan government. The Soviet presence lasted until February 1989.

In response to Soviet involvement, several countries (including the USA, UK, China, and various Arab nations) set up covert operations to supply, train, and finance the Mujahideen.

The US’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established ‘Operation Cyclone’ which ensured resources reached the Mujahideen via Pakistan, most notably through Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ‘Inter-Services Intelligence’ (ISI).

Jimmy Carter was president of the US between 1977 and 1981, with Ronald Reagan in power between 1981 and 1989. Margaret Thatcher was UK Prime Minister (and was to stay in power until 1990).

Operation Cyclone was significantly expanded under the Reagan regime as part of his plan to assist anti-communist resistance movements abroad.

Along with funding from similar programs from Britain’s MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People’s Republic of China, it is estimated that the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 Islamic extremists between 1978 and 1992.

The Bush family (which was later to spawn two presidents) in the United States were heavily involved in the corridors of power, and had very close associations with the US arms industry. Included in their circle of close friends were the bin Ladens.

The bin Ladens are closely connected to Saudi royalty. Their wealth (almost a rags to riches story) comes from construction, owning one of the largest construction groups in the Middle-East. Their business activity reaches far beyond the Middle-East, with companies and partnerships with major construction companies spanning the entire globe, most notably London (Evered Holdings) and Geneva (Saudi Investment Company).

An interesting aside is that the bin Laden family are the only foreign entity to be protected in the United States by the Secret Service.

Around the same time Operation Cyclone was initiated by the CIA, Osama bin Laden (of the previously mentioned bin Ladens) went to Pakistan after leaving collage.

He joined the Mujahideen and helped facilitate funding, training, and other resources for fighters in Afghanistan. There are theorists who suspect that Osama bin Laden was part of Operation Cyclone – sent into Pakistan to spread Islamic fundamentalism with the aim of destabilising the soviets and the Afghanistan government. His family’s reputation in the area and their wealth would have been an ideal cover to aid the CIA in covertly channelling resources.

Bin Laden had a close relationship with General Hamid Gul who was head of Pakistan’s ISI agency, further lending credibility to claims he was part of Operation Cyclone.

Part of bin Laden’s role was to establish small groups of resistance to the Soviet occupation, for which he used Islamic fundamentalism as a driving force. Once established (with suitably motivated leadership) each group became a self-perpetuating force, recruiting from the poor and disillusioned of the country, with bin Laden and his carefully selected associates acting as a central hub.

This resulted in a very well trained gorilla fighting force resourced and supported by the CIA and intelligence organisations from other countries.

Operation Cyclone was hugely successful and made a significant contribution to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.

Not only had the US and its allies forced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan, they had also established a significant force which could be used to covertly destabilise the region, and continued to fund Islamic groups well into the 1990s at least – including bin Laden’s core organisation – al-Qaeda.

Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were “a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies”, and that “Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

The pro-American Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 and replaced with the anti-American Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – which had taken the Americans by surprise. Intelligence agencies had underestimated the threat to the Shah, who was considered by many observers to be a US puppet.

Aided by the CIA, Iraq invaded Iran on the 22nd September 1980. Iraq claimed that the invasion was because they feared the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency by the supressed Shia majority in Iraq. Iraq also had a desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state allied to the US.

This resulted in the Iran-Iraq war which lasted from 1980 to 1988. Although perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it the Iraq-Iran War because CIA backed Iraq was the aggressor.

Through various mutually beneficial arrangements, the US had manipulated support from countries surrounding Iran on all sides.

Relations between Syria and the US and its allies have been very cold for a long time. During the late 1950s the CIA made several attempts to destabilise the country and install a puppet government.

In 1957 the CIA resourced an attempted coup to oust the government. In collaboration with British Intelligence (MI6) the CIA planned the assignation of three high-ranking Syrian officials, Abdel Hamid al-Sarraj, head of military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, army chief of staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist Party.

There was also a plan around the same time for the CIA to fund a “Free Syria Committee” (sound familiar?) who would engage in sabotage and disruption within Syria. The mechanics of the plan would be handled by MI6 and would include groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood – later to become closely associated with al-Qaeda in the 1980s.

After 1989 al-Qaeda and some members of the Mujahideen facilitated the establishment of other Islamic groups in the region. These included the Haqqani Network, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taliba, and Boko Harem in Nigeria.

During an interview in 2003, President Bashar Assad of Syria said of Osama bin-Laden “[He] cannot talk on the phone or use the Internet, but he can direct communications to the four corners of the world?” Assad said. “This is illogical.”

The most notorious of the spin-off organisations is what we know today as The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The organisation has gone through several incarnations as smaller groups joined them, including Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (1999–2004), Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (2004–06), Mujahideen Shura Council (2006), Islamic State of Iraq (2006–13), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–14), and the Islamic State – which is how they are known today.

In July 2011 the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was established (allegedly) by approximately five Syrian army officers who defected at the result of protests that began in the spring of that year.

According to mainstream media reports at the time, the conflict was the result of protesters being fired on by Syrian troops during a protest in Damascus on 15th March 2011. The protest calling for democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners was allegedly triggered by the arrest of a boy and his friends in the city of Daraa who had written graffiti saying “The people want the fall of the regime”.

Highly organised protests began to spread throughout the country and by 22nd April 2011 twenty Syrian cities had been subject to demonstrations, the tone of which had changed significantly. Now protesters were demanding the overthrow of the Assad government. The protests had also turned violent and Syrian military were sent in to quell the unrest.

The focus of the FSA was stated as being to bring down the government and to work hand-in-hand with the demonstrators.

However, there seems to be another side to the start of the conflict. According to various sources, which include Syrian officials and independent observers, in each of the demonstrations there appeared to be a small number of people who were the core instigators. These people are described as of Arabic decent but not Syrian.

Eye witness statements claim that these infiltrators moved around within main groups of protesters and fired on Syrian security forces using other protesters as a ‘shield’, or to provoke Syrian forces to fire into the crowd.

Throughout the course of the conflict various groups have joined the FSA, most of them being radical Islamic based organisations, very similar (if not the same) as those financed through Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan.

From the beginning of their involvement, much of the equipment used by the FSA is new and originates from the United States, Israel, and European sources. Pictures show crates of rifles and other equipment which have clearly been supplied in bulk, as well as pictures of fighters using new rifles etc.

Mossad, CIA, Blackwater employees and other intelligence and military operatives from around the world have been reported to have been involved in the conflict from the start. This includes the alleged capture of 13 French undercover military personnel in March 2012.

In 2012, Wikileaks released an email from US private intelligence company Stratfor. In the email were details of a confidential meeting at the Pentagon attended by senior analysts from the US Air Force, France, and the UK.

The author of the email stated “…said without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.”

There is also expansion on the role of undercover commandos by US army experts, which stated “the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”

But there is one very simple question that has yet to be answered by any of the FSA supporting governments. Why would anyone support Islamic extremists, providing them with expert training, advanced and new weaponry, and billions of dollars in financial aid?

Logically, it doesn’t make sense – and it makes even less sense when western governments are pronouncing their ‘war on terror’ and that al-Qaeda/Islamic State are a serious threat to world democracy and peace.

As recently as 2013 UK Prime Minister Cameron was convinced he would gain support at the G8 summit for supplying and supporting the FSA, even though it was well reported at the time that the majority of the ‘freedom fighters’ were Islamic extremists.

Fortunately his plan was stopped by a parliamentary vote.

When he was asked to explain why he was so in favour of supporting the FSA when he knew al-Qaeda and other Islamic organisations were involved he avoided answering by launching into a tirade of personal insults against the person who had asked.

Anti-Assad propaganda has also been extensive within mainstream western media.

In particular, the BBC has been criticised many times for its coverage of the conflict and has been accused of misreporting, and of re-editing reports to support the official UK government position/propaganda.

Shortly after the conflict started, BBC Foreign Correspondent Lyse Doucet was allowed entry into Syria (while at the same time claiming in her report that foreign journalists were not being allowed in to the country) and was lambasted by local people for the BBC’s misrepresentation of life in Syria under the Assad regime.

Mainstream media in the US have bombarded the population with misinformation and speculation about Syria and the Syrian conflict. Again, much of this information merely regurgitates their government’s official accounts rather than the truth.

Despite the propaganda surrounding the controlling Ba’ath Party and President Bashar al-Assad, many Syrians see him as something of a progressive since he took over from his father.

Within a year of becoming President, Assad embarked on reforming the corrupt government.

When Assad took over the Presidency, Syria’s economy was in terrible shape. Lost were the decades of support from the Soviet Union after its collapse in 1991. A serious recession in the mid-1990s was exacerbated by Syria squandering its oil revenues on its second rate army. However, by 2001, Syria exhibited many signs of a modern society—cell phones, satellite television, trendy restaurants and Internet cafes.

Prior to 2011, the country had seen a relaxation of the Emergency Law which had been in place since 1963, the closing of Mezzeh prison which held military and political prisoners, and a wide ranging amnesty which released hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood prisoners. Assad is responsible for many positive changes within Syria which affect the lives of ordinary citizens. However, he has been slow to change the military and intelligence services which have been accused of human rights violations against political opponents.

Something that has annoyed western powers is Assad’s stance on Israel. Assad is openly critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, Israel’s aggressive presence in the Middle-East, and Israel’s refusal to enter into any reasonable peace agreement or truce.

In a 2006 interview with US broadcaster CBS, Assad told interviewer Charlie Rose (referring to the possibility of a peace agreement with Israel) “There is a big difference between talking about a peace treaty and peace. A peace treaty is like a permanent ceasefire. There’s no war, maybe you have an embassy, but you actually won’t have trade, you won’t have normal relations because people will not be sympathetic to this relation as long as they are sympathetic with the Palestinians: half a million who live in Syria and half a million in Lebanon and another few millions in other Arab countries.”

Although Syria has a long way to go before it is able to overcome all of its problems (presuming Assad is able to continue in office), Assad has brought about positive change in the country.

As far as human rights are concerned, Syria is certainly nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia or Israel. The majority of ordinary citizens go about their daily business just as anyone else would in any western country.

Another myth we are led to believe is that Assad is refusing to enter into arrangements to bring peace to Syria.

During the early period of the Syrian conflict Assad offered to enter into peace talks with the FSA. However, it was the FSA who refused to attend or sabotaged potential peace talks by making unreasonable demands – not the kind of approach which is conducive to finding a real solution to the conflict.

Assad has also stated very clearly that he is open to cooperating with western governments to bring about an end to the crisis. Yet again, these offers have been refused or ignored and as a result it is the ordinary people of Syria who are paying the price.

The refusal of western governments to entertain finding a solution to Syria’s problems is a ridiculous stance from a humanitarian perspective. As ISIS gained ground in Syria and continued to commit atrocities against ordinary Syrians, they stood by and watched, using the terrorist invasion as a tool to bring down Assad rather than find a peaceful solution for those who are suffering.

Israel has played its part by supplying the FSA and the Islamic groups associated with it. Not only have they supplied the terrorists, they have also attempted to provoke Syrian forces by conducting operations on the Golan Heights border with Syria by firing shells and small arms into the country.

Since 2011 all we have seen from western governments is criticism of the Syrian government, the demand for Assad to step down, and an enormous amount of propaganda.

There were accusations which originated from US sources claiming that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. When the accusations were examined by the UN it was clear that the so-called ‘evidence’ was manufactured, and UN General Secretary, Ban Ki Moon criticised the US for presenting ‘evidence’ which was far below the basic standards set out for establishing if a nation had used chemical weapons.

In May of 2013 Carla del Ponte, Commissioner of the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, stated that there the rebels forces are in possession of sarin and there is evidence that the rebels have used the agent in several attacks on civilians.

Also in May of 2013, Syrian rebels were arrested in Adana, Turkey, and were found to be in possession of 2Kg of sarin. The Turkish authorities suspected that the agent was going to be used in a terrorist attack in the city.

Assad has never refused an inspection by the UN, but interestingly the ‘rebel forces’ have ensured that inspections have been difficult by refusing to cease their operations so inspectors can enter areas safely. The only thing Assad has said is that he can not guarantee inspectors security while the ‘rebel forces’ are refusing to cooperate.

So you may be wondering why western governments would be so interested in destabilising Syria – as they have with several other countries in the region which are now virtually destroyed or have come under ISIS control.

Some possibilities are:

  1. Syria’s Central Bank is state-owned & controlled.
  2. Syria has no IMF (International Monetary Fund) debt.
  3. Syria has banned genetically modified (GMO) seeds
  4. Syria has massive oil and gas reserves.
  5. Syria clearly and unequivocally opposes Zionism and Israel.
  6. Syria is one of the last secular Muslim states in the Middle East.

You should also be asking yourself why ISIS has been allowed to spread like a disease across the Middle-East when it is an obvious threat to the whole world (if mainstream propaganda is to be believed).

The western governments were more than keen to commit vast resources to the invasion of Iraq based on a total lie, and then leave the country to the forces of ISIS, and yet they refuse to commit resources to address a very clear and extensive danger – one they have been well aware of since the days of the Afghan war.

Now we are seeing one of the many results the west’s refusal to take positive action and the west’s arming and support of Islamic extremists.

Refugees have fled Syria – with the only choice they have being to flee or suffer at the hands of ISIS. These are ordinary people who want to live their lives in peace with each other.

Recently there has been a lot of mainstream media coverage of a child’s body washed up on a beach.

Although this is a sad event, it is nothing compared to the carnage the ordinary Syrian people have endured at the hands of ISIS.

Take the picture of the child and times it by two hundred thousand and you will be getting close to how many ordinary Syrian people have been killed by ISIS – that is the extent of death in Syria so far.

Perhaps those who have died are the lucky ones. Many more ordinary Syrian people are subjected to atrocities committed by ISIS every day.

Although Syria may have had its problems prior to 2011, they were nothing compared to what has been inflicted on the ordinary people of Syria since.

As refugees arrived in Europe official government responses have fallen far short of what we should expect at a humanitarian level.

These people are not economic migrants trying to take advantage of a system – they are ordinary people who had ordinary lives in Syria before 2011. They are people who have (or have had) families, homes, work, and so on – the same as any one of us. Prior to this conflict the thought of becoming refugees was probably alien to them. But now they have very little choice, and it is up to the western governments to assist them as much as possible.

There have been many derogatory statements made concerning the ‘influx of more refugees’ into various European countries. To some extent this is understandable in smaller countries where capacity is limited and people seem to be living on top of one another.

But the difference here is that those refugees who have landed in Europe would not be here if it were not for the action and inaction of our governments. The actions which are designed to destabilise the country and the inactions of doing nothing to stop the spread of ISIS. It is that simple – not complicated at all as governments and the mainstream media would try and fool us into believing.

Unfortunately we tend to believe what those in power tell us (when it is convenient), and believe the propaganda injected into our lives through mainstream media, particularly organisations such as the BBC.

But we need to be careful where we get our information from and not automatically believe reports from propaganda machines such as the BBC or the pseudo-experts trotted out to bolster the ‘official view’. We need to look beyond and behind and find out for ourselves.

There are a lot of people with ‘opinions’, but often these are based on the distorted information they have ingested from the vast propaganda machines which intrude on our lives.

It is no different with this article. It is opinion based on many sources of evidence and knowledge of how propaganda is used. There are no references on purpose, because you have to find out for yourself. Consider this article a starting point – some ideas for you to explore further.

We believe that ISIS and the situation in the Middle-East is by design. It is clear that Syria (and Iran) have been targeted by western governments for a long time.

Cameron has revived Thatcher’s plan for destabilising the Middle-East – almost to the letter. This is more than coincidence which has been proven time and time again through his statements and the government’s public stance on the Syrian situation. A similar situation exists in the US.

There have been plenty of opportunities to take positive action to stop ISIS in its tracks, but it is only now that they have taken a significant hold of Syrian territory that some European nations are taking action.

As usual, it is the ordinary people who are the real victims – they are treated like nothing more than cannon fodder as the power games continue.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Ken Clarke: police investigate second claim of indecent assault (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

kkcBy Tim Wood of Exaro

Detectives are investigating Tory grandee Kenneth Clarke over an allegation that he sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy, Exaro can reveal.

The investigation by South Yorkshire Police into the former Conservative cabinet minister was raised during a preliminary hearing at the Old Bailey in the case against Ben Fellows, who was cleared on Thursday of attempting to pervert the course of justice by falsely claiming that Clarke had indecently assaulted him.

But the jury in the Fellows trial was not told about the other historical allegation against Clarke because the judge, Mr Justice Peregrine Simon, ruled that it would take too long for police to investigate it. At the preliminary hearing, five days before the start of the Fellows trial, the judge said: “The complaint relates to a man who alleges that when he was 14 he was subjected to a serious indecent assault by two men, and one he recognised later as being Ken Clarke.”

The Fellows case could not be adjourned indefinitely, he ruled, because there was no timeframe on when the police investigation into the other case would be completed. “It could be years,” he said.

Exaro’s reporter was the only journalist in court.

The judge made an order at the time to prevent reporting of the development because of the risk of prejudice to the Fellows trial.

Clarke told the Old Bailey that the allegation by Fellows against him was “preposterous”, adding: “I have never had the compulsion to grope a man.”

At the end of the trial, Exaro asked the judge to lift the order. The prosecution objected, and the judge invited Exaro to make written submissions in support of our request.

Exaro argued that there was no legal basis for continuing the order.

The prosecutor, Duncan Atkinson, withdrew his objection after he told the judge that there were not even any active proceedings in relation to the other case, meaning that no one so far had been arrested or charged.

Mark Watts, Editor-in-Chief of Exaro, said: “Our main argument was that the judge simply had no power to extend the order just because there was an ongoing police investigation into the other allegation.

“I am glad that the prosecution eventually agreed. A matter of enormous public interest was raised in open court, and our readers and the wider public have a right to know what was said.”

Following the lifting of the order, Exaro can reveal that on July 16 Bernard Richmond, barrister for Fellows, made an application to be allowed to introduce evidence of “bad character” in relation to Clarke.

Richmond said that the prosecution, under the disclosure process in court cases, had provided information to the defence about the other allegation against Clarke.

He also applied for an adjournment to give him time to interview the complainant.

In reply, Atkinson described it as “an ongoing investigation that is being conducted by South Yorkshire Police.”

He said: “The primary focus of that investigation has nothing to do with the matters concerning this court. The complainant’s name [Clarke] just came up incidentally.”

The second man who alleged abuse by Clarke, he said, had indicated that he would not talk to the Metropolitan Police Service, which investigated Fellows.

Atkinson said that South Yorkshire Police would not let a defence solicitor speak to the witness until the conclusion of its investigation, which could go on “for years”.

The judge summarised the other case, then dismissed the defence applications.

Exaro saw off a previous attempt to bar reporting of Clarke’s name in the Fellows case.

The trial against Fellows started as scheduled, nearly a fortnight ago. Fellows was cleared of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice after claiming to the Met that Clarke “groped” him while working undercover in 1994 for ITV’s The Cook Report. Fellows was 19 at the time, but said that he was posing as a 15-year-old, and that the assault was filmed by a covert camera.

Richmond told the court that the officer in charge, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle, pressured Fellows into making a statement.

“Settle was saying do not worry, it is not going to have much effect. But it led my client into the dock of the Old Bailey,” Richmond said.

For more information visit the Exaro website.

It is interesting to note that Prime Minister, David Cameron, distanced himself from Clarke during a cabinet reshuffle in July of 2014, which also included William Hague.


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Tory councils tell Osborne “No more cuts!” (#politics #ToriesOutNow)

torynomorecutsIt appears that even stanch Conservatives have had enough of the inner-circle of government’s ‘austerity’ measures.

In an unusual move, Conservative led local authorities have formed an alliance with Labour and LibDem led authorities to tell Osborne enough is enough.

The Conservative controlled Local Government Association (LGA) said in a letter to the Observer that they have already imposed cuts of 40% since 2010 and can not afford more cuts.

They state that any further cuts will have more serious ramifications for community life and social care and will have a knock-on effect on other services such as the NHS,

“Councils have worked hard to shield residents from the impact of funding cuts. However, efficiencies cannot be remade or buildings resold,” they say.

“Further local government funding reductions over the next five years are not an option. The new government must consider the consequences that further funding cuts, without radical reform of the way public money is spent, will have on the services which bind our communities together and protect the most vulnerable.”

Making more cuts to authority budgets will be false economy because any savings will cost other services who will be forced to “…pick up the pieces of councils scaling back services”.

“If our public services are to survive the next few years, councils need fairer funding and the freedom to pay for them. The public sector has to stop working in silos and join up even more. We need a new settlement for England that devolves decisions about infrastructure, transport, housing, skills and health and social care down to local areas so they can tackle the big issues facing their residents.

“Councils could then ensure elderly and disabled people receive the care they deserve, young people are equipped with skills to find local jobs, desperately needed homes are built, roads are maintained to high standards and every child has a place at a good school.”

Local authorities have come under immense pressure since the last Tory led coalition government embarked on a budget slashing frenzy with little thought to the long and short-term effects across the range of public services.

Cutting local authority budgets has increased demand for NHS services, placing more pressure on services which are also suffering as a result of the government’s ‘austerity’ policies.

Ironically, many charities and voluntary sector providers have been hit hard by local authority cuts as grants and other financial initiatives have been severely reduced or cut altogether. Many of these organisations were already filling in gaps in local authority care provision.

With Osborne announcing an ‘emergency’ budget in July, it remains to be seen how keen the Tory government are to implement their draconian and oppressive policies in light of opposition from within their own party.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Tory rebellion over Cameron’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act (#politics #ToriesOutNow)

hraOne of Cameron’s power-crazed plans is to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a ‘Bill of Rights’.

The move is intended to remove the checks and balances in place which stop the government abusing its power and citizens.

Under current legislation, the government is accountable for breaches of human rights articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Checking the record of the British government in cases at the European Court of Human Rights reveals a less than glowing record, falling far behind many other European countries.

European Court of Human Rights – Violation Statistics 1959 to 2014 – Number of judgements finding at least one violation. (Lower numbers are better). The United Kingdom is 36th out of 47 on the list.

1959 – 2014

Rank Country Total
1 Monaco 2
2 Andorra 3
3 Liechtenstein 5
4 San Marino 9
5 Iceland 12
6 Denmark 14
7 Montenegro 17
8 Ireland 21
9 Norway 27
10 Luxembourg 32
11 Estonia 34
12 Bosnia Herzegovina 35
13 Albania 40
14 Malta 43
15 Georgia 46
16 Armenia 47
17 Cyprus 52
18 Sweden 56
19 Lithuania 81
20 Azerbaijan 83
21 Latvia 83
22 Spain 84
23 Netherlands 85
24 Switzerland 94
25 Republic of Macedonia 99
26 Serbia 101
27 Finland 133
28 Belgium 148
29 Germany 176
30 Czech Republic 183
31 Portugal 216
32 Croatia 240
33 Austria 245
34 Republic of Moldova 270
35 Slovak Republic 287
36 United Kingdom 301
37 Slovenia 304
38 Hungary 346
39 Bulgaria 496
40 France 691
41 Greece 744
42 Poland 905
43 Ukraine 987
44 Italy 1760
45 Romania 1 004
46 Russian Federation 1 503
47 Turkey 2 733


European Court of Human Rights – Violation Statistics 2014 – Number of judgements finding at least one violation. (Lower numbers are better). The United Kingdom joint 5th on the list.


Rank Country Total
1 Andorra 0
Cyprus 0
Denmark 0
Liechtenstein 0
Luxembourg 0
Monaco 0
San Marino 0
2 Georgia 1
Iceland 1
Ireland 1
Montenegro 1
3 Norway 2
Sweden 2
4 Austria 3
Germany 3
Lithuania 3
Malta 3
Netherlands 3
5 Albania 4
Armenia 4
Czech Republic 4
Finland 4
Spain 4
United Kingdom 4
6 Bosnia Herzegovina 5
Estonia 5
7 Republic of Macedonia 6
8 Switzerland 8
9 Azerbaijan 11
10 Slovak Republic 13
11 Belgium 16
Latvia 16
Serbia 16
12 France 17
13 Bulgaria 18
Portugal 18
14 Poland 20
15 Republic of Moldova 21
16 Croatia 23
17 Slovenia 29
18 Italy 39
Ukraine 39
19 Hungary 49
20 Greece 50
21 Romania 74
22 Turkey 94
23 Russian Federation 122


So as you can see from official statistics, the United Kingdom has a long way to go before we can have any confidence that the government are going to adhere to basic concepts of human rights, let alone produce legislation that is fair and appropriate.

The government often cite current human rights legislation as a barrier to taking action against undesirables – especially the deportation of extremists and terrorists.

The reality is that the only reason those high-profile deportations became problematic was because of the incompetence of Theresa May and her associations. They failed to ensure basic evidential requirements were in place before going to the European Court.

The government (and others who are ignorant of the facts) claim that current human rights legislation allows anyone to automatically be protected under the Articles it contains full stop.

This is incorrect. Each Article has specific exclusions which give governments the power to take action against anyone who is a real threat.

There is no practical advantage or reason to society in changing current legislation. In fact, Cameron’s proposed changes will have a significant adverse effect on every citizen in the country.

Another problem is that the current government may be able to push through legislation which is detrimental to the population of the UK because the Conservatives now have a majority in parliament.

However, not all Conservative MPs are going to support Cameron’s proposed changes.

The Independent reveals that Cameron is facing a backbench revolt with a former aide to the new Justice Secretary Michael Gove warning that they have less than a 5 per cent chance of being implemented.

The Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is also expected to meet fierce opposition to the plans when he attends a Council of Europe meeting of foreign ministers next week.

He is expected to be told that the current Tory proposals, that would allow the UK Parliament to opt out of rulings by the ECHR that it disagreed with, would be incompatible with its obligations under Convention of Human Rights. This could even lead to Britain’s expulsion from the organisation it helped found in the wake of the Second World War.

The Conservatives came up with their plan after the European Court ruled that prohibiting prisoners from voting “was incompatible with the Convention will be treated as advisory” and could be ignored by Parliament. Of course, the majority of prisoners are not really likely to vote for the Conservatives, which is the most likely driving force behind Cameron’s plans.

The plans face strong opposition from both the legal profession and senior Conservatives including the former Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke and the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

One Conservative backbencher told The Independent plans were “legally incoherent” and predicted Mr Cameron would face a Commons defeat if he attempted to make anything more than cosmetic changes to the current laws.

“If what emerges is a lot of sound and fury but no attempt to fiddle with fundamental rights as set down by the  Convention then what we have is the Human Rights Act in all but name and that will be fine,” they said.


“But if there is any fundamental attempt to move away from that position then it will be dead in the water. Any such proposals will be torn to shreds by people like Dominic Grieve and many others who actually understand how our constitution works.”

Senior legal figures have also warned the proposals will face strong private opposition from the judiciary who are concerned at the potential to ride roughshod over more than 50 years of human rights advances both in the UK and Europe.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, an expert on human rights law and founder of the United Kingdom Supreme Court blog said the proposals were “fraught with legal and political difficulties” which appeared to be “insoluble”.

“Not only will ministers have to deal with domestic constitutional problems of scrapping the Human Rights Act which is incorporated into the Scotland Act and Good Friday Agreement but the international ramifications are also profound.”

The change to human rights legislation is part of Cameron’s so-called ‘100-day policy offensive’ during which he and his cronies will attempt to make radical changes to Britain in an attempt to introduce ever more oppressive legislation, forcing the majority of the UK into economic slavery.

So far, Cameron has not revealed any policy which will be to the benefit of the country as a whole. The only policies we have heard of so far are designed to strengthen government power and to disempower the people.

We need to be very cautious of their devious and underhand tactics or we will regret this government ever being allowed to take office.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

National demonstration against austerity on Saturday 20th June 2015 (#politics #ToriesOutNow)

demojun20A national demonstration against austerity has been organised by ‘The People’s Assembly Against Austerity’ to take place on Saturday 20th June in London.

End Austerity Now National Demonstration

Assemble 12pm outside the Bank of England (Queen Victoria Street, City of London.

Nearest tube station: Bank

7 reasons to demonstrate on the 20th June (from The People’s Assembly):

Reason 1 – The government plans £12 billion in welfare cutstargeting the poorest in society.

Take Action:
Organise a coach or transport to come to the demo on Saturday 20 June or join one already organised. Call the office for advise (hundreds of transport details are yet to be added to our list – please send us in the details asap so we can update). Contact details below.

Reason 2 – The new Tory disabilities minister opposed protecting benefits for disabled children and cancer patients

Take Action:
Organise a People’s Assembly meeting in your area to help build the national demonstration & organise activity locally. Contact the office and we’ll send a speaker.

Reason 3 – Michael Gove has been appointed justice secretary. In 1999, when he worked for the Times, he called for hanging to be brought back as a punishment. He’s also attempting to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Take Action:
Invite all your friends to the demonstration event page on facebook – over 53,000 people have already pledged to attend.

Reason 4 – Cameron is announcing new plans to target ‘extremists’ giving the government powers to target anyone they think is undermining ‘democracy’. This policy will be used to attack the Muslim community, and how long will it be before anti-austerity protesters get targeted too?

Take Action:
Set up leafleting or a stall on the weekends running up to the demo on your high street. Local People’s Assembly groups will be organising these across the country. If you can help let us know and we’ll put you in touch with people in your area. Order publicity here

Reason 5 – The new equalities secretary voted against gay marriage

Take Action:
Put up a poster advertising the demo in your window & put stickers in prominent places. Let make sure people can’t go anywhere without seeing the demonstration publicity! Order publicity here

Reason 6 – The new business secretary wants to make it harder for trade unions to take strike action.

Take Action:
Are you in a trade union? Get your branch to pass this motion of support and ask the union to send details to all members. Trade Unions are organising blocs for their members to march together on the day.

Reason 7 – The government plans to end social housing as we know it.

Take Action:
Volunteer! We need hundreds of people to help out in the next few weeks. If you can spare a few hours to help out in the office please get in touch.

Urgent appeal
This demonstration is more important than ever. It needs to be massive. We urgently need to raise funds to make sure we can reach as many people as possible.

We have launched an urgent appeal to all our supporters to make a donation. The more money we raise, the more coaches we can put on, meetings we can organise, leaflets we can print, and more people we can put on the streets.

No amount is too big or too small! Click here to donate

For more information and latest developments visit The People’s Assembly website or Facebook page. You can follow them on twitter here.


Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

WHAT?! Cameron declares war on every #UK citizen in most bizarre statement yet! (#politics #ToriesOutNow )

camwarIt is only a few days since Cameron and his cronies were returned to government, and already they are introducing draconian and oppressive policies and legislation.

In one of the most bizarre and extreme statements yes, Cameron has stated that the government should interfere more in law-abiding citizen’s lives!

We kid you not!

Cameron has said that Britain (the government) is too “passively tolerant” and should NOT leave people to live their lives as they wish – even if they obey the law.

At a meeting of the National Security Council Cameron said

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

Cameron has laid out plans for new powers which will allow the security services to monitor online conversations of those deemed to be extremists.

However, the government’s definition of ‘extremist’ goes far beyond what they infer extremism is in public.

Not only terrorists or religious nutters.

The government’s definition of ‘extremist’ includes ANYONE they deem to be a threat to public order or a threat to the functioning of ‘democracy’.

This includes anyone who engages in union activities, posting anti-government stories, expressing views which do not correspond with the government’s perspective, any public demonstration, using social media to express disagreement with government policies and/or legislation, criticism of members of government, producing any material which is anti-government, and so on.

Broadcasters and media will also be subject to further controls and restrictions under the proposals.

Ofcom are to be given new powers enabling it to take stronger action against broadcasters it regulates, which includes telecommunications companies as well as the more traditional broadcasters.

The plans would allow the police to ask the higher court to order ‘extremists’ to be banned from broadcasting and send every tweet, Facebook post or other web communication to the police for approval. That would include posts from users telling friends and followers that their communications were now being vetted, or ones denying the extremism claims that led to them being charged under such measures.

As well as the online bans, the plans would see groups being banned from expressing ‘extremist’ views in public spaces, even if their behaviour does not mean that they should be banned altogether.

These proposals are IN ADDITION to the much criticised ‘snooper’s charter’ which the government has been desperate to introduce since being in coalition with the LibDems.

The draft law is set to be proposed in the Queen’s speech on May 27 and is expected to be pushed through parliament by the Conservative majority in government.

These proposals are a full-on attack on every citizen in the UK, who the government are trying to force into compliance and slavery.

The proposals have been criticised by all major civil liberties groups as going far beyond the remit of maintaining a safe and stable society.

The Conservatives have been desperate to gain control of all forms of communication to prevent criticism of, or challenge to, their power and the disgraceful path they have embarked on in bullying the most vulnerable in society for the sake of their cronies.

Their form of ‘democracy’ is having controlled media and controlled citizens who will only believe their warped version of the world which is based on self-interest and greed.

‘Democracy’ is far from prevalent in British society – as we saw with the result of the general election.

Because of idiots who believed the Tory propaganda we are in a very precarious position as citizens of the UK.

Within a few days of returning to government, the Tories have revealed their true agenda of oppression and making sure there are penalties for anyone who goes against their version of ‘democracy’ – which is not democratic at all.

So what can be done?

It is going to be a long hard five years for most of the population now that these psychopathic idiots have been allowed to return to power.

Instead of fragmented protests and groups running numerous demonstrations and online petitions, there needs to be a consolidated effort by everyone who is disgusted at this travesty.

Most protest and special interest groups spend far too much time and resources concentrating on their own relatively small agendas while the root of the problem comes from the same source.

Small groups are just that – small – and are no threat whatsoever to government, and are highly likely to be unsuccessful in their objective with the minimal resources they have. The government just ignores them.

All small groups need to come together as a major threat to the government before there will be any effect on government policies.

Unions, charities, protest groups, and every citizen need to be united in a common cause. Only then will there be any chance whatsoever of changing and preventing the dictatorship we see unfolding before us.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

‘Saint Cameron’ – according to the #BBC (#UK #politics # #ToriesOutNow)

saintcameronThere are reports and articles in some of the mainstream press that we just pass by as the usual propaganda initiated by the Tory spin machine, and there are others that are truly sickening.

The BBC’s ‘article’ entitled ‘The David Cameron story’ falls into the latter category. In fact, it is beyond sickening, as it clearly displays the sycophantism that is rife throughout the public broadcaster.

In the article, writer Brian Wheeler attempts to put a positive spin on every aspect we have come to despise in Cameron.

Wheeler writes: “Not only was he the first former pupil of Eton to hold office since the early 1960s, he can also trace his ancestry back to William IV, making him a distant relative of the Queen,” in the context that both of these are an attribute – which we consider neither to be.

Having had a privileged and cosseted background is hardly an attribute in a leader of government who is responsible (with cronies) for making decisions which affect the majority of citizens who have not been fortunate to experience any kind of privilege whatsoever.

Being related to the queen is not an attribute either. All it means is that Cameron is a result of far too much inbreeding – a genetic mutation of something that one resembled the human form. This has manifested itself throughout his family lineage.

As Wheeler points out, Cameron’s father, Ian Cameron, was born with severely deformed legs which needed amputation and was blind in one eye. Cameron’s son was also born with severe genetic impairments. Cameron’s great grandfather suffered severe ‘mystery’ health problems throughout his life. It seems as though there is a pattern of every other male born to the family suffering some kind of genetic illness. IF you take a closer look at Cameron’s head, it is easy to see that he exhibits clear signs of inbreeding. The slightly dropped jaw and small mouth associated with a condition known as the ‘Habsburg jaw’ (a form of mandibular prognathism), and the high forehead indicative of inbreeding in many insular groups.

The genetic mutations of the queen’s cousins are also well documented. At least five of the queen’s cousins have been placed in institutions because of genetic disorders resulting in physical deformity and impaired mental functioning, and other fairly close relatives exhibit similar attributes, but are able to function within the controlled environment royalty creates.

As well as the physical effects of inbreeding, mental abnormalities are very common. The history of the British royal family and the decent of relatives across Europe into madness is well documented. In particular, psychopathy is rife throughout the royal lineage, something which is attributed to genetic abnormality, and clearly present through historical accounts.

Wheeler then goes on to praise Cameron’s academic achievements while attending schools in which hardly anyone would fail to gain basic qualifications, even though Cameron only obtained average and unremarkable ‘O’ and ‘A’ level results. He then went to Oxford to study philosophy, politics, and economics – not very taxing subjects – and again Cameron was virtually guaranteed to pass.

Cameron didn’t seem all that dedicated to his study and (according to friends) was more interested in ‘having a good time’. Cameron’s biggest achievement at Eton was being featured in the student magazine after spraining his ankle dancing to bagpipes during a school trip to Rome.

While at Oxford Cameron became a member of the Bullingdon Club – a group of over-privileged, arrogant thugs and dimwits that have been terrorising Oxford for over 200 years. The club included Boris Johnson and George Osborne.

As a member of the Bullingdon Club, Cameron was sure of ‘success’ in his chosen career – which was politics.

In fact, Cameron has never held a real job in his life, preferring to worm his way in and out of favour with various members of the Conservative party depending who was popular at the time.

In a bid to boost his political career, Cameron realised that acceptance by voters would be hard to come by, and that he needed to exhibit some kind of real-world life experience to gain their vote.

Cameron’s employment history makes interesting reading – through a network of contacts and family ‘friends’ the way was paved for him. His employment as a political researcher for the Conservative party was the result of a phone call from ‘an influential’ family friend – who is speculated to be Captain Sir Alastair Aird, Equerry to the Queen Mother or Sir Brian McGrath, a family friend who was private secretary to Prince Philip, both of whom deny the allegations.

It seemed as though Cameron’s wish to work in the private sector was a difficult one for him to achieve as he was rejected by several prospective employers. Then came the helping hand of Lady Astor – the mother of Cameron’s girlfriend, Samantha.

Lady Astor, was friends with Michael Green, then executive chairman of Carlton and one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite businessmen. She suggested he hire Cameron, and Green, a mercurial millionaire, obliged. The 27-year-old was duly recruited as director of corporate affairs on a salary of about £90,000 a year.

One senior business journalist who dealt with Cameron at Carlton extensively describes him as “thoroughly unpleasant” and not a very efficient press officer: “A good PR man will tell you stuff and give you insights and he never did that – which is why Carlton had rings run round it. If he’d been doing the job properly he would have said ‘You have to make allowances for Michael [Green]’, but he’d be just as abrasive.” Cameron’s affable demeanour is only skin-deep, he added. “You see him now and he looks a charming bloke and for people who were meeting him for the first time he could be charming … [but] everyone’s view of him has been coloured by subsequent events.” Cameron, he says, was a man who cultivated only those who could prove useful. “I’ve only seen him once since he [became Tory leader] and he apologised for being such a wanker.”

The rest of the Wheeler article blabs on about Cameron’s ‘achievements’ since being in government – his ‘hard work’ and ‘problems’ he faced in the coalition with the LibDems.

No criticism – no truth – all whitewashed and controlled reporting – something that has become indicative of the BBC since their most recent changes in top management.

This, of course, goes against the BBC’s charter in which they are mandated to provide unbiased reporting – especially relating to politics.

However, with the recent threats to their comfortable income through television license reforms they are obviously keen to stay in favour with the government.

They are an integral part of the Conservative propaganda machine, churning out story after story in sympathy with government policies, and ignoring or misreporting major events which challenge the establishment.

Top executives are keen to protect their very cushy and lucrative appointments which are paid for by the licence payer.

It is time the BBC was made to stand on its own and compete in the private sector. Other broadcasters do and produce good quality programming which is better than, or comparable with, BBC programming.

The days of the BBC producing higher quality programmes than any other UK broadcaster are long gone, and the public should not be paying for the lumbering dinosaur which provides very little value for the amount of resource it sucks up.

No doubt we will see more sycophantic reporting as the illegitimate Tory government wheels out its draconian polices now it is free from the constraints of a coalition partnership.

Stand-by for more ‘Saint Cameron’ articles from patsy BBC reporters soon.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

The ‘lost’ votes in the 2015 General Election (#UK #politics #ToriesOutNow )

lostvotesHundreds of thousands of British citizens were left unable to vote around the world and across the UK after registering to vote by post.

Ex-pats from all over the world have complained that they did not receive their ballot papers in time to vote in the general election.

Speaking in the Independent, Brian Cave, 82, an expat in south-eastern France, has been compiling a dossier of evidence of the problem which he plans to send to the Electoral Commission. He said reports have come in that standard UK postage was used on ballot papers that arrived too late to be sent back by the close of voting at 10pm last night.

“I have received complaints from people about the non-reception of voting papers from as far apart as California, Massachusetts, Norway, France and Spain,” said Mr Cave, who runs a blog supporting the rights of Britons overseas.

He said: “If the numbers of voters who complain that they were unable to vote because of this management error exceed the margin by which the supposed ‘winner’ gained the seat, then the election should be declared void and rerun.”

Anne Casey, a Labour voter who lives in Saint Même les Carrières, Charente, France, belongs to a web forum of English-speaking women there. She said that around half of the 200 members she spoke to reported that they did not receive any papers despite being successfully registered.

“That means that 50 per cent of us who have bothered to do our civic duty have been denied our voice and our vote. Emmeline Pankhurst must be spinning in her grave,” she said. “I’m very angry.”

Jim Godfrey – who served as press secretary for the David Miliband leadership campaign in 2010 – moved with his wife to California from the UK two years ago. They went to special lengths to make sure their Labour votes were counted.

“We only received our postal votes on Friday last week. We had to pay to get them FedExed to the returning officer in Hornsey and Wood Green, London, in time,” he said. “My wife and I are former Labour Party special advisers from 2001 to 2005 so obviously we were very keen to ensure our votes got through.”

MOD personnel serving abroad also fell victim to incompetence as ballot papers failed to reach them in time to vote.

It is not only ex-pats who were prevented from voting by post. Many people across the UK have reported that they did not receive ballot papers even though they had registered with their local councils in plenty of time.

IT wasn’t only postal voters who were unable to cast their votes because of incompetency.

People in Hackney were turned away from polling stations because of the council’s IT system could not cope with the number of people registering to vote in the final week leading up to the registration deadline of 20th April.

According to the council around 20,000 people had tried to get their names on the electoral register in the rush, which resulted in many being left off.

Over 100 people were turned away from polling stations on Election Day, and many others complained they had not received their postal voting forms.

Residents took to twitter and other social media and attacked the ‘outrageous failure’ which stopped them voting for Labour candidate, Diane Abbot. Abbot also took to twitter writing ‘Spent months persuading people to register to vote. Now Hackney council completely messes things up. Made no contingency for the numbers.’

In other areas of the country thousands were left without polling cards despite registering to vote in plenty of time. Many people did not realise that they could vote without the card, and failed to attend polling stations.

In Hull East ballot postal voting papers were issued without the full line-up of candidates. Around 6000 people who had registered for the postal vote received ballot papers with the Labour and Green Party candidates missing.

Other anomalies and blunders have cast doubt on the validity of votes cast in some areas of the UK.

In the marginal seat of Milton Keynes, the expected four ballot boxes of pre-cast votes turned into a staggering 18 BOXES.

The surprise number of ballot boxes, which are counted in advance of the main count, contained 4,600 voting papers, many more than the usual number of postal votes cast in the area.

Then there is the case of a van being stolen which was transporting 200,000 ballot papers from London to East Sussex. Police said that they did not think the van was stolen for its contents, but questions have to be asked about the security of ballot papers in transit.

Of course, the question is would the incompetence of officialdom and anomalies have resulted in a different outcome to the general election. The simple answer is that we don’t know.  Although we have a very rough idea of how many people were denied the right to vote, there may be many others who have not reported problems to local authorities or the Electoral Commission.

However, it does cast doubt on the whole system when citizens are denied their ‘democratic’ right to vote.

Follow @martynjsymons

  “Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”– George Bernard Shaw

Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Illegitimate Tory government started their path of destruction within hours of election (#UK #politics #bedroomtax)

illigitgovWithin hours of the general election result being announced the Conservative party announced several policies, some of which had been ‘hampered’ by their coalition partners in the last government.

As the results came in and it was clear the Conservatives were heading back to Number 10, Theresa May announced that the party would reintroduce the Draft Communications Data Bill, giving the government unprecedented surveillance power.

The snoopers’ charter received huge criticism from computing experts and civil liberties campaigners in the wake of introduction. It was set to come into law in 2014, but Nick Clegg withdrew his support for the bill and it was blocked by the Liberal Democrats.

Cameron indicated that the government would seek even more surveillance powers. Speaking in Paris in January, he said there should be no form of communication that the government was unable to read, which could lead to encrypted messaging applications such as WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Apple’s iMessage and Facetime being banned.

As people across the UK concerned themselves with election results, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) quietly released an official policy document (link to pdf) with recommendations to restrict the Access to Work scheme currently in place which helps people with disabilities back to work.

The Access to Work scheme primarily helps people with visual impairments and those with hearing impairments. The fund is used to help employers cover additional costs they may incur in employing people with disabilities.

The policy document was originally announced in March, but not officially released until the election results were announced.

In the coming weeks no doubt we will hear of other draconian and oppressive government policies which will plunge the citizens of the UK into further servitude to giant corporations (or as the Conservative calls them ‘preferred partners), the banks, and the state.

One thing is for sure, they will destroy every last remaining part of our public services in the name of profit.

Some key areas which will suffer include:

  • A drastic reduction in workers’ rights and union activity.
  • More ‘free schools’ will replace state funded schools.
  • Fracking will spread causing incredible damage to our natural resources and countryside.
  • Privatisation throughout the NHS.
  • And of course, our fundamental welfare rights and system will be destroyed.

As far as we are concerned the Conservatives moving back into Number 10 are an illegitimate government by any definition of ‘democracy’.

The vast majority of the UK population don’t want them anywhere near seats of power. Therefore they do not represent the will of the people – which is what an election is supposed to represent. Following on logically they can only be considered pretenders with no right whatsoever to be in such a privileged position.

The system needs drastic change.

One of the first steps is to have proportional representation where each vote counts, and is not just discarded when a seat in won by a particular party.

Regardless of which ‘party’ you support, you can sign a petition at Avaaz here:

So what now?

We have another five years of self-interested idiots in government (unless something very unusual and drastic happens) and it seems the majority of the British public are prepared to accept that without any protest whatsoever.

We need to overcome this apathy and start to make our voices not only heard, but count and make a difference.

As the saying goes ‘bad things happen when good people do nothing’


Follow @martynjsymons



Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Final death blow to ‘#democracy’ as #Conservatives return to government. (#UK #politics)

ssdeathMany people across the UK remain shell-shocked after the result of the general election was announced on Friday.

A party which has proven itself to be totally incompetent during the past 5 years in government has somehow found it’s was back into Number 10.

The Conservatives are claiming a ‘victory’, but it is no victory at all when we take a closer look at how the British people voted.

66.7% of voters voted AGAINST a Tory government. The majority of British people do not want another 5 years of oppression, destruction, and being forced into economic slavery at the hands of ‘large corporation society’.

As a percentage of the UK population, only 24% wanted a Tory government to return, consigning the other 75% to 5 more years of hell.

Those are the true results of the general election.

So when we ask the question “Does the election result reflect the wish of the British people?” then the answer is clearly “No”.

The only democratic way any party should have total control over government is if a majority of voters elect them. Any other system (such as the one the UK has at the moment) is severely flawed.

If the UK voting system were based on proportional representation, the Conservatives would most likely have been forced to enter into a coalition with other parties, and the political outcome of the election would have been very different.

So what would today’s new parliament look like if we had a proportionally representative system?

According to analysis by the Independent, based on the 629 seats won by the six biggest parties, the Tories would have lost 90 seats. While they would still be the biggest party in parliament, with only 240 MPs they would probably have been forced into another coalition.

Under a proportional voting system the SNP’s landslide of 56 seats would have been reduced to 31 and the Lib Dems would not have been wiped out, retaining 51 seats instead of eight.

Ukip would become the third biggest party in government with 82 seats and the Greens would have won 24 – a far cry from those parties’ current tally of one seat each.

Whether you like the potential outcome of the last election results or not, clearly it is a much fairer system in which the wish of the British people is better represented.

An additional benefit of proportional representation is that people may become more inclined to vote.

Citizens have become disillusioned with the current system. They feel that no matter what they do, the outcome is not going to make much difference to their lives. That is understandable. When one lives in a society which proclaims ‘democracy’ as one of its attributes but fails to deliver it at a fundamental level, then people will think they have become imprisoned with little hope of any real difference coming from their votes.

If people know that their vote may make a significant difference to the country they live in and their lives they will be more inclined to make the effort.

There will still be people who choose not to vote, but at least the results will be more representative of what the British people want even if there is a small increase in turnout.

In the latest election turnout was 66.1% of 46,425,386 registered voters, which means that 15,738,206 did not vote – quite a significant number.

If proportional representation encouraged some of those non-voters to vote it could make quite a change to the political landscape of the UK.

Not voting achieves nothing whatsoever under the current system.

Even if not one person voted, there is a system in place to decide who will govern the country. That will never happen while there are strong supporters of each party who will turn out to vote.

If turnout was extremely low then it may make the government consider changes, but we can be sure that the government is not going to shoot itself in the foot – especially a self-interested Tory government.

Another option that has been suggested is that voting become compulsory.

In Australia, where every registered voter is compelled to cast their vote, the turnout is in the region of 94.5%. However, we do not think that forcing people to vote is the answer. Everyone who votes should do so of their own free will because they believe it will count and make a difference, and the system should reflect that.

The Conservatives have returned to government because of a flawed system – not because of public will. They only received 36.9% of the total votes cast in the election – not a majority of votes which would indicate the British public wanted them in government.

Until the system changes we will see ridiculous outcomes at general elections. In addition to proportional representation there needs to be other measures in place (such as making access to vote easier) to ensure the system is as democratic as it can be.

Any system is likely to have positives and negatives, and there will be those who support or oppose them based on their own bias – a fact of life.

In the meantime, parties such as the Conservatives will continue to manipulate their way into positions of power and indulge themselves in their own warped policies which will result in the destruction of our social fabric in the name of self-interest and profit.

It is not only the people of Britain who are shocked at the outcome of this general election.

Across Europe there are concerns about Cameron’s election win and the effect of his policies on the European Union, with reports in French newspaper La Monde and in the German newspaper Der Spiegel reporting “Bad news for Europe”. In other parts of the world, The Sydney Morning Herald calls the result “brutal” on both sides of the political spectrum.

Now the Conservatives have no encumbrances, such as coalition partners, to introducing their draconian and repressive policies.

It has not been one full working day since the results were announced and Theresa May has already resurrected the Data Communication Bill which received widespread condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum, and the public.

The British public are in for a very rough ride over the next 5 years, and not just the vulnerable and low-income spectrum. Middle-earners have already felt some of the negative effects of having a Tory dominated government – there is much more to come as self-interested Cameron minions destroy public services and the foundations of a secure society in favour of profit and pushing the population into big corporation citizenship/slavery.


Follow @martynjsymons



Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Harvey Proctor’s statement: His version of police investigation (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

proctorIn the Independent, Harvey Proctor gives his side of the story about allegations that he was part of the Westminster paedophile ring.

As is fair and right, he is entitled to give his side of things and it is equally fair and right that we consider them objectively.

Proctor has been the subject of much speculation in the media – a lot of which is presumption and conjecture – based purely on the fact that officers from Operation Midland (investigating the high-profile ring) attended his property and searched his house.

The police had followed proper procedures and had obtained a warrant to search Proctor’s home, which Proctor says they did for around 15 hours. To have obtained the warrant in the first place the police must have been able to show reasonable suspicion that they may find something relating to their investigation. But of course, each case is different, judges are different, and so on. Just because a warrant has been issued is not an indication of any guilt whatsoever. It is merely a procedure to enable the police to investigate further.

We do not know what information was the basis for the police obtaining a warrant. But we can be sure that the police obtained the warrant based on something tangible.

In 1987 Proctor was prosecuted and found guilty of four charges of gross indecency – which he clearly states, and to which he pled guilty.

A newspaper revealed that Proctor was engaging (or had engaged) in the spanking and caning of male prostitutes aged between 17 and 21 at his London flat. These would not be considered crimes now because of changes in the age of consent for homosexuals.

Proctor states that he has not ‘flaunted’ his sexuality and has always sought to protect his private life because he considers intimate matters to be private (unless they are illegal) – which is fair comment and a reasonable and sensible approach in our opinion.

Within eight hours of the police starting their search, Proctor says he was contacted by what he describes as ‘an odd internet news agency’ – Exaro. This was, according to Proctor, at least 90 minutes before the police concluded their search of his property.

Perhaps the news agency had been tipped off, they do work closely with the officers of Operation Midland. However, they are far from an ‘odd internet news agency’, and have been responsible for getting very valuable information about historical abuse cases by people in powerful positions to investigating officers. Information which would otherwise not have found its way through the maze of the Metropolitan police’s reporting structure.

Even though we strongly support the work of Exaro, it is concerning that journalists were contacting Proctor before any police statement had been issued.

This is another situation which Proctor has a valid point about. The police never issued a statement concerning the search of Proctor’s property. They never stated if he was a suspect or not, instead leaving proctor to face the media interest that ensued.

Proctor states that he volunteered to be interviewed at a police station, which the police agreed to and then cancelled and rearranged. They then cancelled the new appointment and proctor said he has not heard from them since.

The police removed computer equipment and boxes of historical documents which Proctor refers to as ‘irrelevant material’ from the 1970s and 1980s.

In a police investigation there is no ‘irrelevant material’ until it has been investigated. Both the computers and boxes of documents may give police evidence, or clues in their investigation, and Proctor – as an ‘educated man’ – must understand this. Although Proctor is exhibiting some ‘sour grapes’ in his comments, the fact is that the police had a search warrant to look for evidence and clues, and the computers and documents are subjected to that warrant.

It is understandable that someone in the public eye would feel concerned about such an event – even if they are innocent. Privacy is invaded, personal space violated, and there is an aftermath which the person is left to deal with. At the same time, it is also understandable that the authorities have a duty to investigate allegations and bring criminals to justice. Often the police are criticised for not doing enough – especially against the rich and powerful in society – and criticised again when they do something – a bit of a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation.

It is from this point on that we have some concerns about Proctor’s statement in the Independent.

Proctor states that ‘respected politicians’ have had their reputations ‘trashed without a shred of evidence’. He refers to Leon Brittan, Sir Keith Joseph, Dr Rhodes Boyson and Enoch Powell. He states that they are dead and unable to defend themselves.

We do not agree with this at all.

Leon Brittan died before any charges were brought against him. Brittan has a history concerning the cruel abuse of young boys going back many years. There is evidence that Brittan was involved in unsavoury activities, and police have amassed video evidence that he attended under-aged sex parties in London. In the 1980s Brittan returned to the UK from a business trip with videos of child pornography. Covered up at the time, the reports have come to light as part of the police investigation. Then there is the matter of the missing dossier that Brittan was given which provided evidence of other political figure’s interest in underage and sadistic sex. Something which was in the process of being investigated.

Although the others have not been subjected to mainstream media headlines as much as Brittan, the police were investigating them based on reliable and credible evidence. To claim or infer that these former members of the political community are reputable and ‘upstanding’ members of society raises some concerns about Proctors protective position in this situation.

Is Proctor protecting his own class and political comrades at all costs regardless of the truth?

Senior police officers, the media, and “victims” all become the subject of Proctor’s defensive comments.

He describes the modern technological age as a time where anyone can claim anything regardless of fact or evidence, the result of which can be innocent people’s lives being ruined, or adversely affected.

We agree with him on this point. As with any group in society there are idiots and people with their own agendas who like to make judgements based on little or no fact.  They voice their opinions as If they were evidence, they become judge, jury, and executioner without proper knowledge or proper process. We see a lot of this kind of idiocy every day, and have seen the devastating effects this can have on innocent people’s lives.

But not all media and internet information is based on prejudice and opinions. There are some very good places where people have done proper objective research and present their findings for others to consider. It works both ways – there is junk information and very good information, and we need to choose our sources carefully.

Proctor refers to “victims” coming out of the woodwork as police officers promise to believe them.

This is just not true in the context of Proctor’s inference.

There are genuine victims who have been afraid to come forward in the Westminster abuse ring case because of the threats to the safety of themselves and their families by very powerful people. At the time the abuse ring was (as far as we know) most active it appeared to victims as though the institution of government would cover up their transgressions at any cost – with the help of the police. Politicians still to this day used their positions of power to cover-up anything they want to keep out of the public domain.

What Proctor does not acknowledge is that there are genuine victims, and he infers that all “victims” of the digesting practices of his peers are low-lives who crawl out at the sniff of some unspecified opportunity.

It is a fact that in any case of this nature (as has been seen in the Saville case, and the witch-hunt of other ‘celebrities’) there are people who will make false claims. But the police are charged with a duty to take any accusation of crime seriously provided there are sufficient grounds to do so. Proctor’s inference that the police will automatically believe every claim is wrong. The police officers investigating the crimes of Proctor’s peers are not idiots. They are experienced officers who have been encountering criminals – including people who make false claims – on a regular basis for a long time.

In the case of Proctor there has been no statement or evidence in the public domain which proves his guilt or innocence, and the onus is always on the accuser to prove their case, and rightly so. Therefore we should not presume innocence or guilt based on unreliable or sensational information – facts are facts and can be proven. Opinion and presumption are just that – not proof or evidence unless they are in the context of a recognised professional capacity in a court of law.

What concerns us is that Proctor’s description of the overall investigation into substantial and credible evidence against several of his peers seems resentful. The description of “victims” seems to us to portray some kind of prejudicial attitude to those who are less privileged than Proctor or those Proctor associates with.

It is these kind of attitudes and perceptions among those who are privileged enough to be put in positions of power that is concerning. If it were not for the ordinary citizen in every part of our society people such as Proctor – or anyone else – would not have enjoyed such lucrative political careers.

The kind of protective and superior attitude Proctor exhibits in his comments justifies the reason why officers investigating cases such as the Westminster abuse ring need to be able to search suspect’s property when allegations are made – even before questioning the suspect.

One the one hand we agree with Proctor that a lot of speculation is presented as ‘fact’ without anything to support it, and this does have a serious impact on the lives of innocent people.

On the other, we can understand why he became the subject of the investigation and why the police took the action they did.

As always in these long investigations, it remains to be seen what else will (to use Proctor’s term) “come out of the woodwork”.

You can read Proctor’s full statement on the Independent’s website.


Follow @martynjsymons



Order of Truth – news that matters


Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Tory’s secret £8 Billion child benefit and child tax credit #welfare cuts revealed (#UK #politics #bedroomtax)

torycutThe Liberal Democrats have blown the lid on Tory plans to cut £8 billion from the child benefit bill if they are re-elected.

The Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, made a statement in which he revealed that the plans for the cuts was outlined in a document entitled “Welfare Reforms Quad Summer Reading Pack” by Iain Duncan Smith which was sent to members of Quad (the four most senior cabinet members) in June 2012.

The proposed cuts contained in the document included:

  • Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children.
  • Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children.
  • Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family
  • Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child.

In a statement setting out his reasons for disclosing the existence and content of the documents, Alexander said: “I am lifting the lid on this now because the Conservatives are trying to con the British people by keeping their planned cuts secret until after the election.

“It’s clear from our time in government that the Tories target will be slashing support for families.

The Tories have stated than they plan to cut a total of £12 billion form the welfare bill if they are re-elected in May.

Among the proposals worked up by Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions are:

  • Taxing disability benefits: Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payments and Attendance Allowance (for over 65s who have personal care needs) would no longer be paid tax free. Saving potentially £1.5 billion a year.
  • Ending the Industrial Injuries Compensation Scheme: Forcing companies to provide industrial injury insurance policy for employees. Saving £1 billion.
  • Restricting Carer’s Allowance: Only those eligible for Universal Credit could claim, meaning 40 per cent of claimants would lose out. Saving £1 billion
  • Scrapping contributions element of Job Seekers Allowance: Currently claimants who have paid enough National Insurance contributions can get the benefits with little means testing. Over 300,000 families, would lose about £80 per week, if they did not get full entitlement. Saving £1.3 billion over three years.
  • Child Benefit cuts: Limiting the benefit to the first two children. Saving £1 billion over time.
  • Regional Benefit Caps: The £23,000 limit would vary in different parts of the country, so Londoners receive the top amount due to the higher cost of living. Possible saving unknown but spells the end of universal benefits.

Yet again the Tory plans are targeted at the poor and vulnerable, who are already struggling to cope with the effects of the coalition governments ‘austerity’ measures.

It seems if they are re-elected the situation is going to be much, much worse for the disabled, low-income earners and people who are unable to work because of long-term illness or injury. Middle earners with families will also be severely affected.

Of course, Alexander’s revelations are part of the Liberal Democrats campaign for the coming election, and we would ask why it has taken nearly three years to reveal the extent of the Tory proposals.

The Liberal Democrats have failed just as much as the Tories in ensuring the UK is governed for the benefit of all its citizens – not just the privileged few.

There is no doubt whatsoever that another Tory, or coalition government involving the Tories, for another five years will be disastrous for the majority of the UK population.

We are not interested in which party is in power (or which party comes to power) and make our observations based on what is before our eyes.

Whatever the leaders say in the run-up to the election means little – especially in the case of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. In coalition, both parties are culpable for the disgraceful and extremely bias way government has been conducted for the past five years – and both are culpable for the devastating impact of their policies on public services and the poor and vulnerable in society.

They have chosen to govern the country like greedy school-yard bullies rather than an organisation looking after the welfare of all citizens.

Track record counts, and clearly the corrupt polices, cover-ups, and disgusting social engineering the coalition has embarked on is something UK society does not need.
Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#Hampstead ‘child abuse campaign’ group SHOCKING links to renowned #paedophile group (#VIPaedophile #childabuse #radio4)

amfpedlinkIn a turn of events, it appears that the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ (part of the group making false claims of a Hampstead child abuse cult) has links to a particularly nasty group of renowned paedophiles.

We previously reported how the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’, and in particular their leaders, Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill, are the driving force behind a vicious campaign of harassment against the residents of a Hampstead community where two children (after being prompted by their mother, Ella Draper) made bizarre allegations of a satanic child abuse ring.

The campaign was recently featured on a Radio 4 programme, ‘The Report – The Satanic Cult that Wasn’t’, aired on Thursday 23rd April.

Taking a closer look at the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ it appears as though renowned fraudster – and business associate of convicted paedophiles -, Terence Ewing, was an ‘Advisor’ to the ‘association’, and McKenzie and McNeill feature in a promotional photograph with him after one of his (many) court cases.


The ‘association’ has since deleted reference to Ewing (who was once referred to as their ‘Star McKenzie’) from their blog, however, traces still remain.

One post on 23rd June 2014 has the title ‘BRACING for BATTLE in Court 2: McKenzie Friends assisted by Star McKenzie’.


The altered post with no reference to Ewing


But when we look at the ‘related links’ on another post on the site, we can see the original title was ‘BRACING for BATTLE in Court 2: McKenzie Friends helped by Star McKenzie Terence Ewing  Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy’


The ping back link showing the original title of the post


There are other references to Ewing on the ‘association’s’ site which have either been changed or are inaccessible.

10th December 2013: Pingback: Injunctions against Sabine | Questions about Sabine Mcneil and Terrance Ewing

A Google search using the term ’ewing site:’ brings up the following results:


The results of the Google search


Something which is equally disturbing is that we found no statement or reference to why, being once championed as the organisations ‘Star McKenzie Friend’, Ewing’s involvement with the children and vulnerable people the ‘association’ represents, and his subsequent removal was not made. It is as though an attempt has been made to make any reference to Ewing’s involvement disappear. But of course it failed.

We have covered the role of McKenzie Friends in our previous articles. Briefly, they are self-styled lay legal assistants/advisors to people who represent themselves in family law cases, in particular cases where there are custody battles or vulnerable children involved.

As well as being a renowned fraudster, Ewing is also a ‘vexatious litigant’. From the UK government website:

‘Vexatious litigants are individuals who persistently take legal action against others in cases without any merit, who are forbidden from starting civil cases in courts without permission.’

Ewing has such an appetite for lodging civil cases that he tried to circumnavigate the ban by attempting to lodge cases in Gibraltar – which resulted in a ban being imposed on him there.

The criminal history of Ewing is also something that any reasonable person would be concerned about.

He was charged with various offenses of theft, forgery and uttering forged documents between June 1979 and March 1980 and received a custodial sentence in May 1981 of 7 years, which was later reduced to 5 years on appeal.

Ewing has also been arrested and his home searched as part of investigations conducted by the Obscene Publications Squad. Ewing was held at Leman Street Police Station on 20 and 21 April 1994. His car and other possessions were seized by the squad. 51 ‘cassette tapes’ were also seized by the squad and subsequently destroyed.

Although Ewing has no convictions for paedophilia or crimes against children (as far as we can ascertain), he does have very close relationships with several convicted predatory paedophiles – some with links to renowned paedophile Sydney Cooke.

Ewing has been a partner in two businesses in which convicted paedophiles have been his partners.

Euston Trust was a company in which Ewing’s business partner was convicted paedophile Keith Hammerton from Battersea, in London.

Hammerton was imprisoned in 2006 at Guildford Crown Court for 6 years for 10 counts of indecent assaults on boys which occurred between 1975 and 1981. The three boys involved were all under 16 years of age when the offences occurred at a children’s home in Woking, Surrey, where Hammerton held a position of trust as a House Warden. Two further charges of indecent assault, one of serious sexual assault and one of perverting the course of justice were left on file.

Another business partner of Ewing’s is a particularly nasty predatory paedophile named Roger Gleaves. They were in business as debt collectors together with Gleaves’ two sons, Floyd and Graeme, in a company called Mephistopheles.

Gleaves used several aliases, including ‘The Bishop of Medway’, and was often referred to in the press as ‘The Bogus Bishop’. Gleaves would search the streets of London around train and bus stations for runaways in need of help, and would offer them a bed in one of his many squats. He would then claim welfare payments for each one and secrete the money in various bank accounts in the names of his aliases.

With the children under his control, Gleaves would embark on a campaign of violent abuse against them, and would select whichever one he wanted to become part of his perverted sexual urges as and when he desired.

Gleaves set up various charities and ‘churches’ as part of his scams and to gain access to vulnerable people – especially children.

Gleaves was first exposed as a preying on vulnerable boys in the 1970s when a television documentary, ‘Johnny Come Home’, exposed the plight of runaways from the north of England ending up on the streets of London. The Sunday People also exposed Gleaves more than 30 years ago.

His convictions for abuse against boys goes back to 1959 when he was arrested for “attempting to commit a serious unnatural act” on a 14 year-old boy, for which Gleaves received a 3 year sentence.

In 1998 Gleaves was imprisoned for 15 years at the Old Bailey for abusing two 14 year-old schoolboys.

During the time Gleaves was free to do as he wished he was the subject of many press reports in mainstream media. However, each time the police investigated they could find no evidence which would lead to putting Gleaves behind bars.

Gleaves also had links to an international network of paedophiles operated by the notorious Sydney Cooke through links with other convicted predatory paedophiles.

Although there is no evidence that Ewing has been involved in child abuse or paedophilia, his connections to notorious predatory paedophiles are well-known. With those links going deep into the worlds of the likes of Sydney Cooke we would think that anyone would at least think twice before welcoming such a person – who also has a history of fraud – into an organisation claiming to represent vulnerable people where children are involved.

The question to be asked is why McKenzie and McNeill would allow such a person into the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ when that person’s background is well-known and easy to check, and why would they have such a person as an advisor and ‘Star Friend’?

At the very least it shows that McKenzie and McNeill failed in making some very basic enquiries into their prospective advisor. Another question is why McKenzie and McNeill suddenly seem to have tried to cover-up the involvement of Ewing in their organisation? We could find no explanation of this on the various websites operated by McKenzie or McNeill – only attempts at a cover up.

When we consider what the partners in the ‘association’ claim to be and claim to do, and what they actually do – the two are very different.

With associates such as Ewing, it makes us question the motives of other major supporters who seem quite active in expressing their opinions on child abuse and in their support of McKenzie and McNeill.

Then there is the issue of why, in the face of fact and evidence, both McKenzie and McNeill are so intent on spreading malicious and fantastical allegations. They do not entertain ANY opinion other than their own and are unable to enter into a reasonable debate where alternative viewpoints may be valid, and may challenge their prejudiced views.

They remain a closed community with closed and very warped views of situations, who prefer to shout ‘conspiracy’ rather than enter into the reality of what they are really doing.

If anyone is abusing children it is McKenzie and McNeill. By instigating campaigns of hate against those they accuse with no evidence at all that the alleged events took place, and dangling children in the public domain like playthings to support their own warped theories, they are the abusers.

The simple reason Justice Pauffley made the children’s anonymity a condition of her judgement is to protect them – it is that simple. And when we look at the activities of McKenzie and McNeill and their supporters it is very clear why the children need protection.

We have noticed several answers to why the children’s details and videos of their interviews were posted online by the ‘campaign’ supporters. Mostly they really don’t care about the two children and are only interested in their own importance and narcissism – trying to become big fish in a small pond. Their justification is that the claims have to be ‘exposed’ – which seems to be regardless of the future impact on the children. It also seems to be contradictory to the supposed message of protecting children from abuse, because each person who has posted the children’s details and their personal details is complicit in that abuse.

The world of McKenzie, McNeill, and their supporters is a very dark one, and one we should all be very suspicious of.

Looking from the outside, perhaps the general public see this as a bunch of internet crazies who will soon get bored and go away. Unfortunately this is not the case – as has been seen in many other cases where a campaign of abuse has started on the internet then quickly spread into the physical world.

We have already seen a serious progression in the intimidation and harassment of innocent people by mobs outside of the primary school and church where the two children involved in this case attended.

As mothers and children went about their daily business they were subjected to a tirade of foul language and intimidation by supporters of McKenzie and McNeill. So we would ask who is abusing children here.

There is no way to tell what these crazy and deluded people will do next, and as one of the residents of Hampstead said in the Radio 4 programme, it only takes one of them to take things too far for a catastrophe to happen. There are certainly more than one of McKenzie and McNeill’s supporters who are already taking things too far, with several arrests having been made already.

The fact is, if the police and other authorities do not take action because they view McKenzie, McNeill, and their supporters just as ‘internet crazies’, they will have to answer some very difficult questions concerning their handling of this case.

Some residents in Hampstead have already expressed that they are not satisfied with how the Metropolitan Police have handled this situation, and rightly so.

It remains to be seen how this situation will progress. Even though support for the ‘campaign’ instigated by McKenzie and McNeill has dwindled as more and more people realise the truth of the matter, there are still a core of supporters who will continue to support them whatever happens.

The self-perpetuating cult-like group will defy the law (and common sense) because they have no respect for it or anyone else.


SHOCKING! UK’s richest double net worth since ‘crisis’ (#UK #politics #bedroomtax)

ukrich.fwWe are led to believe the lie that the world has been plunged into an economic recession and ridiculous ‘austerity’ measures have to be introduced to redress the balance of the economy.

The propaganda has been relentless, with every area of our society affected by very severe budget cuts, job losses, and citizens plunged into the depths of poverty.

The vulnerable and low earners have been most effected, with middle-earners feeling a gradual creep of financial strangulation. But not everyone has suffered financially because of ‘austerity’ measures.

The richest families in the UK have DOUBLED their net worth since 2008. The richest 1000 families now control a total of £547 BILLION.

According to the Sunday Times Rich List, their assets have increased from £258 billion in 2009, a rise of 112%, with the biggest rise happening in the last 12 months – the biggest rise for the past 6 years.

While billionaires are seen a ‘superboost’ to their already substantial assets, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies the average household income is just starting to recover and remains at 2007/2008 levels.

Duncan Exley, Director of the Equality Trust, told the Guardian “Inequality at this scale is hugely damaging for society. Multiple studies show that living in a more unequal country means you’re more likely to have poorer education, suffer from poor mental health, trust people less, be the victim of violent crime and even die earlier.”

The only benefit ‘austerity’ has is for the rich. Time and again the UK coalition government was warned by leading economists that the road to ‘austerity’ is a dangerous and damaging one for society as a whole. Cuts in services, unemployment, and the lack of disposable income creates a cycle of financial asphyxiation.

With people unable to pay their mortgages and service their credit, banks and financial institutions have moved in for the kill, seizing assets to repay loans. In doing so these institutions have inflated their financial worth dramatically, and the assets they hold will be sold when the market recovers – which it inevitably will – further increasing their shareholder’s profits.

They know that debtors will also find more financial stability as the ‘crisis’ eases, and will return to work – albeit with a much lower income and on worse conditions – and will repay their credit with increased penalties and charges. More profit for the banks.

The government’s ‘austerity’ measures have made no difference to the economy whatsoever. Claims of having to make savings through public service cuts has been proven to be false, as private companies (usually the government’s ‘preferred partners’) are awarded very lucrative contracts and employ people on less than favourable contracts, some of them being the same public sector workers who had previously done the same job.

‘Austerity’ has been very good for big business. As well as lucrative government contracts, employee’s rights and stability of employment have been severely affected through a massive increase in temporary contracts – especially zero-hour contracts – which have spread like a plague.

What the government has done has tried to fool us into further economic slavery.

There is as much cash in the pot as there ever was. Even during the height of ‘austerity’ measures the government still managed to find cash for their pet projects. For example, Cameron’s ridiculous increase in foreign aid while at the same time slashing welfare and social care budgets.

All the coalition government has done is shifted the balance of wealth, which they perceive as a balance of power, from the poorest and easiest targets into the pockets of their cronies.

A most distasteful exhibition of outright greed and self-interest at the expense of society as a whole.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

#Janner could face dementia test and #NSPCC calls for case to be reopened. (#childabuse #VIPaedophile)

janner04Despite the decision of Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, not to pursue legal action against the Labour peer, Lord Janner, doubts have been raised about the extent of his illness on his ability to engage in the legal process.

In civil legal claims being started by Janner’s alleged victims, Janner could be examined by expert witnesses according to one of the alleged victim’s lawyers.

Head of the abuse team at solicitors Slater & Gordon, Richard Scorer, told the Guardian that the move was under serious consideration.

“I have certainly dealt with civil claims before where the alleged abuser has claimed to have dementia and we have been able to have them medically examined in relation to that,” Scorer said.

“It is something we could consider doing. It would depend on the detailed evidence that is available about his medical condition but, potentially, there is provision in the civil law for us to do that. It’s an unusual situation. It doesn’t normally arise in civil cases but it is something we can look at.”

Under the victim’s code, alleged victims would be able to able to exercise their right to have Janner examined by third-parties.

Although Janner transferred ownership of his property to family members Scorer said this would not deter claimants. “If the transfer has happened in the last five years and was done with the intent to deprive potential creditors, there may be ways around this. The question I would ask is: if he actually has dementia, on what basis does he have the capacity to transfer ownership of assets? That is something we will need to explore. On the face of it, the two don’t sit easily together. There appears to be a contradiction between saying on the one hand that ‘he has dementia’ and on the other that he has been able to effect a transfer of assets. If there’s evidence that the transaction has been done to avoid potential creditors that is something we could challenge.”

The Independent reports that the charity NSPCC is pressuring Alison Saunders to reopen the investigation.

The NSPCC’s chief executive, Peter Wanless, says in a letter to Saunders that “given the exceptional historical mistakes in this matter, I would like to understand why you did not deem it in the public interest to have a trial of facts”.

A defendant who is found ‘unfit’ is not tried in the usual way. The jury considers, at a ‘trial of the facts’, whether the defendant did the act they have been charged with. If they did, the Court can put measures in place to provide supervision and support for the defendant and protect the public.

Wanless said the unintended consequence of leaving the cases untried could discourage other victims of child abuse from coming forward, “particularly if the accused sits in a position of influence or power”.

As we stated in another article concerning the current situation with Janner, if Janner does not have the mental capacity to engage in the legal process, or understand why he is being punished, it is ridiculous (and probably highly illegal) to make him stand trial as part of the normal legal process, and would amount to nothing other than outright revenge.

However, it seems there are other options – such as the ‘trial of facts’ – which may be appropriate and as well as giving the victims some form of justice, will also enable the police to carry on with investigations into the extent of the high-profile child abuse ring – including searching Janner’s properties and so on.

Of course, if he is found to have sufficient capacity then he should stand trial as part of the normal process.

Whatever happens, it is imperative that Janner’s alleged crimes are tried and the alleged victims receive some form of justice, and that the police can carry on to expose other criminals.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Under-18s with mental health problems put in police cells because no hospital beds available. (#UK #Welfare #mentalhealth #NHS)

ypmhThe Independent on Sunday obtained figures showing that 202 vulnerable people under the age of eighteen were kept in police cells last year because there were no suitable services or hospital beds available.

Hampshire police detained a 17 year-old girl for 63 hours and 40 minutes, Nottinghamshire police detained a 16 year-old girl for 52 hours, and other youngsters, some as young as twelve, were kept in the cells after being detained under the Mental Health Act.

Mental health services in the UK are in critical condition. Constant cuts to social welfare budgets mean that many charities and other voluntary sector providers which mental health services rely on have had their grants cut or stopped all together.

The service as a whole is failing abysmally under the weight of care they are mandated to provide, but for which they have grossly inadequate resources.

Young people are particularly at risk. In the majority of cases where youngster have been kept in police cells there was no risk to the public whatsoever. Most were in danger of self-harm or committing suicide.

Chief executive of mental health charity Sane, Marjorie Wallace, responded to the Independent’s findings, saying “It is quite unacceptable that anyone suffering from a mental health condition, especially a young person, should treated as a criminal.

“Nothing could be more damaging to the mental health of a young person than to be left isolated, unprotected and feeling they have done wrong, when they are suffering from mental illness. They are afraid, sometimes they are handcuffed, they have no means of contacting people and they are put into a cell alongside people who may be drunk or violent.”

The figures were obtained under a freedom of information request made by the newspaper.

This is not the fault of the police. When they find a person who is vulnerable suffering from mental health problems they can remove them to a ‘place of safety’ for up to seventy-two hours under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. They have a duty of care to do so if the person is at risk of harm or of harming others.

The police, mental health staff, and the most important person – the person being detained/sectioned, are all victims of this ridiculous situation.

Having one’s liberty taken away when feeling vulnerable and disturbed can be an extremely traumatic experience – especially for a young person who understands that they are feeling incredibly powerful emotions they are unable to control. Add to that a young person going through a lot of other stuff because of growing up and it is extremely important that they get appropriate intervention as soon as possible to prevent their condition from becoming worse.

It is frustrating for most staff involved in the process – the vast majority want to help the person in distress as best they can, yet the system they have to work under fails them.

The last place anyone experiencing mental health problems should be is in a police cell, locked away, alone and feeling incredibly vulnerable.

Last year, Assistant Chief Constable, Paul Netherton, of Devon and Cornwall police tweeted “We have a 16-year-old girl suffering from mental health issues held in police custody. There are no beds available in the UK! This can’t be right!” Unfortunately that is the way it is right now – and it isn’t going to get better until more effort and resources are put into social care.

This is an example of where cuts in other public sector services place increased strain on other services. Health and social care are closely entwined and integrated in our society. Changes to one will affect the other.

Sarah Brennan, of the charity YoungMinds told the Independent “We created this situation by making it much harder for young people to access mental health services when they are first experiencing problems. We really need to prevent young people from reaching this point of crisis in the first place.”

Although Sarah Brennan has a valid point, that is something to be tackled in the longer term. Right now we need action to (at least) stabilise mental health services so they are able to provide core services efficiently and appropriately.

A young person (or any person) experiencing mental health problems is not interested in tomorrow – it is the here-and-now where they need all assistance available to overcome debilitating (and sometimes life-threatening) conditions. Waiting three days in a police cell is totally unacceptable for anyone, and the police are not providers of specialist mental health services, and neither should they be.

Politicians and ‘executives’ will bandy around figures – percentages of this and percentages of that, and put more pressure on services to provide appropriate care.

Firstly, the police are on the edge of being unable to function because of budget cuts. They do not have the capacity to cater for specialists needs during their day-to-day work. Having taken someone to a ‘place of safety’ they want the person to move on to appropriate treatment, both for the good of the person and to free up over-stretched police resources.

Secondly, mental health staff want to provide the vulnerable person with the safest environment and appropriate care they can. With their resources close to collapse, they are simply unable to do so no matter how much they want to or how much goodwill they contribute.

Thirdly, social care services provided by most county councils are on their knees – unable to cope with the demands placed on them. Yet again, mental health social workers have ridiculous – and sometimes dangerous – workloads to cope with – many struggling to cope with their statutory duties. Where they are coping they have to make serious compromises to the care of those in their charge.

Until we get away from the budget-bickering that is plaguing our welfare and social care systems there is little hope of any real changes or improvements being made. Until all the services are able to provide high-quality and properly funded services the situation will only get worse, and the politicians and executives will do nothing more than enter into passing-the-buck and denying all responsibility for the situation they have created.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

DPP Alison Saunders defends decision not to prosecute Janner (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

jannotIn an exclusive interview with the London Evening Standard, Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders defended her decision not to charge the Labour Peer Lord Janner with historic child sex crimes.

Responding to claims that her decision was part of an establishment cover-up, Saunders said “I’m not part of the Establishment. If it was an Establishment cover-up I’ve had to pay a very heavy price for it. I am independent. I guard my independence as DPP very jealously. It’s certainly not a cover-up.”

Despite compelling evidence against Janner, the decision not to prosecute him was made because of his mental health, which four doctors have claimed makes him unable to understand the legal process, questions put to him, or follow instructions.

Saunders decision has been backed by members of the legal profession. A senior QC, David Pannick, has also backed Mrs Saunders over the issue, while another criminal barrister, Nigel Pascoe QC, took to Twitter to say that his colleague had been “wholly right” before adding: “We should stand up for the independence of the DPP”.

On the other hand, one senior MP has responded by describing her as “the worst DPP in modern times”, while other critics have called for her to quit. Victims’ representatives and police have also reacted angrily to the decision.

Saunders said she has paid a “heavy price” for her decision but insisted she had been right to avoid the “easy option” of sending the case to court for a judge to throw out.

She added that it was not the “DPP’s role to duck the difficult decisions” and went on: “If somebody wants to challenge my decision I’m not afraid. The proper way to challenge it is through the right to review or a judicial review.

“I’m confident that if they want to do that my decision will stand up. I thought long and hard before making it and I’m confident I got it right. My job is not to be populist. It’s not to make decisions on the basis of what people want. It’s about making the right decisions. Sometimes that means it won’t be popular but if I’m fulfilling my duties as DPP that’s the right thing to do.”

“This was not an easy decision,” she said. “I understand how frustrated and disappointed the complainants must be about it. I share their frustration.

“For me it would have been much better to prosecute this case. If it were not for Janner’s medical condition we would have been prosecuting this.

“But I don’t think it’s for me as DPP to take the easy way out. The easy way out would have undoubtedly been for me to duck all the criticism there is out there, to let it go before the courts.

“That’s not what the DPP is there to do. We’re there to make the right decision, not the easy or the popular one. I knew it would be controversial.”

So was Saunders decision the right thing to do?

Janner has been accused of disgusting actions against young people for his own perverted pleasure. Sexually abusing young boys at sex parties and leaving them to cope with the aftermath for the rest of their lives.

According to Saunders, if it were not for his mental condition (Alzheimer’s) he would have faced prosecution. But because he is (apparently) unable to engage in or understand the legal process she made the decision that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case.

Saunders’ decision has had a devastating impact on those who have had to recount the horrific abuse they suffered by him and others at sex parties in London and other locations The officers who have put time and effort in bringing Janner to justice are shocked that all of their hard work has come to nothing after a long and detailed investigation.

A lot of people are very unhappy that Janner will not pay for his crimes.

If it is the case that Janner can not engage in the legal process or understand that he will face severe punishment then perhaps there really is no satisfactory result to be gained from prosecuting him. It depends what justice means.

The purpose of prosecution and taking away someone’s liberty is to take a threat out of society and/or make the person pay a personal price for their crimes. But if someone doesn’t understand the reason for, and purpose of, their punishment because of mental incapacity then the punishment has no effect. What we would be left with is someone sitting in prison without realising why they are there, or understanding that it is the impact of their actions that has resulted in their liberty being taken away.

Understandably this is difficult for the victims and investigators, but a basic rule of law is that the accused has the right to defend themselves against the charges – something Janner is allegedly unable to do.

It is also understandable that victims want revenge. But again, the purpose of seeking revenge is to punish the perpetrator. If the perpetrator doesn’t understand that they are being punished then nothing is achieved.

If Janner is as affected by Alzheimer’s as the doctor’s claim then it will make little or no difference to him whether he is at home or in prison. If the aim of revenge is to make the perpetrator suffer, then the objective will not be achieved.

It is a difficult situation. On the one hand justice needs to be done, and on the other if that justice has no effect on the perpetrator and they do not understand the process.there is no point.

However, there are a couple of important points.

If Janner is not prosecuted for his crimes it makes it more difficult (and probably more expensive) for the victims to claim redress from him or his estate – which they would otherwise be entitled to do.

The decision of Saunders’ also has ramifications on the ability of the police to investigate crimes and gather evidence. Saunders’ decision has halted one investigation by Leicestershire police and caused severe disruption to Operation Midland who were running a parallel investigation in to Janner as part of their investigation into the high-profile Westminster child abuse ring.

As a result valuable evidence against others may have been lost.

There has been some doubt as to how affected by his mental health Janner is. A recent letter to the House of Lords for a leave of absence was submitted by and signed by Janner. Of course, it was probably another person who wrote the letter, but he still had the ability to sign his name, and presumably had some understanding of what he was signing – although this may not be the case of course. It may have been a member of his family who told him just to sign a paper – we don’t know.

Janner has also signed over his property to other family members. Again, we do not know if it was Janner himself who instigated this move or another person such as a member of his family who, again, may have told him to sign ‘a document’.

His capacity to understand needs to be re-evaluated in light of these doubts. All efforts must be made to ensure that the decision of Saunders is the correct one and that any chance that there may be justice for his victims are explored.

We think that if the situation is as it stands now, there is no point in prosecuting someone who doesn’t understand why they are being prosecuted. However, this should not impede the victims seeking redress and neither should it stop the police from carrying on with their investigations. In light of the apparent compelling evidence against Janner, the decision of Saunders should not be an ‘all or nothing’ decision. Some balance has to be sought.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

‘The Satanic Cult that Wasn’t’ – revealing the crazy side of conspiracy theorists (#radio4 #childabuse #UK)

mckfIf you didn’t get chance to listen to BBC Radio 4’s programme, ‘The Satanic Cult that Wasn’t’ then you missed something which was as disturbing as it was bizarre. You can listen to the thirty minute programme on BBC iPlayer here.

As we wrote on the 17th April, the programme concerns claims that a satanic cult operates in Hampstead, North London, as revealed by two children.

Police investigated the claims of the mother, Ella Draper, and her two children, but the tables soon turned when police realised that the claims were fabricated, and that Draper, and her partner, Abraham Christie, had coached and bullied the children into making the false allegations. As a result, Draper and her partner fled the country for fear of arrest and prosecution.

Around the same time Draper and Christie fled the country, a German woman by the name of Sabine McNeill also fled potential arrest and prosecution by returning to her home country despite being settled and resident in London.

McNeill operates ‘The Association of McKenzie Friends’ with a partner named Belinda McKenzie, a self-styled ‘justice’ organisation claiming to help people with legal cases in the Family Court. McNeill befriended Ella Draper when she heard of the acrimonious divorce proceedings between Draper and the father of her children, Ricky Dearman.

As the months passed the claims of the children became more bizarre including babies being shipped in by courier to be eaten in the local McDonalds restaurant, babies’ skins being used to make shoes, and mass sexual abuse by just about every person the children knew – including police, social workers, teachers, and parents of other children at the primary school. The abuse was alleged to have taken place in various locations, including the disabled toilet of the local swimming pool which the children claimed was used by over 20 people at the same time to abuse them, including parents, teachers, and so on.

The children were taken by social services for their own protection and later retracted their statements saying that Draper and her partner Christie had forced them to make the claims.

When the children were examined it was found that they both had very high amounts of THC in their hair, which meant they had been exposed to cannabis for some time. This tied in with the statement that they were made to eat ‘hash’ soup as part of a raw vegan diet the parents forced on them.

A catalyst which seems to have prompted increased action by the ‘campaigners’ was a judgement in the fact-finding inquiry conducted by Mrs Justice Pauffley. After extensive investigation Judge Pauffley concluded that the initial statements of the children were the result of the children being abused by their mother and Christie. In the judgement Justice Pauffley instructed that the children’s identity must not be revealed – something the ‘campaigners’ have totally ignored.

As the case progressed so did the online hysteria instigated by McNeill, McKenzie and their band of loyal followers. The children’s police interviews were leaked and posted on the internet, as well as a video of them making a ‘statement’ to camera whilst being prompted by an associate of McNeill and McKenzie.

The craziness continued as supporters of the ‘campaign’ embarked on a campaign of harassment of everyone who the children had initially claimed had abused them. The supporters posted personal details of residents and tradespeople in Hampstead all over their various blogs and ‘secret’ sites where the story ballooned as more and more ‘crazies’ joined in.

Despite very clear evidence to the contrary, the ‘campaigners’ continued with the same deluded claims the children and their mother initially made, and refused (and still refuse) to accept any alternative, launching into a tirade of abuse against anyone who may have an alternative opinion.

One of their online ‘campaigners ’going under the name Jacqui Farmer (which may be real or not) even distributing a disgusting video containing real images of child sexual abuse. That goes to show the mind-set of these so-called ‘campaigners’.

Even those who are long-term ‘truth seekers’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ were amazed at the way the supporters of Draper and McNeill were behaving and abusing other people online and in person as they mounted demonstrations outside the children’s primary school, telephoned residents with threats and abuse, and tried character assassination of those they believed were ‘involved’.

Now you may think that the ‘crazies’ may be a certain kind of person. Not so in this case. Those who were gullible enough to believe the lies and ridiculous theories promoted by McNeill and her cohorts included people of all ages who seem to come from a range of backgrounds. As part of their campaign the crazies created false profiles, fake email addresses, and so on so they could indulge themselves in their ridiculous beliefs, so it is difficult to know whether some of the supporters are real or fake.

The claims of McNeill are akin to some megalomaniac dictator. During the interview for the BBC programme the presenter asked McNeill if she thought it was right or appropriate that the children’s identities and videos of them being interviewed were spread by her followers, to which McNeill appeared to become very agitated and said that it didn’t matter. Several other questions from the interviewer prompted similarly manic responses. McNeill appeared to totally ignore factual evidence and carried on spouting her deluded beliefs.

Of course, as the BBC broadcast continued and the ridiculousness of the ‘supporters’ claims were addressed, the various forums and websites where they congregate were teaming with all kinds of bizarre claims about the role of the BBC and others the ‘supporters’ claimed were involved in some kind of conspiracy. Like a mob of villagers with pitchforks the online tirade continued.

This is not the first time the ring-leaders of this cult-like mob have been involved in making bizarre claims of satanic child abuse.

McKenzie and McNeill were instrumental in promoting equally ridiculous (and remarkably similar) claims about a young girl with Down’s syndrome called Hollie Grieg. As with Draper, the mother, Anne Grieg, claimed that Hollie had been abused, naming just about everyone she knew – even close family friends – as being part of a satanic child abuse ring which was alleged to include doctors (including the family GP), social workers, teachers, police officers, members of local government, and even people who didn’t exist.

You can read more about the Hollie Grieg case at Victims Against Hoaxes. The website is operated by former victims of McKenzie and McNeill’s bizarre claims.

In both the Hollie Grieg case and the Ella Draper case the police were and have been slow to take action. Fortunately, through the hard work of victims of McKenzie and McNeill the police in Scotland started to take the abuse the victims suffered more seriously as time went on – realising that there were very serious threats to the safety and security of innocent people at the hands of the crazies.

We have yet to see what will happen in the Ella Draper case. The metropolitan police should learn the lessons of their Scottish counterparts and take very direct and serious action against the core members of the McKenzie/McNeill cult.

Members of this dysfunctional cult are so focused on ridiculous delusions that they will continue their campaign of abuse and propaganda for as long as they are allowed to. As one of the Hampstead victims said during the BBC programme, it only takes one of the crazies to take things too far and there will be a catastrophe.

The police also need to address the abuse of vulnerable people and children by McKenzie and McNeill. They have managed to manipulate their way out of potentially awkward situations before – leaving their minions to take the fall. Now it is time they were brought to justice for their abusive self-interested actions.

Another side effect of the actions of people like McKenzie and McNeill and their supporters is that people who are genuinely campaigning against child abuse – such as the Westminster ring – and those who are genuine investigating alternatives to the way our world is and the abuses which do take place by those in power may be ‘tarred with the same brush’ by the public.

No doubt we will receive abusive emails as the crazies try to attack us for writing articles criticising their cult and their beloved leaders. All we do is report them to the appropriate authorities. There comes a time when their idiotic tactics just don’t have an effect.

Until real and effective actions are taken against these cult like groups, we will continue to live in a culture where anything alternative is considered with suspicion, and worst of all, a society where vulnerable people are preyed on and abused by these instigators of hate and deluded theories presented as ‘truth’.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Doubts about Janner being unfit to stand trial (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

janner03The Labour peer Lord Janner who has been deemed unfit to stand trial signed a letter on the 9th April 2015 to the House of Lords requesting a leave of absence – just eleven days ago.

Janner could face further investigation by police after the House of Lords confirmed that the peer signed the official document.

A spokesman for the House of Lords told the Guardian that the signature matched previous samples and there was no reason to believe it was signed by someone else.

A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said they would consider contacting the House of Lords about the letter as part of Operation Enamel, their ongoing investigation into Janner and other alleged paedophiles.

Janner’s letter was addressed to David Beamish, the clerk of the parliaments, and arrived at his desk on 9 April.


The peer wrote: “I am writing to request Leave of Absence from the House of Lords for the duration of the 2015 Parliament. I understand that this will take effect on the next sitting day.”

The letter was signed by Lord Janner, but the signature has been blanked out by the House of Lords to avoid any risk of ID theft. Below, someone has printed “Lord Janner of Braunstone” on the bottom of the letter.

Asked whether Janner’s signature on the letter warranted further inquiries given the public outcry over whether he is fit to stand, a House of Lords spokesman said: “The signature on the form matches the signature of Lord Janner of Braunstone. There is nothing for the Clerk of the Parliaments to investigate.”

Campaigners said that the letter pointed to another reason why Saunders was wrong to drop the prosecution of Janner.

Simon Danczuk, the former Labour MP for Rochdale who has co-written a book about the Cyril Smith child sex abuse scandal, said: “The decision on whether Lord Janner is fit to stand trial should be resolved before the courts and not in a clandestine and quasi judicial way behind closed doors.

“If Lord Janner is incapable of answering questions and going before a court then how can he possibly remain a possible legislator in the House of Lords? It’s bringing the whole place into disrepute.”Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

One of Janner’s alleged victim’s calls for #DPP Alison Saunders to quit (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

saunders001In an incredibly brave move, one of the alleged victims of abuse by the labour peer Lord Janner has spoken out.

Waiving his right to anonymity, Hamish Baillie, one of nine people due to give evidence against Janner, said that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, “beggars belief”.

He said: “I don’t think anybody other than the victims and the police involved in the Operation Enamel inquiry understand how perverted a man Lord Janner is. He has blighted my life … How can they [the CPS] publicise the fact that there was enough evidence to charge, yet then say it is not in the public interest to pursue it?”

Baillie told the Daily Mail Alison Saunders should step down over her decision. “As far as I’m concerned, her actions are barely any less perverse than the abuse inflicted upon me as a teenager,” he said. “She should initiate an inquiry into her own conduct and then step down because Alison Saunders certainly hasn’t been doing her job properly.”

Simon Danczuk, the Labour candidate for Rochdale who in the last parliament campaigned on behalf of child abuse survivors, said he was extremely disappointed at the CPS’s decision and that he would encourage Janner’s alleged victims to seek civil redress.

“The justice system has to come up with a way in which the alleged victims in this case can have their evidence presented in court in public,” he told the Guardian. “Whether it’s through civil action or whether the CPS has second thoughts, there has to be a solution because this is highly unsatisfactory.

“I don’t believe that the victims in this case, the wider survivor community, or the public at large will be satisfied that a lord appears to have got off scot-free from what are extremely violent and serious allegations of child sexual abuse. The survivor community are disgusted and angry at the decision, it’s wholly unacceptable. This will not be the end of it.”

If you have information which may help the Operation Midland investigation you can contact them via Scotland Yard, or through Exaro in confidence through their website or secure dropbox.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Lord Janner was the subject of two parallel child abuse investigations (#UK #childabuse #crime #VIPaedophile)

janner02In light of the disgraceful decision of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to prosecute Lord Janner – which effectively halts Leicestershire Constabulary in their two-year efforts to investigate his involvement with, and possible links to, other abusers – it has been revealed that he was being investigated by Operation Midland for his links to the high-profile abuse ring connected to Westminster at the same time

The Labour peer was identified as attending several VIP sex parties in London where under-age boys were abused by powerful perpetrators between 1979 and 1982. The parallel Operation Midland investigation into Janner has been operating for six months before the dreadful decision of the CPS.

The CPS announced on Thursday that Leicestershire police has gathered enough evidence under their ‘Operation Enamel’ to charge Janner on 22 counts of sexually abusing nine boys – six of buggery and 16 counts of indecent assault – but it was not in the public interest to prosecute him because he has severe dementia.

Leicestershire police are seeking legal avenues to challenge the decision of the CPS.

Although Janner may have advanced dementia and be unfit to stand trial, the decision of the CPS means that the police are unable to gain search warrants to look for other evidence which may lead to information which would help in their investigation into other suspects.

More information can be found on the Exaro website.

If you have information which may help the Operation Midland investigation you can contact them via Scotland Yard, or through Exaro in confidence through their website or secure dropbox.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Deluded Duncan-Smith says zero-hour contacts need ‘rebranding’ (#UK #Politics #ids #welfare #bedroomtax)

dsmithrebrandIt has been a while since Duncan Smith has put his head above the parapet in the run-up to the general election – no doubt to avoid awkward questions about his conduct and the policies he has implemented while being in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

But put his head up he has, and in his usual idiotic manner has announced that zero-hour contracts are suffering from an image problem.

Speaking on Sky News, Duncan Smith said that the exploitative contracts should be rebranded as “flexible-hours contracts”, and went on to say that the contracts were suffering from misrepresentation because of propaganda spread by the media and the Labour Party.

So in his grossly deluded mind, Duncan Smith thinks that ALL the media coverage from across the spectrum and ONLY the Labour Party are responsible for criticism of the contracts.

As usual with Duncan Smith he is purposely lying in an obvious political move.

Criticism the contracts comes from across the political spectrum with the exception of hard-core conservative supporters and media.

On 1st August 2013 Channel 4 aired an undercover documentary which provided very clear evidence that Amazon were using zero-hour contracts to exploit and discipline the company’s warehouse staff in Rugeley, Staffordshire.

The government’s own Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has spoken out many times against the use of the contracts and the exploitation of workers forced to take them.

Zero-hour contracts give no security to employees whatsoever, but they do bring down official unemployment figures – which is one of the reasons Duncan Smith and Cameron are so keen for them to be implemented across the UK. It also means that large corporations can have vast pools of staff, with only a few employees ever getting any meaningful hours of employment.

The unemployed are most vulnerable. If they refuse a job with a zero-hour contact they will be penalised for not taking it. If they do take it, they are no better off. They will still struggle with the instability of not knowing how many hours they will work (if any) or how much they will get paid (if at all).

In effect, zero-hour contracts are no different to casual, part-time work. This is fine if it suits the employee who only wants hours to suit them, or is prepared to work at a moment’s notice for some casual money. But these kind of contracts being touted as proper employment is a disgrace, and are wholly unacceptable for people who want to work full-time with some job security, and have commitments such as families to look after.

One of the biggest complaints from those forced to take zero-hours contracts is that they do not get enough work hours. It also means that employees MUST be available when the company dictates. Of course, to what extent this is enforced depends on the company. Some workers, such as care workers, are often told to work a particular day only to be told part-way through the day that there is no more work for them.

The spread of these contracts adds to the claim by the Conservatives that Cameron’s government has created in the region of 1000 jobs a day. This is not a positive achievement by any means.

The magical appearance of these ‘jobs’ is down to zero-hours contracts spreading like a plague, and dramatic increases in self-employment (as more unemployed people are forced to take more drastic action to avoid welfare penalties), and the rise in part-time work.

In reality, the government has not been responsible for creating any real employment of significance since they came to power. Their claims are ‘smoke and mirrors’, ‘puff and nonsense’.

The reality of zero-hour contracts is that they are for the sole benefit of the employer – in particular large corporations who will exploit their workforce in order to make even more profit – which rarely makes its way back into the economy as more mega-corporations are exposed as tax avoiders, and neither does it create more employment.

In some circumstances zero-hour contracts may suit both the employer and employee. But they should in no way be considered anything other than what they are, and they should not be considered the mainstay of the labour market.

All that has been achieved is that more people have become economic slaves caught between a rock and a hard place with little chance of an alternative.

The Labour Party has stated that it would make employers give proper contracts to employees after they have spent three months on a zero-hour contract – but this doesn’t solve the problem. All that will happen is that those on zero-hour contracts will be on a continual roundabout of 3 month contracts. Dismissed, then employed for three months in a never-ending loop of instability and hope.

We think that zero-hour contracts should be banned outright, and employers need to be made aware of their responsibilities to those they employ, because without employees they would not exist or make the profits they hold so dear.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Mental health experts criticise government austerity agenda (#UK #Politics #mentalhealth #bedroomtax)

mhaustOver 400 psychotherapists, counsellors, and other mental health professionals have described government proposals contained in the budget as “profoundly disturbing” and creating an “intimidatory disciplinary regime”.

In a letter to The Guardian newspaper, the experts said that austerity cuts are impacting on the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the nation, and amounted to nothing more than unethical ‘get to work therapy’.

Increasing inequality and poverty, families being moved out of their homes and new systems determining benefit levels were part of “a wider reality of a society thrown completely off balance by the emotional toxicity of neoliberal thinking”, according to more than 400 signatories to the letter. The consequences were “most visible in the therapist’s consulting room”.

The letter’s writers said it “sounds the starting bell for a broadly based campaign of organisations and professionals against the damage that neoliberalism is doing to the nation’s mental health”.

The 2015 budget included plans to provide online cognitive behavioural therapy to 40,000 claimants and people on the Fit for Work programme, as well as putting therapists in more than 350 job centres.

The letter was being organised before the Conservative party manifesto was published earlier this week. This said that those with long-term but treatable conditions, including drug or alcohol addiction and obesity, might lose benefits if they refused recommended treatments.

Psychotherapist and author Susie Orbach called the Conservative manifesto “beyond shocking”.

She said “It undermines the fundamental principles of one’s right to physical and mental care – that you have to be able to consent and that the people you go to have to be highly trained and have your best interests and aren’t meeting targets.”

She added: “And we certainly don’t want claimants’ and job-seekers’ aspirations and paltry money dependent on whether they take up treatment options, which bounce them into mental health treatments which may not suit them, and which violate all of our notions of what constitutes a minimum standard for productive engagement in therapy: in short, consent.”

Andrew Samuels, an Essex University professor, and immediate past chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy, insisted the letter was not pro-Labour but was aimed at getting a review of measures taken and proposed over the past five years.

“If Labour decides afterwards all this is in order, it will go on. But I don’t think it will. I don’t see how it can,” he said.

Samuels believed there was “a bit of a public school ethos” behind the work-capability regime introduced under the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition and new Conservative plans.

Characterising the government attitude as “Pull yourself together man, for heaven’s sake,” Samuels added: “It is wholly inappropriate. It symbolises a society that has lost all moral compass.”

Richard House of the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the letter’s main organiser, said there had been a mounting groundswell of concern. “When one hears story after story of dramatic negative health impacts, psychological and physical, after people are subjected to these back-to-work practices, the time has surely come for an ‘emotional audit’ of the impact of what, to many, appear to be heartless, un-thought-through policies that are merely penalising and punishing the already disadvantaged still further.”

The only interest the government has is in turning everyone into economic slaves for the sake of company shareholders. The incredible increase in unstable employment since the current government came to power is shocking.

They seem to view anything concerning social care to be a burden rather than a valuable and necessary foundation for a civilised society.

A culture of greed and self-interest has been nurtured as time after time the government has demonstrated that they only serve those who share the same psychopathic impulses for power and wealth as they.

Despite the potential for billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money to be saved through institutional change and control, they continue to steal from public service and spend obscene amounts on their own pet projects, which do little (if anything) to serve the nation as a whole.

Mental health and disability are easy targets for their predatory psychopathy and exemplifies how much damage can be caused when these kind of ‘law of the jungle’ policies are implemented in society.

The electorate are gullible, and the Conservatives know it, which is why they are relying on money and a campaign of propaganda rather than their track record to try and win the next general election.

Whichever party comes into power after the election (other than Conservative) they will have a long and painful task ahead of them to redress the damage caused during the last five years.

One thing is for sure, the promises and electioneering of the Conservatives is just propaganda. If they are allowed back into power then the people of the UK will be subjected to a further five years which will be significantly more damaging than the last.

It is not only the poor and vulnerable who are in the Conservative sights. Middle earners are next on the hit list.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

BBC Radio 4. ‘The Satanic Cult that Wasn’t’. Thursday 23rd April at 20:00 GMT (#radio4 #childabuse #UK)

radio4thereportIn this Radio 4 episode of ‘The Report’, Melanie Abbott investigates how false allegations of a satanic abuse ring in Hampstead went global.

If you are not aware of the Hampstead case, it involved a mother, Ella Draper, and her partner, Abraham Christie, coaching their children to make allegations of a satanic child abuse ring in Hampstead, North London, apparently in an attempt to discredit the children’s biological father.

It wasn’t long before a group of self-styled ‘justice seekers’ (read ‘villagers and pitchforks’) became involved and the false allegations spread across the internet and around the world.

Draper and Christie have absconded, as has one of their ‘supporters’, Sabine McNeill,  who is part of an organisation called ‘The Association of McKenzie Friends’ – all three are wanted for questioning by the Metropolitan Police.

Not only did the information spread at lightning speed across the internet, mobs of supporters organised by Sabina McNeill, and her partner at the ‘association’, Belinda McKenzie, and other members of their inner-circle, took to intimidating members of the local church and the parents and children of the primary school where Draper’s children attended before they were taken into protection from their abusive parents.

In disgusting displays of harassment, the mob shouted (including some members shouting obscenities) at the parents and children as they arrived each day for school.

Police were forced to arrest two members of the mob, Christine Ann Sands and Neelu Berry (Neelu Chaudhari). Sands (a US resident) was ordered to leave the UK by the 5th May, and received a £165 fine, and the case against Berry/Choudhari (who claimed the local residents ate babies for lunch at a local McDonalds) is ongoing.

Despite a judgement made by Mrs Justice Pauffley on the 19th March 2015 strictly forbidding any person from revealing the identities of Draper’s children, members of the internet campaign continue to post videos and pictures of the children on various websites, and the children’s names have also been posted in public view.

This flagrant contempt of court is most disgraceful. The children are currently in the care of foster parents and social services. In years to come they will see the material about them that has been spread across the internet by self-interested, self-styled vigilantes.

The residents of Hampstead are also unhappy with the inaction of the police. Despite being subjected to daily harassment, including having their names, addresses, and other personal details posted on the internet by members of the vigilante group, the police have remained passive in bringing to justice the ring-leaders of the campaign.

The ring leaders of the mob and internet campaign have a history of abusing vulnerable people and making false accusations about innocent people. Unsurprisingly, the Draper case bears many similarities with the case of Hollie Grieg, a woman with Down’s syndrome from Aberdeen, whose mother made very similar accusations to those made by Draper.

Only a few days ago we posted an article about the nasty side of these self-styled ‘justice seekers, which goes into more detail about this and other cases.

It remains to be seen what the outcome of this situation will be as the pressure mounts on the authorities to take firm action against all those involved.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

CPS DISGRACE! Lord Jenner will not face prosecution for child abuse (#UK #politics #childabuse)

jennercpsIn what is a most disgraceful decision, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has stated that the Labour peer Lord Janner of Braunstone will not be charged with historical sexual abuse offences against children which occurred between 1969 and 1988.

The CPS states that Jenner is not competent to stand trial because he has Alzheimer’s disease and has ordered that police are not to investigate the allegations further or search Jenner’s properties.

The decision is so outrageous that even the police force involved in the case are seeking legal challenges to the CPS’ decision.

Last year a former detective sergeant with Leicestershire Police, Mick Creedon – now chief constable of Derbyshire Police – told the Daily Mail that in 1989 he was ordered not to arrest Lord Janner and not to search his home.

Although the decision not to prosecute him may be valid based on the severity of his condition, there should be no reason whatsoever why police can not continue their investigations or search his properties for evidence which may help in identifying others who may be involved.

The following is from The Guardian which goes into detail about the case:

The Labour peer Lord Janner of Braunstone will not face charges over alleged historical child sex crimes despite evidence from four police inquiries that he had been involved in the abuse of children, the director of public prosecutions has said.

Alison Saunders, the DPP, said in a statement that it was not in the public interest to put the QC and former MP on trial because four separate doctors have said he has Alzheimer’s disease and is incapable of instructing lawyers or entering a plea.

The decision was immediately condemned by Leicestershire police, the investigating force, which claimed that it would let down the alleged victims who had come forward. In an unprecedented move, the force said it was “exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to challenge” the decision.

The opposing statements could plunge the CPS and the police’s strategy for investigating historical sex abuse claims into confusion and crisis.

The investigation into Janner is one of dozens of inquiries into historical abuse allegations involving institutions or prominent people being conducted around the country, coordinated by Operation Hydrant.

In her remarkably detailed statement, Saunders said that Janner would have been charged with a string of sex offences against children if he had been fit to stand.

He would have been charged with 14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988; two indecent assaults between 1984 and 1988; four counts of buggery of a male under 16 between 1972 and 1987; and two counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988.

The statement claimed that both the CPS and Leicestershire police were to blame for the failure of previous inquiries.
Following the decision, Leicestershire police issued a statement saying they were considering challenging the decision in the courts.

Ast Ch Cons Roger Bannister, who has overseen the investigation, said he believed the decision was “the wrong one” and it would do little to support and encourage victims of sexual abuse to come forward.

He said: “Thanks primarily to the courage of 25 victims who have made a complaint and the complete professionalism of the investigation team, we have built a case that the DPP has acknowledged is the result of a thorough investigation, evidentially sufficient and gives rise to a realistic chance of conviction.

“There is credible evidence that this man carried out some of the most serious sexual crimes imaginable over three decades against children who were highly vulnerable and the majority of whom were in care.

“I am extremely worried about the impact the decision not to prosecute him will have on those people, and more widely I am worried about the message this decision sends out to others , both past and present, who have suffered and are suffering sexual abuse.

“We are exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to
challenge this decision and victims themselves have a right to review under a CPS procedure.”

More than a dozen people came forward claiming they were abused by Janner, the CPS said. It is claimed the Labour politician used his influence as MP for Leicester West to prey on and abuse boys at local children’s homes.

In its statement the CPS said most of the alleged victims were residents in Leicestershire children’s homes in the 1970s and 1980s.

The CPS said: “The children and young people in this case were vulnerable and in a situation where they should have been looked after and protected.

“The allegations in this case are thus extremely serious, with a number of alleged victims and allegations of multiple offending over a lengthy period of time.

“The core allegation was that Lord Janner, in a position of authority and trust as the local MP for Leicester West at the time, befriended the manager of a children’s care home to allow him access to children in order to allow him to perpetrate serious sexual offences on children.”

Some of the allegations surfaced in the early 1990s and three investigations were launched into Janner over the next 20 years.

The CPS admitted it made mistakes and that Janner should have been prosecuted earlier.

The CPS said: “In relation to the other three previous investigations, the CPS also now considers that the evidential test was passed.

“It follows that mistakes were made in the decision-making at the time by both the Leicestershire police in 2002 and the CPS in 1991 and 2007.

“Lord Janner should have been prosecuted in relation to those complaints.”

CPS lawyers spent nine months studying evidence gathered by Leicestershire police’s Operation Enamel.

Detectives interviewed more than 25 men who claim they were abused by Greville Janner in their youth.

On Wednesday night police officers visited the alleged victims to inform them of the decision not to proceed to trial, the Times reported.

The Labour party suspended Janner following the CPS announcement.

Janner, 86, the former MP for Leicester West, denied the allegations against him when they first surfaced two decades ago.

He has not been interviewed by detectives because of poor health but police obtained warrants to search his home in Golders Green, north London, and his office in the House of Lords.

Saunders’s decision has angered campaigners, who believe a trial would be in the public interest.

The National Association for People Abused in Childhood said the CPS decision was a “step backwards for justice”.

Spokeman Pete Saunders told Radio 4’s Today programme: “There is enough evidence to proceed with this case and that Alison Saunders can say it is not in the public interest is an outrage.

“I am not saying it is in the public interest to send a very old man to prison, but surely it is in the public interest to expose the evidence and give victims the chance to be heard.

“The message here is that if you are old or important you can still get away with it.”

The CPS said it has asked retired high court judge Sir Richard Henriques to conduct an independent review into its decision-making and handling of all past matters relating to the case.

Commenting on the CPS decision not to prosecute Janner, Simon Danczuk, who first named the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith as an abuser in parliament, said that victims and investigating police have been let down by the CPS.

“I am disappointed by the decision not to bring charges against Lord Janner. I met with Leicestershire police officers 12 months ago to discuss this case and I know how much effort frontline officers put into investigating very serious allegations of child abuse.”

The peer was first accused of abuse offences in 1991 by a witness at the trial of Frank Beck, a serial abuser who ran children’s homes in Leicestershire.

Mick Creedon, now chief constable of Derbyshire police but then an investigating officer, told the Times last year there was credible evidence against Janner and that he and colleagues wanted to make an arrest but were prevented from doing so by “more senior people”.

Janner was interviewed at a police station in Leicester. He attended with his solicitor and gave “no comment” answers. The CPS decided at the time that there was no evidence to warrant charging him.

Janner returned to the Commons after the controversy to a rousing reception from all sides. He told parliament that the claims against him consisted of “disgraceful, contemptible and totally untrue allegations”.

Janner, a prominent advocate for Jewish rights and against the far right, who was president of the Board of British Jews, has led efforts to see Holocaust victims receive compensation.

In 1955, he married Myra Sheink who died in 1996. He has three children and many grandchildren.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Wristbands for the mentally ill – only in the most severe cases. (#UK #Politics #mentalhealth #welfare)

wbmilSo the Conservative candidate for Cambridge, Chamali Fernando, get herself in hot water over suggesting that mentally ill people should wear wristbands.

To be fair, a lot of the ensuing criticism was over-hyped in the media and taken out of context of her full statement, although some of the main criticisms were valid.

Fernando is standing as a candidate for a position where (in theory) she will be expected to represent the people of a constituency and their interests. In representing those people (again, in theory) she is supposed to ensure that she understands their needs and concerns, and present a valid and appropriate case to other members of the House of Commons.

To be able to present the case for her constituents she must ensure that the information is accurate and whatever she is proposing is appropriate for the people she is representing.

Although much of her statement was over looked by the mainstream media, her statement on wristbands clearly demonstrated that she does not have a fundamental knowledge of the debilitating effects of mental health problems and their effects on everyday life for those people.

She said “Maybe it’s something as simple as there are certain conditions which are more common, where people can wear a wristband to identify they have that condition, so that then we can perhaps, not diagnose, but spot it earlier and ensure that we deal with it.”

Many people with mental health problems have enough trouble getting through a day let alone engaging with society in general. To people without mental health problems it may seem a simple case of ‘pulling oneself together’ and getting on with things that need to be done. But for a person experiencing mental health problems just coping with the effects of their brains misbehaving can be a full-time exasperating and draining task. The simplest of functions can become a major hurdle to overcome.

We can understand that Fernando was making a statement about more being done to raise awareness of mental health problems, and improve understanding among professionals such as teachers, lawyers, health professionals, and so on. Her reference to wristbands was meant to be something that would identify people with mental health problems at an early stage of contact so those professionals would be able to engage with them in an appropriate manner.

Perhaps Fernando was thinking of a similar idea to the SOS bracelets that some people wear to identify physical health conditions.

However, mental health problems are still a taboo subject in the view of the wider public. The stigma is still there and fuelled by irresponsible reporting in the media and so on. The last thing most people with mental health problems want is to stand out when they are spending much of their lives and energy trying to become part of wider society.

Fernando states that as a barrister “I’ve had to deal with people in those situations. I’m not trained to deal with people in those situations.”

Neither does Fernando seem to have real understanding of the effects of living with a mental health condition, and perhaps she should take time to learn about reality before making statements on the subject.

Unfortunately, this is typical of many politicians and political candidates. They make statements to gain votes and popularity without any real knowledge of the subject they are referring to.

If she were genuinely concerned about the subject of mental health and not her own potential career choice then she would not have made reference to wristbands. It is something anyone with a reasonable knowledge of mental health would see as a very unhelpful statement and it would not enter their minds as an option or solution.

What Fernando should be concerned about is the way mental health services have been cut to the bone on the front line.

The hard fact is that mental health services are in crisis. They can no longer cope with their basic tasks, and care has taken a very significant nose-dive as a result of the current government’s policies and interference – a government dominated by her own party.

People are not getting the care they need and many have found themselves left alone to cope with horrendous conditions and no support because services are having to restrict their services to emergencies and the immediate care of very unwell people. In effect, they are only able to cope with the most serious cases – and then they struggle.

Medical and social care staff have to cope with ridiculous caseloads. We know of one psychiatrist who is trying to cope with 160 cases on their books. Within that caseload there are statutory requirements to see patients at specific intervals. In reality the consultant is unable to do this, and there are no signs that the situation will improve. In fact, it is going to get worse.

There are social care staff who are in a similar position. A ridiculous number of cases they are expected to manage – which inevitably means that the majority of cases are not managed.

There is no capacity within the mental health system to provide care to anyone but the most severely ill. New referrals are delayed for unreasonable amounts of time – we know of cases which have been delayed for over a year, and there are some which are delayed for much longer making the person’s mental health issues much more difficult to treat in the long run.

If something goes wrong inevitably it is the front line staff who become the first targets of criticism and the subjects of investigation. It is they system that is at fault. The staff can only work with the resources they are given and there are only so many hours in a day.

Mental health services have had a high reliance on charities for many years. Now, many of those charities have faced cuts to grants and other income as local authority spending has been cut to the bone and councils are forced to divert their limited resources to other essential areas.

These are the things Fernando should be concerned about. These are the things that she should be addressing within her own party who are mostly responsible for the disgraceful state of mental health care in the UK.

If another area of healthcare, such as cancer treatment, faced the same problems as mental health there would be a public outcry. But mental health has always been the poor relation within the healthcare system, even though it affects every area of our society in one way or another.

So – wristbands for the mentally ill? Perhaps only in the most serious cases – such as politicians and other self-interested narcissists who have no concept of the real world and the problems people face.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Developments in Westminster paedophile ring and Martin Allen murder (#VIPaedophiles #UK #childabuse)

westprmamAccording to the Star on Sunday a new witness has come forward with strong evidence that could help the team investigating the disappearance of 15 year-old Martin Allen, who disappeared on Bonfire Night 1979, and who police believe may have been murdered by members of the Westminster VIP paedophile ring.

The witness came forward after an appeal from the investigation team for anyone who has information about the abuse network to contact them.

From The Star on Sunday:

He contacted police investigating the disappearance of 15-year-old Martin Allen after an appeal for information.

The witness says he may know the identity of a blond man seen with Martin when he vanished on Bonfire Night 1979.

He has even handed over a sample of what he thinks is Martin’s hair – which he claims the suspect tried to dispose of after fresh publicity about the case.

The witness – known as David – has also shared his evidence with Martin’s elder brother Kevin.

Martin went missing after leaving a friend at London’s King’s Cross station.

A boy fitting his description was later seen with a man at Earl’s Court station.

Police now believe he was one of three boys killed by a London-based VIP paedophile gang. Kevin, 52, thinks the information “could be vital” to the probe.

In another development, London Met officers have found some of Martin’s original case files. The new information may contain witness statements which were believed to be lost.

David’s new evidence includes correspondence, dates, times, names and addresses for a key suspect and two possible accomplices.

The hair will be DNA tested. David said: “I think he was probably the abductor, a tall blond-haired man last seen with Martin at Earl’s Court station.”

Kevin also confirmed: “David contacted me saying he had information about ‘the man who took Martin’ and mentioned possible DNA evidence.

“David says the person is still alive but is in his 70s.

“He is not seeking any reward but is scared of the possible consequences.”

Martin was the son of the chief chauffeur at the Australian High Commission and looked younger than 15. His disappearance sparked a massive police hunt and a probe by Australian intelligence agents.

Last year, Martin Allen’s brother, Kevin, alleged in an interview in the Mirror that he had no faith in the police and was warned by a senior police officer at the time of his brother’s disappearance that he could get hurt if he probed too far.

Detectives of Operation Midland believe that there is strong evidence that at least three boys were murdered as part of the depraved activities of the VIP paedophile ring. As part of their investigation they have been re-examining over 200 cases of missing boys across the UK between 1977 and 1983.

If you have information about the Westminster VIP paedophile ring please contact detectives at Operation Midland through Scotland Yard, or contact Exaro in confidence.


Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Why mentally ill people are an easy target for the #Tories (#UK #Politics #Health #welfare #bedroomtax)

milltorThe governments targeting of vulnerable people has been unprecedented in recent political history. In particular, mental health services can no longer cope with demand because of horrendous cuts to NHS services, and the demise of funding for the voluntary sector.

The service is in crisis, and the government choose to ignore it – continuing to penalise some of the most vulnerable in society through the welfare system.

The following is from Nick Cohen at The Guardian:

Despite the valiant work of Norman Lamb, people with mental health problems are increasingly vulnerable in an era of swingeing cuts.

If there were ever a good time to have a nervous breakdown, now would appear to be it. Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, the treatment of mental illness is an election issue for the first time in British or, as far as I can see, world history. Say what you will about the Liberals, and I have said much, but this is an achievement.

Meanwhile, the health service, the bureaucracy and the “serious” media show their respect for mental illness by enforcing speech codes that would make a Victorian clergyman blink. You should never use words that have become insults even if they were not originally insults or are not always used as insults now – “cretin”, “simple”, “cripple”, for instance. You should never say that someone is “suffering” from autism or schizophrenia – even if they are. On no account should you describe someone as “mentally ill”. You must refer to “people with mental health problems” instead. By extension, mental health patients are no longer “patients”, but the “users” or “consumers” of health services.

I bristle when anyone tries to tell me what to write and find “inoffensive” language to be so deceitful and clunking that it is an offence in itself. The historian Tony Judt drew the link between political correctness and conservative economics best as he lay dying from motor neurone disease. Pretending we are all separate but equal, he said, “conceals the effects of real power and capacity, real wealth and influence. You describe everyone as having the same chances when actually some people have more chances than others. And with this cheating language of equality, deep inequality is allowed to happen much more easily.”

Many good people do not agree that a fraud is being committed. For them, driving “stigmatising” language out of respectable conversation has been one of the great mental health achievements of the past decade.

If they were right, if it were anything other than an easy lie that you can change the world by changing language, then the condition of the mentally ill would have improved. The Lib Dems, led by their impressive health minister Norman Lamb, have not forced the treatment of the mentally ill on to the political agenda because they want to celebrate Britain’s successes, however.

On the contrary, they are campaigning because a priggish obsession with speaking “appropriately” has coexisted quite happily with cruelty and neglect. In Britain, the powerful can get away with any inhumane act as long as they cover themselves with the cloak of “appropriate” language. Mind has emphasised how Iain Duncan Smith’s supposed attack on “scroungers” has turned into an attack on the mentally ill. His staff were sanctioning and removing their benefits at a rate of 100 a day.

The prejudice of Conservative officialdom is that they are lazy rather than sick. They punish them and then they fail them. Almost 150,000 people with mental health problems have been placed on the work programme – only 5% have been helped into work.

While the NHS is happy to go along with speech codes that prevent us from saying the mentally ill and handicapped suffer, it has cut the budget for the mental health services by 8%. No one has the right to be surprised. The covering of real suffering with euphemism suits an age of austerity well. For if people are not suffering, if patients are empowered “consumers”, why do they need public money spent on their treatment?

The health services’s neglect came as recession helped drive depression. There were 53m prescriptions for antidepressants in England in 2013. Suicide is now the leading cause of death of men aged between 20 and 49. I believe government and the NHS bureaucracy targets the mentally ill because people suffering – if I may use the word – from autism or schizophrenia, and the depressed and the mentally broken, rarely vote. Lamb prefers to say successive governments forgot about them. The targets that drive the treatment of physical illness in the NHS did not apply to mental illness. Health managers faced with orders to see everyone who arrived in accident and emergency in four hours had no orders about the treatment of the mentally ill. They put their money where their targets were.

Lamb, with – in fairness – the full support of Jeremy Hunt, the Tory health secretary, found the money to target mental illness and anorexia and issued commands for the NHS to follow. He would be able to sit back and reflect on his achievements with some pride were not the Tories getting away with murder in this election campaign.

I have never seen a party of government escape scrutiny with such ease. David Cameron is promising to abolish the deficit, to cut the taxes of the working and middle classes, to mortgage the future by making the taxpayer liable for off-balance-sheet guarantees for home-buyers, commuters, small business, the green investment bank, the northern powerhouse and every other cause or interest group that might sway a few hundred votes in a marginal seat.

Normally, it is the left that talks as if it can harvest a limitless supply of coin from the magic money tree. In Britain today, it is the right.

All Cameron will say when he’s asked where the money is coming from is that he will find an extra £12bn in welfare cuts. He won’t say what he will cut and who will suffer, even though elections are meant to be the time when politicians level with the public about their plans. Leaks and common sense tell you he will go for the mentally and physically handicapped. Pensioners are protected because they vote. The depressed and disabled don’t. Of course he will hammer them; what else can he do?

If I could make my generation of leftists stop their obsession with reforming manners and concentrate on reforming society, I would force them to recite these lines from the American civil rights campaigner WEB Du Bois. In 1928, he received a letter from a young activist who was appalled that Du Bois and his comrades were happy to use the word “negro”. Negro was a slave name, he said, which should be abolished.

Du Bois replied: “Do not at the outset of your career make the all too common error of mistaking names for things. If men despise Negroes, they will not despise them less if Negroes are called ‘coloured’ or ‘Afro-Americans’… It is not the name – it’s the Thing that counts. Come on, Kid, let’s go get the Thing!’

As the plight of the tormented shows, the best way to go get the Thing, kids, is to send the Conservative party into opposition on 7 May.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

Post Savile – The sinister treatment of dissent at the BBC(#VIPaedophiles #UK #childabuse)

bbcsavileThe following is by Nick Cohen of The Guardian, and typifies the approach of British institutions who are too close to government. Since the senior management structure of the BBC changed not so long ago, there has been a distinct bias towards supporting the current government – something the BBC has been criticised for many times.

Contrary to its charter, the BBC is no longer considered fair, accurate, or independent in its reporting – particularly news reporting. The BBC are no longer fit to receive the £145 license fee every British citizen with a TV is expected to pay each year.

By Nick Cohen, The Guardian

The whistleblowers who broke the Jimmy Savile story have seen their careers nosedive while executives protect their own status.

Nobody from John Humphrys in the morning to Evan Davis at night dares mention a scandal at the BBC. It undermines their reporting of every abuse whistleblowers reveal. It reinforces the dirty common sense of British life that you must keep your head down if you want to keep your job.

The scandal is simply this: the BBC is forcing out or demoting the journalists who exposed Jimmy Savile as a voracious abuser of girls. As Meirion Jones put it to me: “There is a small group of powerful people at the BBC who think it would have been better if the truth about Savile had never come out. And they aim to punish the reporters who revealed it.”

Jones was one of the BBC’s best investigative producers. He had suspected that Savile was not the “national treasure” the BBC, NHS, monarchy and public adored, ever since he had seen Savile take girls away in his car from an approved school his aunt ran in the 1970s. He broke the story which showed that Savile was one of the most prolific sex abusers in British history, and handed the BBC what would have been one of its biggest scoops. If it had run it. Which, of course, it did not. The editor of Newsnight banned the report. Thus began a cover-up which tore the BBC apart.

A week ago, Jones’s managers told him that a temporary assignment on Panoramawas over. He should have been able to go back to his old job. But there was no old job to go back to. He had been fired.

Jones’s reporter on the Savile film was Liz MacKean, who documents the sufferings of the powerless – whether it be raped children in Britain or persecuted gay men in Putin’s Russia.

But she spoke out, so the BBC forced her out too. “When the Savile scandal broke,” she told me, “the BBC tried to smear my reputation. They said they had banned the film because Meirion and I had produced shoddy journalism. I stayed to fight them, but I knew they would make me leave in the end. Managers would look through me as if I wasn’t there. I went because I knew I was never going to appear on screen again.”

The BBC press office bridled when I described Jones and MacKean as “whistleblowers”. As the Pollard review of the Savile scandal had concluded that BBC management had acted in “good faith”, I must not call them that.

If you are tempted to agree, consider the sequel. Panorama responded magnificently to the news that the BBC had killed the Savile scoop. It broadcast a special documentary, which earned the highest audience in the programme’s history. Jones and MacKean described how their journalism had been suppressed, and Panorama went on to document Savile’s crimes. How open the BBC is, I thought. What other institution would subject itself to the same level of self-criticism?

What a fool I was. Since then, BBC managers have shifted Tom Giles, the editor ofPanorama, out of news. Peter Horrocks, an executive who insisted throughout the scandal that the BBC must behave ethically, announced last September that he was resigning to “find new challenges”. Clive Edwards, who as commissioning editor for current affairs oversaw the Panorama documentary, was demoted. The television trade press reported recently that his future is “not yet clear” (which doesn’t sound as if he has much of a future at all).

Compare their treatment with those who did nothing to advance the public interest. As the Savile crisis deepened in the autumn of 2012, the BBC brought in Adrian Van Klaveren, the then head of Radio 5, to supervise news. He allowedNewsnight to falsely imply that Lord McAlpine was a child abuser – an allegation that every journalist who had investigated the child abuse allegations in North Wales could have told him was ridiculous. The disaster of Newsnight covering up the abuse by the BBC’s own celebrity rapist and then falsely accusing an innocent man led to the resignation of the director-general George Entwistle.

But Van Klaveren has been promoted, not squeezed out. He is head of something called “strategic change”. Helen Boaden, the BBC head of news at the time of the censorship, is now on the BBC’s executive board. Peter Rippon, the Newsnighteditor who blocked Jones and MacKean, now has a comfortable job managing the BBC’s archive.

I could go on, but I am sure you are weary of bog-standard jobsworths. The wider point is that the interests of those at the top of an organisation and the interests of the organisation can be miles apart.

If the BBC had exposed Savile, viewers would have admired its honesty. If it had bent over backwards to ensure that Jones and MacKean did not suffer for speaking out, everyone would say that it was behaving as a free institution should, rather than looking like the official broadcaster of a paranoid dictatorship or the board of directors of HSBC.

In the banks, the NHS, the police or the BBC, the greatest threats to those in charge, however, are not threats to the institution but threats to their status. If subordinates can contradict them, how can they justify their salaries and the prestige that goes with them? The Pollard review into Savile showed that status anxiety was generating real hatred at the top of the BBC.

A senior BBC press officer vowed to “drip poison about Meirion’s suspected role”. He was later promoted. Peter Rippon said that if Jones spoke freely: “I will throw shit at him”.

The best aspect of modern culture is that it revolts against such hierarchical control. The computer revolution makes information sharing and cooperative ways of working easy to achieve. But hierarchies have men and women at their summits who will fight as ferociously as BBC executives to protect their position, and prevent democratic change.

The case of Jones and MacKean makes my point. I have reported on it in theObserver and Private Eye has covered it too. But the Tory press, which daily bashes the BBC, has avoided the story. You only have to look at the Telegraph to understand why it does not want to encourage insubordination. Its journalists must resign before they can protest against HSBC’s control of its news pages.

The power of hierarchies is hard to break. But if you want to fight fraud in the City or the rape of children, it has to be broken. A start can be made by insisting that everyone from John Humphrys in the morning to Evan Davis at night tells the truth about the purge of the BBC’s truth tellers.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!

The nasty side of child abuse vigilantism & protest campaigns ((#VIPaedophiles #UK #childabuse)

Before we start delving into this subject, let’s make it absolutely clear that we do not believe that the perpetrators of crimes should get away with them, or hide behind officialdom to evade justice.

In particular, child abuse in all of its forms is disgusting and disgraceful.

We believe that these crimes should be exposed in the public domain when appropriate and safe to do so – and where there is real fact and evidence.

For our part, we take fact and evidence as the prime dictator of how, when, and if we assist in the exposure of these or any other crimes. It is imperative that any ‘campaign’ or initiative to support genuine people exposing crime retains credibility, consistency, and above all integrity.

As regular visitors will know, we have covered (and continue to cover/assist in) genuine cases of child abuse – in particular the institutional abuse that has taken place involving high-profile figures in our corridors of power in the UK. We will continue to bring information concerning developments and our perspective and analysis of these cases as and when new evidence becomes available.

Which brings us to our main subject – the mob vigilantism that has become something of a trademark of some ‘child abuse campaigns’.

Using the power of social media, these campaigns are able to distribute information to vast numbers of people in an instant, as well as organise meetings and other action.  The problem is that much of the information they spread is hearsay, opinion, or plain inaccurate – not evidence or fact.

As we covered some time ago when we looked into the Hollie Grieg case where campaigners claimed the woman had been abused by an institutional sadistic ring, there was no evidence for their claims whatsoever.

So why would groups of people make such outrageous claims with no proof or evidence?

The ring-leaders prey on people’s emotions and feed into their inherent and natural anger at child abusers. Mothers are a particular favourite of the manipulator.

Child abuse is an emotive subject, and when combined with a campaign claiming to have evidence and promoting hearsay and speculation as truth, it is easy to see how this kind of thing can spread like wildfire.

One of the techniques these ring-leaders use is to release extracts from official documents which they claim support their (often bizarre) claims. Taken out of context of the full document, it may seem as though the ‘evidence’ supports their claims. But dig a little deeper and objectively analyse the information, and it soon becomes clear that the claims are not as they seem.

Feeding into the ‘villager and pitchfork’ mentality is the manipulators prize technique, and very valuable when the manipulator wants to create a facade of ‘concern’ and ‘respectability’ and to hide in the background to come forward as some kind of ‘champion’ or ‘saviour’.

The manipulators behaviour is very similar to traits found in mental disorders.

The first and one Narcissistic Personality Disorder, where the person believes they are the star, and they give the impression that they are bearing heroic responsibility for cause, that they have to take care of everything because others are undependable, uncooperative, or otherwise unfit to take on such an (as they see it) important role.

The other is Anti-social Personality Disorder (psychopathy) and is the most disturbing. People with antisocial personality disorder exhibit traits of impulsivity, high negative emotionality, low conscientiousness and associated behaviours including irresponsible and exploitative behaviour, recklessness and deceitfulness. The severity of symptoms of antisocial personality disorder can vary depending on the individual. Notably, there is a pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.

Due to their manipulative tendencies, it is difficult to separate what they say about themselves that is true from what is not. They can appear to be charming, and engage in seemingly caring behaviour. However, their prime objective is their own self-interest.

The manipulation of vast numbers of people by relatively few can be seen throughout the course of history, sometimes on a national scale.

The manipulators are also highly tactical in the shorter term, and will often use pseudo-experts to bolster their false claims. We notice that there are a lot of people within these campaigns who claim a lot but have little substance to back them up.

The hold manipulators have over their flock is incredible. We often hear of cults manipulating people into doing the most bizarre things, or things they wouldn’t otherwise do. The same principle applies to the kind of false campaigns we are referring to here.

Some claims of the manipulators will defy common-sense, but they are presented in the fervour of the mob mentality and internally justified as ‘truth’ which then spreads throughout the group.

Another tactic of the manipulator is to create a ‘them and us’ situation. By doing this, the manipulator can easily explain away any concerns members of the group have by blaming them on the ‘other side’ – thereby reinforcing the mass delusion.

The followers are then spoon-fed information that they don’t have to think about, because they have been manipulated into automatically believing that what they are told (by the inner-circle or group) is truth.

This knocks out extensive critical thinking by group members. Any member of the group who does start to question the version they have been told will be shunned by the group and often branded an agent provocateur or infiltrator.

In turn, this instils a paranoia within the group where ‘outsiders’ are automatically considered to be ‘enemies’ intent on destruction, and must be attacked at every opportunity to maintain ‘group-think’ and stability of ‘the cause’.

This pattern of manipulation and behaviour can be seen clearly in the Hollie Grieg case.

A core group started a campaign based on their interpretation of the claims of the mother of Hollie Grieg, Ann Grieg,  and further interpretation of these claims by one person (who may have had good but misplaced intentions at the time), by the name of Robert Green.

Ann & Hollie Greig

Ann & Hollie Greig

The manipulators who had latched onto the cause started to prompt and coach both Ann and Hollie Grieg in what and how they should tell their story. Robert Green embarked on a series of talks and harassment of those Ann Grieg was accusing of being involved in a Scottish satanic child abuse ring, which they alleged included government officials, the judiciary, police, social workers, medical staff, doctors, school teachers, and many other innocent people who had known Hollie for most of her life.

There were claims of ‘cover-ups’ by just about every government department and public service, together with the spread of highly toxic information across the internet and during meetings of those who believed the story.

Behind the campaign was a woman by the name of Belinda McKenzie. On first contact she may appear to be a caring and well-meaning supporter of good causes – which is how she presented herself – as some kind of champion for the downtrodden.  But it soon becomes clear that she and others are manipulating the campaign behind the scenes for their own ends.

A look into McKenzie’s past reveals an altogether different image.


Belinda McKenzie – Iran Aid

The self-styled truth-seeker came under investigation by the Charity Commission and the police when a charity she was responsible for called ‘Iran Aid’ was found to be funding terrorist activities in Iran. In addition, the Charity Commission estimated that in the time the charity has been operating in the UK approximately £5 million per annum in donations was unaccounted for.

However, when the Charity Commission and police requested documentation that McKenzie was legally required to keep, she claimed the documents had been destroyed in some mysterious fire. Unfortunately, the Charity Commission and the police were unable to get to the bottom of the missing cash or the charity’s real activities because all records had been destroyed.

McKenzie has also been involved in other niche campaigns and movements.

Along with ex-MI5 spies Annie Machon and David Shayler McKenzie was part of a 9/11 truth/Make War History movement in the UK which met at her home (where Machon and Shayler were renting rooms) and which was referred to at the time as the ‘Highgate Hub’.

Machon & Shayler

Machon & Shayler

Machon and Shayler are famous (or infamous depending on one’s point of view) for apparently ‘blowing the whistle’ on what they considered to be illegal activities within the security services.

Shayler also stated that the intelligence services were deliberately planting stories in newspapers and the mainstream media by feeding willing journalists with misinformation. Well there’s a (non)surprise.

If we are to believe Machon and Shayler, they joined British intelligence, an organisation of which one duty is misinformation and creating difficult situations for perceived enemies, and they had no prior knowledge that these kind of shenanigans would be taking place – in secret – in the secret service. You can make your own mind up on that point.

So to the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. The main claim of the movement is that 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs – false flag operations. Maybe they were – maybe they weren’t – depending on your point of view.

In her 2005 book “Spies, Lies, and Whistleblowers…” Machon implicitly states that she regards 9/11 as an Islamic attack – in line with the official version. This was at the same time as she and Shayler joined the 9/11 truth movement in the UK, for which she was to become very vocal for and which claimed 9/11 etc. were inside jobs.

According to ex-members of the campaign, McKenzie, Machon, Shayler, and a couple of others formed an inner-circle within the Highgate Hub who were responsible for the majority of decision making, including finances. Some of the former members allege that there seemed to be little money for promotional work but plenty for ‘celebrities’ in the 9/11 movement from the UK and from abroad – particularly the USA.

This ties in with other campaigns McKenzie has been involved with. She places herself in a position within some ‘inner-circle’ and treats it as a sanctum where only the chosen few are deemed worthy to make decisions, contribute to the cause, or be privy to future plans.

Another side venture of McKenzie is to hold ‘talks’ at her Highgate home and charge people to attend and listen to ‘leading figures’ in the UFO/extra-terrestrial movement.

It was the same with the Holly Grieg campaign. McKenzie placed herself close to the source (in this case being Ann and Hollie Grieg) with only a few others (primarily Robert Green and long-term associate Brian Gerrish) as part of the core.

Starchild Skull

Starchild Skull

McKenzie has also been involved in the ‘Starchild Project’ in the USA. This project claims to have discovered a skull of extra-terrestrial origin. In fact, the skull is from ancient burial grounds in Mexico, and is one of many found in the area. The misshaping of the skull occurs because of the burial practices at the time. DNA testing has proven that the skull is of human origin.

An interesting fact in all of the three aforementioned cases where McKenzie has been involved as a campaigner, she has had significant control of finance. In the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement she was in charge of funds, in the Hollie Grieg campaign she was in charge of funds, in the Starchild Project she was in charge of funds. In each case there is a distinct lack of financial accountability and transparency.

Ella Draper

Ella Draper

In more recent times, McKenzie has become involved with the Ela Draper case, where a mother claimed that people in Hampstead, UK, were all part of a satanic cult ring who imported babies and ‘ate them for lunch’, and who ritually sexually abused her children. As part of the campaign videos of the children were put on the internet where they were ‘interviewed’ (although they were clearly guided and coached) by a member of the campaign group.

The spread of misinformation across the internet has (again) led to people in Hampstead being named (complete with addresses and telephone numbers) by members of McKenzie’s campaign – which she has initiated through her ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ organisation.

In case you have not heard of the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’, they are an organisation which claims to be an advocacy on behalf of “victims of white collar crimes and child snatching”. According to their website they have not charged for their help, but we are unaware at this time of anyone they have helped. They ask for donations to their ‘victims fund’ via PayPal – which on closer scrutiny goes to Sabine McNeill via her ‘business’ PayPal account.

Draper & Christie cavorting in a cannabis field.

Draper & Christie cavorting in a cannabis field.

In addition to a ridiculous amount of online hysteria by people who are not in possession of the facts, groups of ‘campaigners’ – including McKenzie – have been hounding the people of Hampstead. They have focused their main activity outside of the primary school where mothers and children are subjected to harassment as they go about their business. Some of the parents have reported that their children are afraid to attend the primary school because of the aggressive nature of the ‘campaigners’.

As with the Hollie Grieg case, the claims are that the entire community are part of some cult, including teachers, members of the local church, and so on and on – including staff at the local McDonalds fast food place where it is claimed that babies were prepared and cooked on the first floor of the restaurant.

The ‘campaigners’ claim that the police have not investigated the allegations of abuse – which is a lie. The police initially took the claims of the mother very seriously until it materialised that there were many inconsistencies in her story. What the police did discover is that the children were coached by their mother and her current partner to make claims against the children’s biological father.

Abraham Christie (Draper's partner)

Abraham Christie (Draper’s partner)

The tables have turned, and Ella Draper and her partner are wanted by the police and have since absconded. The children have had to be taken into protection by social services, where they discovered significant amounts of cannabis residue in the children’s hair during routine physical testing for signs of abuse.

As part of the police investigation, Mrs Justice Pauffley was charged with the task of a fact-finding investigation. Her findings were that the allegations against the people of Hampstead were totally false and malicious, and that it was Draper and her partner who had purposely coached the children to make the allegations.

Again, there are many similarities with the Hollie Grieg case.

Justice Pauffley

Justice Pauffley

In the judgement of Justice Pauffley it is made absolutely clear that anyone identifying the children will be in contempt of court. Even so, there are ‘campaigners’ who continue to post information and videos of the children making the claims with no attempt whatsoever to conceal the children’s identities.

The ‘campaigners’ responsible for continuing to post and distribute this information containing the children’s details are incredibly arrogant and obviously have no concern whatsoever for the wellbeing of vulnerable people. The children are going to have enough to cope with as they grow up without the constant reminder of how they were manipulated by their own mother in videos posted by idiots.

Of course, McKenzie is not the only member of the ‘core’ of the campaign who is responsible for this disgraceful situation.

Another member of the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ who was involved in the Hollie Grieg campaign and in the Ella Draper campaign is Sabine McNeill.

Sabine McNeill

Sabine McNeill

At the time of writing McNeill is wanted by the police and has gone on the run and is believed to have returned to her home country of Germany.

McNeill has launched particularly vicious and venomous attacks (and encouraged others to do the same) in both the Hollie Grieg and Ella Draper campaigns.

At the time of writing is also seems McKenzie has abandoned the Ella Draper support campaign since police started an investigation into the ‘campaign’ group’s activities.

Another sign that the motives of McKenzie and McNeill (in particular) may be other than the welfare of the children involved. If they had the courage of their convictions surely they would continue to fight for what they deem to be justice. After all, isn’t that the point of campaigns – to fight for someone’s rights or to get justice where justice is being denied? The threat of arrest or prosecution is hardly a reason to just abandon those who are allegedly in need and just give up on them when it suits– it makes a mockery of campaigning for justice.

The fact is that people such as McKenzie and McNeill are very keen to get involved and stir up the hornet’s nest when there is no risk and they are getting attention. As soon as they see the campaigns no longer being to their advantage (or in the case of arrest and prosecution, to their detriment) they run like scolded cats.

They are not the only players in the propaganda machine.

As we mentioned previously, a long-term associate of McKenzie is Brian Gerrish.

Gerrish runs a website called UKColumn which claims to be an authoritative alternative news source.

Brian Gerrish

Brian Gerrish

Although not known to be part of the ‘Highgate Hub’ as such, we know that Gerrish has visited McKenzie at her Highgate home on many occasions. He has also been highly supportive of the Hollie Grieg and Ella Draper campaigns run by McKenzie.

Again, Gerrish doesn’t check his facts as a reputable journalist would. He just repeats the same tired hearsay, occasionally making ridiculous comments about ‘points of law’ which he obviously knows very little about. More often than not he gets basic facts wrong when referring to cases in his online video broadcasts and posts.

Gerrish also receives support/input from a couple of regular sidekicks (their names escape us at the moment) who are much the same as Gerrish – repeating information from an ill-informed or ignorant perspective.

Perhaps the main motivating factor for Gerrish is that his online operation appears to rely on donations to keep going. He is also involved in an organisation called the ‘British Constitution Group’ which requires funding. Perhaps adopting a sensationalist viewpoint or one which is popular among his cronies keeps the pennies rolling in – regardless of fact and evidence.

In both the Hollie Grieg and Ella Draper cases there have been unjustified and disgraceful attacks against innocent people resulting in arrests, and in some cases prison sentences.

Timothy Rustige

Timothy Rustige

One particularly nasty individual who was part of McKenzie’s Hollie Grieg campaign, Timothy Rustige, was jailed in 2014 for nine months and given a five-year non-harassment order after mounting a vicious campaign against former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini, during which Dame Elish’s family feared for their safety.

Rustige targeted the family in February and March of 2012 with a barrage of threatening emails claiming that Dame Elish was part of a conspiracy to cover up institutional child abuse in Scotland.

The court heard e-mails were sent to Oxford, Aberdeen and Strathclyde universities, claiming that Dame Elish was a “Satanic woman”.


Dame Elish Angiolini

Dame Elish Angiolini

During his evidence, Rustige, a former mechanical engineer, blamed everyone from his wife, his son – also Timothy – to members of a group called Prisoners of Conscience for writing the material. He said the organisation’s HQ for the north of England was based in his flat in Altrincham, Cheshire.

Rustige also made numerous delusional claims during the trial, including that he had worked with CIA whistle-blower Edward Snowden and that he was trying to stop the extradition of hacker Gary McKinnon, and that he had once been a member of the Philippine armed forces, all of which are false.

Robert Green, who was the main protagonist in the Hollie Grieg campaign, has also received several prison sentences for harassment and breaking bail conditions.

Green has a history of harassment.

Robert Green

Robert Green

After Green had problems with his travel agency business, Green harassed a solicitor in Cheshire in 2008.  He delivered leaflets to neighbours of the solicitor, placed posters on the fence and gates of the solicitor’s home, and attempted to intimidate and threaten the solicitor. Very similar to the tactics he used (and was jailed for) in the Hollie Grieg case. In both instances, Green’s claims were totally unsubstantiated. Green would claim he had ‘evidence’ but fail to produce any when he had the opportunity.

In the current Ella Draper case, several people have been arrested because of their vicious harassment of innocent people in Hampstead. The outcome of those arrests is yet to be determined at the time of writing. But again, people engaging in village mentality vigilantism without a foundation in fact or evidence.

There is no doubt that some of the people who involve themselves in these ‘campaigns’ have some delusional mental health issues, and there are others whose level of intelligence and understanding may not enable them to process information very well.

These people are as vulnerable as the people they are ‘campaigning’ for, and are just as open to manipulation and abuse by those with ulterior or less than honourable motives.

In the modern technological age anyone can access and distribute information regardless of its credibility – that’s just the way things are.

But what is very concerning, is that many of the people who involve themselves in these kind of organised ‘campaigns’ just don’t bother to check facts.  Many seemingly ordinary people jump on the bandwagon with little or no knowledge and learn from others who are equally as ignorant of the facts and who resort to presumption, conjecture, sensationalism,, and their own belief systems rather than what is real.

There will always be those who believe that everything connected with officialdom is linked to some conspiracy or another and will refuse to accept that most conspiracy theories are rubbish. But the fact is most of them are. There are some theories which are based in rational fact and evidence that are highly likely to be true, but they become muddled in a mass of conspiracy gunge spread by people who have not put the effort in and objectively learned what is truth and what is fiction.

It also seems that there are those who are more interested in becoming big fish in small ponds and present themselves as having some kind of superior knowledge or expertise, even though the fact is they have just learned some stuff from dodgy internet sites. Just because someone may know one thing or part of a thing does not mean that they are either skilled or qualified to present themselves as some kind of ‘expert’ or analyst in all things.

Pseudo experts are just that – fake – false – pretentious – a sham.

When we consider that these ‘campaigns’ are organised by manipulators, supported by pseudo-experts, people who have their own issues, people who jump in with both feet before looking, and people who are too lazy to check the facts and prefer to believe nothing more than glorified gossip, we have a recipe for disaster which can affect the lives of many innocent people. But the ‘campaigners’ don’t seem to want to consider the impact of their actions on the lives of others, and prefer to indulge their own self-interest.

As we have witnessed, the manipulators and some of the ‘campaigners’ are able to recognise when the heat is on and prefer to run away and leave those left behind to face the music. They simply move on to the next ‘campaign’ which has the potential to fuel their ego-driven desires.

Interestingly, none of those involved in the ‘campaigns’ we have mentioned seem at all concerned by the factually based cases of abuse being investigated at the moment.

For example, none of the ‘campaigners’ we have mentioned seem to be involved in any way in supporting victims of historic sexual abuse by politicians and other high-profile figures. Logically, if these campaigners were so concerned about the abuse of children by establishment figures then they would surely express outrage at the very least. But that seems not to be the case at all.

Perhaps becoming involved in campaigning against real abuse is just too hot a subject for them which carries potential personal risks – something they like to stay clear of. This shows they certainly don’t have the courage of their convictions. They like soft targets – ones they think will not fight back – a typically cowardly trait.

Not only do their campaigns damage innocent people and create victims, they also make the job of exposing and supporting real abuse investigations much harder for genuine campaigns and supporters.

We could take the view that if we ignore them then they will go away. But that is not the point or the case. The fact is that these ‘campaigns’ have a real and tangible effect on their targets – as real and tangible as if those involved in these ‘campaigns’ had mounted an all-out physical assault.

The only real answer is to make those responsible pay for their actions through the courts. They are like feral animals – if we allow them to carry on they will take advantage and impose more suffering on innocent people. They need to be made accountable and take the consequences of their actions.

The kind of ‘campaigns’ demonstrate how nasty and venomous groups of people can be without any real knowledge of what they are ‘campaigning’ for. Instead they resort to their own distorted thinking which is based on manipulation and propaganda.

It is sad that in this day and age when reliable information is available if one takes the time to look that people still indulge in this ridiculous villagers and pitchforks mentality.

Sometimes we wonder if humanity has evolved at all when we observe this kind of behaviour.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.

Don’t forget to visit our NEW site too:

The Revelations of Dr Richard Day

Information he revealed in 1969 has come true, and so will his revelations of plans for the future of the world, society – AND YOU!