How Thatcher’s Government Covered Up a VIP Pedophile Ring

NOVANEWS


By Nico Hines

Now that most of the major figures are dead, the truth is emerging about the systematic sexual abuse of children by members of the British government.
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for decades.

Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”

Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top politicians.

The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale arrested if he ever reported what had been found.

More than 30 years later, an inquiry into allegations of child sex abuse rings, murder, and cover-ups has been launched by the British government after Scotland Yard detectives said they believed statements by victims who claimed they were systematically abused as young boys at sex abuse parties attended by judges, politicians, intelligence officers, and staff at the royal palaces.

In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan; publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.

Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing” by investigators.

It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper, theBury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything, he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”

Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus since Winston Churchill before the First World War.

Brittan, who died in January, has been accused of raping a woman and sexually abusing boys. He denied the allegations and was never charged, although police investigations have continued after his death.

Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale explained.

Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a journalist of course I was interested.”

Great Britain’s notoriously tough libel laws insured that obviously he couldn’t repeat the allegations included in the Home Office papers that about 16 MPs and members of the House of Lords, and 30 high-profile figures from the Church of England, private schools, and big business, were members of, and advocates for, the Paedophile Information Exchange. The shadowy group, which operated partly in the open, campaigned for the age of consent to be abolished and incest to be legalized. It also allowed pedophiles to send each other secure mail and to meet in person.

Instead, Hale planned to run a story explaining that the Home Office was actively investigating these men and repeat some of the concerns voiced to him by Castle, who died in 2002. He set about contacting some of the men named in the papers, and the Home Office, for their response. The very next morning he was surprised to see the 400-pound figure of Cyril Smith, the Liberal Party MP for nearby Rochdale, arrive at the office. “I’d interviewed him probably four times, and when he came in I was like, ‘Oh, hello, Cyril.’ And he was, ‘Never mind all that.’ And he was straight at me,” Hale said.

“He said to me quite clearly, ‘I know who’s given you this, it’s Barbara Castle.’ I wouldn’t say who it was, but it was pretty obvious he knew. He’s a hell of a sized guy, he’s over six feet tall and he’s huge; took up three seats. He’s not a guy you could deal with easily, he was a horror.”

Hale managed to stonewall Smith but the following morning, he had more visitors. “That’s when Special Branch turned up,” he said.

Three vehicles pulled up to the newspaper offices and about 15 men barged inside. Two pushed him up against a wall and brandished a search warrant and something they described as a “D-notice.” The D-notice system was established in 1912 and was supposed to be used on very rare occasions when national security could be threatened by a news story.

The rest of the men were searching for the files, which they described as stolen, confidential Home Office papers. “These bully boys come storming in, they said, ‘We’re not here to negotiate. Hand them over or we’ll arrest you now.’ I couldn’t argue, because as soon as you opened the files it had got ‘Not to be removed’, ‘Confidential’ and ‘For your eyes only’—all these sort of things on them. I wouldn’t have had a hope in hell legally. I would have ended up in prison and the story would have gone nowhere,” he said.

The story went nowhere for a generation.

A new breed of backbench politician began to reopen these issues in the last couple of years. Simon Danczuk, MP for Rochdale since 2010, focused on one of his parliamentary predecessors. In a book published last year, he revealed that Sir Cyril Smith, the man who “had steam coming out of his ears” as he remonstrated with Don Hale, was himself allegedly a predatory pedophile with more than 140 complaints filed against him. Throughout his life he had been protected from prosecution.

Among the retired police officers Danczuk interviewed, one recalled the time Special Branch officers forbade them from asking a victim about Smith. Others remembered the day Smith was allowed to walk out of a police station without charge despite indecent images being found in his car after an unexplained telephone call from London.

It wasn’t just Special Branch that seemed keen to keep MPs out of the clutches of the law. In a candid interview for the BBC in 1995, Tim Fortescue, a former Conservative Party chief whip, described the grubby calculations routinely applied within elite political circles:

“Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, ‘I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.”

Fortescue’s callous words could have come directly from the script of House of Cards, the original British version of which was first broadcast in 1990.

There is growing evidence that MI5 and MI6, Britain’s security services, took a similar view. MI5 is alleged to have repeatedly blocked investigations into a sex abuse ring at the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland in order to protect its intelligence-gathering operation.

The longtime deputy director of MI6, and former High Commissioner in Canada, Peter Hayman was himself allegedly a pedophile, and was ultimately named as such in parliament by Geoffrey Dickens. Hayman had been caught with explicit material in 1978 but no charge was brought. Secret files discovered at the National Archives this year revealed that the attorney general at the time believed it wasn’t in the public interest for Hayman to be prosecuted.Prime Minister Thatcher ordered his depravity to be concealed from the public.

Thatcher must also have known about the allegations against her Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, because 1984’s most explosive gossip had appeared on the pages of the scurrilous Private Eye newspaper. Her bodyguard Barry Strevens now says he personally warned her that another of her most trusted lieutenants, Sir Peter Morrison, had also abused underage boys. She appointed Morrison to run her 1990 re-election campaign regardless.

Time and again crimes were reported but voices from above silenced the complaints before they came to court. Carl, who does not wish to give his second name, told The Daily Beast that this culture of secrecy, which had apparently paralyzed the British legal system, helped to scare off victims who wanted to report their powerful abusers.

Carl was abused by a pedophile ring from the age of 7, and the emotional and physical torture went on for nine years. Some of his attackers, he says, were men with influence and authority. “The authority is not what stops people from speaking out, it’s the fear that is instilled by these people,” he said. “It appears the cover-ups did happen and it makes survivors very wary because you don’t know who you can have confidence in to report.”

One of the people who dedicated their lives to amplifying the voices of the victims, trying to ensure the powerful would be held to account, was Liz Davies. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, she was a social worker in Islington, North London, with an unusual problem: Teenage boys, usually so reluctant to seek help, would line up outside her office on Hornsey Road waiting to come inside.

She would later discover that the international office of the Paedophile Information Exchange was just a few hundred yards from her desk, and her patch was home to a host of prolific child attackers linked into a network of powerful abuse rings that stretched from Westminster to Northern Ireland, Wales, and the island of Jersey in the Channel.

In 1990, she raised concerns at a local council meeting that a large number of boys in the area were showing signs of abuse. She claimed that Margaret Hodge, then leader of Islington council and later the Minister for Children under Tony Blair, ignored her warnings. It was 2014 before Hodge would apologize for her “shameful naivety” in failing to properly investigate the claims of abuse. She is now chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which is responsible for oversight of all government spending.

Determined to continue her own investigation into the abuse, Davies began working with a colleague in the police force to gather more evidence. “We started interviewing a lot of the boys. With this being a small area, I knew them, I knew their families, I’d helped their parents, so I wasn’t seen as a bad person,” she told The Daily Beast. “They didn’t like the police because they were always nicking them for things but I would get them to speak to the police officer.”

They started putting maps up around the office, linking the boys, listing those affected and those suspected of abusing them. “We were breaking a lot of ground,” she said.

Then came a call from the regional headquarters. Davies and her boss, and her police counterpart and his boss were summoned for a meeting. “We were both told to drop all our investigations, that we had no evidence and we had no right to be interviewing the boys,” she said.

It was a heartbreaking moment, but this mini-abuse fighting team vowed to continue their work. “We made an agreement that we would carry on under the radar and that’s what we did,” she said.

In 1991, their investigations led to the conviction of a fire official called Roy Caterer. When police officers raided his home they found exactly what her boys had described, along with albums and albums of indecent photos.

Davies thought her work would finally be taken seriously by the authorities; she was wrong.

She had amassed evidence of abuse perpetrated against 61 victims, but she claims council officials continued to tell her to stop causing trouble. A year later she finally quit social services when she says she discovered that the boys she had been trying to save were being sent back into the Islington care home system only to suffer yet more sexual abuse.

“I was networking these children into another network which was running within the care homes. I was handing over the most vulnerable, sexually exploited children to more pedophiles,” she said. “I have to live with that.”

Davies took a suitcase stuffed with evidence, including graphic photographs, to the Metropolitan Police. She said the well-intentioned superintendent looked at her haul and mournfully confessed that powerful figures still controlled what might be exposed. “I won’t be able to investigate here at Scotland Yard,” he said.
Note: The original of this article can be found on The Daily Beast website at this link.

 

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK to spend even more money to “protect Jewish institutions”

NOVANEWS

About a week ago, we reported that on a trip to Europe, Ira Forman, America’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and a leading Jewish activist, declared that “many Jewish bodies in Europe are being bankrupted by the growing need for security measures.” While visiting Stockholm, Forman went on to tell European journalists:

Every Jewish community in western Europe certainly needs security support. Many of them are being bankrupted by the money they have to spend to protect their institutions.

The organized Jewish community and the Jewish owned and controlled mass media constantly hypes, exaggerates, and even manufactures the threat of “anti-Semitism” in order to generate sympathy for the Jewish people, perpetuate their status as a benevolent, harmless, persecuted minority, and to ensure Jews continue to receive special privileges, including government funding for security.

As if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Thursday the Unite Kingdom would increase spending on security for Jewish institutions, organizations, and schools. San Diego Jewish World reports:

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Thursday, March 19, welcomed an announcement by British Prime Minister David Cameron to increase spending to better protect Jewish institutions in the UK against potential terror attacks. “The measures Mr. Cameron proposed are exemplary, and will no doubt make a difference,” said WJC President Ronald S. Lauder.

“We welcome the British government’s strong commitment to the protection of the Jewish community, and we hope that other European governments make similar commitments soon. Islamist terror and anti-Semitism must be stopped if we want to preserve a vibrant Jewish life in Europe,” said Lauder.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the WJC’s member in the UK, also welcomed Cameron’s promise to increase funding. “We hope that this will provide a model to tackle other forms of hate and violence in UK society, including Islamophobia, homophobia and violence against disabled people. We will continue to work alongside other groups in order to tackle all forms of hatred in our society,” the Board declared in a statement.

In Wednesday’s speech to the Community Security Trust in London,Cameron pledged “to fight anti-Semitism with everything we have got,” adding that “no disagreements on politics or policy can ever be allowed to justify racism, prejudice or extremism in any form.” Cameron said an additional £3 million ($4.4 million) a year would be allocated to the protection of synagogues and other potentially vulnerable Jewish community buildings, in addition to the £7 million ($10.3 million) provided in Wednesday’s budget to fund guards for all Jewish private schools and colleges.

“If the Jewish community does not feel secure then our whole national fabric is diminished. It is not just about the enormous contribution you all make to our society – it is more profound than that. It is a measure of the vigor of our institutions and the health of our democracy that the Jewish community feels safe to live and flourish here. It is about the strength of the values that we stand for,” Cameron said.

He also made it clear that while Britain was a tolerant country, Islamist hate preachers would be expelled. He also defended Israel: “When people talk of trying to boycott Israel – you will never be alone,” Cameron said, adding: “When students on campus are afraid, when shechita is under threat, when Jewish institutions need extra security – you will never be alone.”

Pointing out the right of “Israel to defend its citizens, a right enshrined in international law, in natural justice and fundamental morality,” Cameron praised Israel as “an extraordinary nation.”

Cameron’s promises to increase government funding specifically to “protect Jewish institutions” comes at a time when thousands of White British children - young boys and especially girls - are being groomed, trafficked, raped, and abused, largely by Muslim immigrants Jewish politicians, pundits, and public policy makers worked so hard to allow into the United Kingdom. Has Cameron said anything publicly about the abuse of White British children by hostile Third World aliens, let alone indicate he is willing to spend government funds and resources on their well-being?

Can it be any more obvious how traitorous the entire Western political establishment is? Can it be any more obvious how completely subservient our politicians and political parties are to international Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel?

Posted in UK, ZIO-NAZI1 Comment

End benefit sanctions … sack Maximus; sack capitalism!

NOVANEWS

Donetsk and Soviet flags adorn a self-defence force armoured vehicle

www.cpgb-ml.org/

US private healthcare company Maximus has been hired to follow in the footsteps of the now infamous French firm Atos after being contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to carry out Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) on people receiving sickness and disability benefits. ‘Assessments’ consist of an interview with one of the firm’s employees (no medical training required) and a quick computerised test. On the basis of such ‘evidence’, thousands of sick and disabled people have been ruled ‘fit to work’ in the last two years, and have had their benefits substantially reduced or stripped away entirely.

Pre-assessment questionnaires are tailored towards physical disability, so people with ‘invisible’ illnesses and severe mentalhealth issues have also been found ‘fit for work’. Interview questions like “How did you get here today?” have been used to tip the scales. Apparently, “By bus” is the wrong answer for a person on disability benefit! Bleeding the sick and disabled Atos’s poisonous legacy includes leaving some of the most vulnerable members of our society with no means of support at all. Having been ruled fit and transferred onto the minimal flat-rate ‘jobseekers allowance’, many have had their benefits stopped altogether after being unable to attend Jobcentre appointments. There have also been many cases of Atos ruling people with terminal cancer, advanced cases of Parkinson’s disease or severe MS as ‘fit to work’. Unsurprisingly, charities and healthcare workers report that a growing number of suicides are resulting from this inhuman treatment and the financial desperation it so often leads to.

Many more victims of this pernicious system have been forced to turn to food banks to get a meal. These are largely church and/ or community-based projects (often cynically ‘supported’ by supermarket giants in a bid to sell an extra food item per customer while proving how ‘philanthropic’ they are), and the general rule is that a person can only use them 2-3 times in a 12-month period. Clearly, they are for the most desperate and short-term cases only – they can offer no long-term solution to the absolute penury into which people are being pushed. Comfortably living down to this bloodsucking example, Maximus already has its teeth into the NHS, running the privatised Fit for Work occupational health service, designed to bully those on sick leave back to work. In some parts of Britain, it also runs the ‘work programme’ into which those found ‘fit for work’ will find themselves pushed. Maximus is notorious in the US for violating wage law, for racist discrimination, and for fraud, dodgy expenses claims, workers failing drug and alcohol tests, etc. Its executives have stated that they will not respond to protests, and they are renowned for paying hefty lobbying sums to US politicians.

After all, what do the sick matter when compared to the goal of ‘maximus’-ing profits? Fighting back Across Britain, a determined campaign has been waged against WCAs by groups such as Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC). These admirable activists have put constant pressure on the government, raised public awareness and given help and advice to those who have been affected by unfounded Atos rulings. It is widely believed that these campaigns were a large factor in Atos’s decision to withdraw from their WCA contract three months ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, although it is popular to blame the ConDems for every evil suffered by the working class in Britain today, we need to understand that Labour are not about to ride in on a white steed and save us. After all, it was Labour which in 2007 brought in the Welfare Reform Act, replacing Incapacity Benefit with Employment Support Allowance and Personal Capability Assessments with the Work Capability Assessments, all in order to make the tests more stringent and force the sick into (non-existent) work or lower benefits – to the detriment of their physical and mental health and wellbeing. Moreover, Labour has promised to retain the illegal workfare system, which forces the unemployed to work for their benefit cheque (a payment far lower than 40 hours of the minimum wage).

Labour supported the introduction and implementation of the bedroom tax (its belated about-face is purely cosmetic), and Labour brought us PFI – the cunning system of bankrupting public services through building contracts. Meanwhile, its latest minimum wage proposal is for a derisory £8 by 2020! No further proof is needed that Labour’s allegiance is to the capitalist ruling class and not to workers. We have to face facts: the capitalist system has never offered and never will offer a way out of the problems that face our class. Reforms gained through parliament have been shown time and again to bring a temporary respite at best – designed merely to pacify people who are beginning to fight back. But what has been given with one hand can be taken away with the other, and we are back where we started, with it all to do again.

In their fight to defend their wealth and privileges, our rulers gain much by creating the stigma that presently attaches to people on benefits. Such stigma provides convenient scapegoats and creates division between workers. But the unemployed, the sick and disabled, immigrants … these are not our enemies. Our enemies are the handful of ruthless exploiters who steal our wealth, and who force the burden of their constant wars and economic crises onto our backs. A ruling class that sits by and watches as its poorest people are ejected from their homes and slowly starved, while keeping in its own hands the ill-gotten gains plundered from half the world, is not fit to rule. A system that creates so much and yet cannot provide a secure and decent standard of living to all is – like a Tesco sandwich at a food bank – long past its sell-by date.

We need a new social order, which will allow workers to use our resources and labouring power to solve our own problems. But this new order will not fall from the sky. We need organisation. We must support every grassroots campaign that is fighting today to protect the interests of workers, and we must work to link all these little rivulets together into a mighty and unstoppable tide. All the apparently separate issues: benefit sanctioning, universal credit, food banks, the bedroom tax, homelessness, privatisation of health and education services, racist scapegoating, war … are part of the same fight; the fight against our common enemy – the capitalist imperialist system itself. The CPGB-ML stands in solidarity with all those resisting Maximus and resisting benefit sanctions. We are opposed to the degradation and dehumanisation of the sick, disabled and unemployed. We demand secure, well-paid jobs for the healthy and decent support for all those unable to work. If the system cannot provide these things, the system will have to go. Join us! 19 Ma

Posted in UK0 Comments

Communists attacked at StW Bloomsbury meeting: Trotskyite ‘Left Unity’ in action!

NOVANEWS

nato ukraine copy

Suppression of information; why do they fear the truth?

Stop the War’s trotskyite ‘leaders’ attempted to prevent the audience at their public meeting from reading the CPGB-ML’s latest leaflet last night, with what can only be described as a crass and cowardly act of base thuggery. It marks, even for them, a new low in their attempts to destroy any semblance of a broad and unified anti-imperialist, anti-war movement in Britain.

Apparently threatened by the distribution of the CPGB-ML’s latest leaflet on the Ukraine, “Britain out of Nato; Nato out of the Donbass”,  and no doubt aware of our party’sexcellent anti-imperialist analysis and staunch defence of the progressive anti-fascist forces defending the people’s republics of Eastern Ukraine, a Stop the War ‘steward’ was sent to eject a communist activist distributing leaflets at StW’s public meeting yesterday evening, at Bloomsbury Baptist Central Church, in Shaftsbury Avenue, Central London.

It is possible that they were still Irked by our systematic and thorough exposure of the trotskyite and revisionist’s disgraceful dereliction of duty and failure to defend the people of Libya and Syria from the imperial jackboot and their fundamentalist proxies, which led to the leadership faction of StW refusing to renew the affiliation of the CPGB-ML by a cowardly bureaucratic manoeuvre in 2011.

In any event, the CPGB-ML comrade in question was doing no more than quietly handing bundles of leaflets to people sitting by the aisles, who were then passing them down the rows, taking one each and reading them.

This apparently harmless activity, entirely supportive of the stated cause of StW’s meeting – which after all was called, however belatedly, to discuss “Nato and the crisis in the Ulkraine” – was treated by the dwindling band of counterfire ‘leaders’ as a veritable act of War. One they were also powerless to stop, however.

As Jonathan Steele, a Guardian journalist, who was billed as the warm up act for a familiar line up of trotskyites, revisionists and social democrats – the CND’s Kate Hudson, CPB’s Andrew Murray and RMT’s Alex Gordon – ponderously made his opening remarks, the leaflets were received as a welcome relief by the assembled audience, much to the ire of the ageing band of trotskyite (we think counterfire, but really, who can say for sure these days?) luminaries, who wished to enforce their ideological ownership of the event.

This heavy mob of political sergeant-majors then mobilised the sad spectacle of a young ginger-bearded private in his 30s to confront the ‘sectarian disruptor.’ Failing to give any reason for demanding that the leaflet-wielder leave the meeting, he initially looked fairly non-plussed, before beginning to raise his voice and disrupt the meeting he was supposed to be stewarding. “Get out”, he demanded. Why? the leafleteer whispered. “You’re causing a disturbance!”, shouted the Ginger Steward. “Please be quiet, I’m trying to listen” said the purveyor of the offensive literature. “Get out you’re not welcome, this is our meeting” [Ginger Steward].

At this point the steward ripped the leaflets from the hands of the distributor, screwed them up and attempted to drag the CPGB-ML activist physically from the main hall – which he found a challenge as he was somewhat smaller, although the more sectarian, un-reasonable and aggressive, and the clear initiator of physical violence.

IMG_1889

The CPGB-ML activist remained remarkably disciplined, and un-phased in the face of this provocation, but followed in order to reclaim his literature and protest the steward’s actions, whereupon he was met with a committee of 8 – 10 ageing trotskyites headed by one Lindsay German, in what was clearly an orchestrated manoeuvre:

German: Get out of our meeting you’re not welcome

CPGB-ML: It’s a public meeting called by StW of which I am a member – its as much my meeting as it is yours.

German: You’re not a member.

CPGB-ML: I am. I booked a ticket at this public meeting and you have no reason or right to eject me.

German: I don’t know you. I’ve never seen you before.

CPGB-ML: That is beside the point. I’m the public. You know – the ‘little people’ that attend public meetings when they are called.

German: This is my meeting. I am the elected convenor of StW and you are not. You are causing a disturbance and I want you to leave.

CPGB-ML: Your steward attacked me and has stolen my leaflets which I want returned. The disturbance was caused by him and you, not by me. It is shameful behaviour against which I will defend myself.

German: You’re causing a disturbance now by raising your voice [apparently without irony].

CPGB-ML: And this is how you build an anti-war movement? No wonder there’s no-one left in it.

IMG_1888

The Steward was terrified he might have his photo taken, as you can see from these photos – which we take as a tacit admission of his awareness of his transgression – and the door-keepers looked on appalled at the childish and brutish behaviour of their great leaders and event managers:

IMG_1890

Political differences underlying the Sectarian attack: 

There is nothing obviously wrong with the introductory blurb that StW put out to promote the meeting: “NATO has created and is exploiting the crisis in Ukraine in order to extend its military and geopolitical reach to the very borders of Russia. Instead of authentically supporting the cessation of hostilities and the peaceful resolution of the conflict, Western powers are pouring fuel on the flames of a brutal civil war in Ukraine and lurching towards a new, increasingly intense Cold War with Russia.”

But as the catholic church has been known to affirm: there are sins of commission, and sins of omission. The StW, and their revisionist and trotskyite ‘leadership’ faction, have failed singularly to explain the reasons that British Imperialism is compelled to fight these brutal wars, raise any movement to seriously defend Libya, Syria or the Ukrainian anti-fascist forces from the predatory onslaught of the US/UK/EU NATO warmongers.

Rather they have squandered and destroyed the momentum of the movement, at the head of which they serendipitously found themselves in 2003, by dwelling on their political differences with all the anti-imperialist forces who were actually confronting imperialism, and spending much time and effort describing the counter revolutionary jihadists, butchers and fascists as “genuine anti-authoritarian revolutionaries.” [sic!]

To this group, nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour Party, and they have insisted on creating not a vehicle to oppose imperialist war, which could serve the real needs of workers of all countries, including our own, but a vehicle to promote the interests of the imperialist labour party – and wittingly, or not, thereby suborned the movement to the needs of the warmongers themselves.

that is why these final paragraphs of our excellent leaflet sting them into exposing themselves so blatantly:

Support the resistance

When ‘protesting’ against Britain’s other wars of national oppression, neither the trade unions nor the anti-war movement have yet been prepared to advance beyond timid demands to ‘bring the troops home’, and for ‘welfare not warfare’.

Most of the cowardly ‘leaders’ of our working-class movement have never dared to raise the essential point that British workers have a duty to give active solidarity to those who are standing up against the violence being exported by British imperialism.

These leaders have refused to give full support to the forces of resistance, and refused to organise the workforce to disrupt and sabotage the war machine at home. But when we neglect these duties towards our brothers and sisters abroad, we are also weakening our own ability to fight back against capitalist austerity at home.

So it felt like a breath of fresh air when the RMT union put up a resolution in support of the anti-fascist resistance in the Donbass and got it passed at last year’s TUC conference – thus making it official TUC policy. Demonstrations and meetings in solidarity with the Donbass resistance immediately sprang up in London, Bristol and elsewhere.

For the moment, these healthy developments remain on a small scale and mostly symbolic, but they are a tiny chink in the carefully-constructed separation wall that divides workers in the imperialist homeland from their oppressed brethren abroad.

Let the unions now turn that TUC policy from a pious hope into a concrete reality by organising a campaign of total non-cooperation with the war that anglo-american imperialism is courting with Russia.

Let media workers refuse to go on churning out the endless vilification of the anti-fascist resistance and of Russia. Let workers in the armed forces refuse to go to Ukraine in support of a neo-Nazi junta. Let armaments and transport workers black all war materiel destined for the Ukraine.

In short, let workers remember the power they have, and learn to use it! The lesson is urgent.

A post-script on Trotskyism:

We cannot fail to note the counter-revolutionary role played by Trotskyism in our movement, that stems from its fundamental, entrenched and perpetuated political errors that have long since caused it to cease being a trend within the working-class movement. Rather, it plays its part as an increasingly obvious tool of the imperialists themselves, employed simply to disorganise the working class movement.

The sooner we expel these fraudulent posers from our movement entirely, the better for the cause of workers in Britain and the world over.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Power of Ten: How Neocons and the Fake-left Took Over British Establishment

NOVANEWS

Image result for SOCIAL RESISTANCE LOGO

But what about the Jews?

”This was sent to me by Mike Robeson and is by journalist/writer/broadcaster/blogger Neil ClarkIt’s trenchant comment on the present day UK – though I’m sure versions could be produced for the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, any EU state and many others.”

By Neil Clark

March 15, 2015 “ICH” – Forty years ago, Britain could be described as a vibrant democracy. Our parties lived up to their names: a conservative Party believed in conserving things, a Labour Party represented the interests of working people and a Liberal Party was liberal.
We had a mixed economy, in which majority interests were put first, a sensible foreign policy – we pursued detente with the Soviet Union – and didn’t seek to go around the world trying to stir up conflicts. The only foreign “wars” we got involved with in those days were the so-called “Cod Wars” with Iceland.

Today, it’s a very different story. Our political parties have converged around what author Tariq Ali has labelled “the extreme center.” The range of views which can be freely expressed in Britain without adverse personal consequences ensuing is narrowing by the day.

Genuinely left-wing writers, who were regulars on television and in newspapers in the 70s, are now dissidents and subject to constant attack by obnoxious gatekeepers.

“In politics as in journalism and the arts, it seems that dissent once tolerated in the ‘mainstream’ has regressed to a dissidence: a metaphoric underground”,  - John Pilger.

Genuinely conservative writers – who reject endless war and crony capitalism – have also been marginalized. Instead we’ve got a political commentariat dominated by a smug, mutually-adoring clique of neocons and fake-leftists, all espousing the same Pentagon-friendly, crony capitalism-friendly views, and supporting the same “humanitarian” military “interventions.” We saw this new establishment orthodoxy in the way the “Iraq has WMDs which threaten the world” propaganda was peddled in the lead up to the illegal 2003 invasion, and we see it today in the promotion of a non-existence “threat” from Russia and the relentless demonization of Vladimir Putin. In 1975 we had a state that didn’t go to war, but which generously funded public libraries, today, in the words of Andrew Murray of the Stop the War coalition, we have a state that is big enough for a war, but too small to keep public libraries open.
Anyone who dares step out of line and who challenges the “extreme center” faces attack from the cozy elite club that rules Britain today. The pressures on free-thinking journalists and politicians to conform to this new neocon/fake left “consensus” are enormous: a pernicious new McCarthyism worse than anything which took place in Britain in the old “Cold War” is at large. Tweet or say the wrong thing – and you’ll have the Extreme Center’s Thought Police on to you within minutes. And this harassment is carried out by people who claim to be “democrats” and who say they are opposed to “censorship” and totalitarianism.
How did we get here? How was our country taken over by these people whose extremist pro-war views most certainly do not reflect the views of the majority of the British public?
Well, here are 10 important events (in chronological order) in the takeover of Britain by the neocons and their faux-left allies. As you’ll see, it was in the 1980s that much of the damage was done.

1. March 16, 1976: Harold Wilson announces his resignation as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader. 
Wilson’s resignation was a disaster for the left in Britain and for British democracy. He was an adroit political operator, (he won four general elections out of five) and had he stayed as Prime Minister and Labour leader he would probably have defeated Margaret Thatcher (see point 2) in the next general election. As it was, Wilson’s successor, James Callaghan, made some key mistakes that led to a long period of Conservative hegemony and the demise of the old British left.
2. May 4, 1979: Margaret Thatcher becomes Prime Minister, following the Conservatives’ win in the general election. 
This marked the end of the genuinely progressive post-war consensus and a move to a new kind of politics – one in which elite interests came first. As I argued here, although Mrs Thatcher left power in 1990, her influence lives on; we are all still living in Thatcher’s Britain. Revealingly, Thatcher herself said that New Labour was her greatest achievement. She destroyed socialism, but she also destroyed genuine conservatism too.
3. February 12, 1981: The Times, the leading British establishment newspaper, is bought by hard-right media baron Rupert Murdoch. 
Britain‘s newspaper of record, which dated back to 1785, followed a moderate right-of-center political line, but under Murdoch’s ownership, it morphed into a rabid neocon propaganda organ, playing a key role in disseminating the war party’s propaganda, as I highlighted here.
In recent years, the paper has been beyond parody in its relentless pushing of the neocon/fake left agenda, beating the drums of war for western military “intervention” against Iraq, Libya and Syria. It was revealed in 2012 that Rupert Murdoch did meet with Margaret Thatcher a few weeks before the Cabinet committee discussed the mogul’s bid for the Times and Sunday Times. “This direct personal lobbying was critical, as the government had the power to block his acquisition by referring the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission… the government’s subsequent refusal to do so paved the way for the creation of what is easily the largest newspaper group in Britain,” Alan Travis wrote in the Guardian.
4. March 26, 1981: the formation of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). 
Today few people remember the so-called “Gang of Four” – a quartet of right-wing Labour politicians who broke away from the Labour Party in 1981 to form their own party. But the damage they did to the anti-Thatcher cause in Britain was enormous. The SDP crowd helped ensure re-election for Thatcher in 1983. Yes, they “broke the mold” of British politics, but not in a good way as they helped destroy the cause – social democracy – that they claimed to support.
5. March 3, 1985: the defeat of the miners’ strike. 
Whatever one’s personal view of Arthur Scargill, the National Union of Mineworkers leader, the defeat of the miners – after a strike lasting one year – undoubtedly had devastating consequences, not just for the miners themselves but for British politics in general. It represented a victory of the forces of finance capital over organized labor and meant that the neo-liberal restructuring of the British economy, which had begun in 1979, could proceed at an even faster rate (see event 6). If the miners had won their battle the Iraq war, the privatization of the railways and “New Labour” would probably have never happened. Far from being a victory for “democracy” the defeat of the miners helped make Britain a less democratic country.
6. 1986: Richard Ingrams stepping down as editor of leading satirical magazine Private Eye. 
Peter Cook, the comedian who owned Private Eye, was a true rebel. He once received a telephone call inviting him to a dinner party where Prince Andrew, the son of the Queen, and his bride-to-be Sarah Ferguson would be attending. “Oh, hang on, I’ll just check my diary,” he replied. “On dear, I find I’m watching television that night.” Ingrams was of a similar ilk – a self-described “conservative Christian anarchist” who really didn’t give a damn. But since 1986, under the editorship of Ian Hislop, the leading satirical magazine has become increasingly pro-Establishment; its targets are in general people who the new “Extreme Center” establishment doesn’t like much either, like George Galloway. It’s the pro-war ”left” and their neocon allies who satirists should be attacking – not their opponents, but in Britain today satirists defend the status quo.
7. October 26, 1986. ‘Big Bang’- the Thatcher government’s deregulation of financial markets. 
The removal of sensible controls on the City of London ushered in the era of turbo-globalization and meant political power transferred from the ballot box to the new financial elites. Its effects on our democracy have been disastrous. A recent survey showed that almost half of the funds of the Conservative Party come from hedge funds. Before Thatcher’s reforms, Britain was a democracy; after the “Big Bang” it became a bankocracy.
8. January 28, 1987: The removal of Alisdair Milne as Director-General of the BBC.
Seumas Milne, Alisdair’s son, has written about this in depth here. The BBC had to start toeing the line of the “new” establishment in its political programs – and for future BBC executives, Milne’s removal was a warning from the government about lines which should not be crossed. A few months before Milne was pushed out, a former Times Newspapers managing director, Marmaduke Hussey, was appointed as Chairman of the BBC. On the night of Milne’s axing, media journalist Maggie Brown attended a function attended by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
“I asked her what she thought of Milne’s departure. She looked triumphant, flushed. ‘Talk to the chairman of the BBC,’ she said with a happy smile.”9. July 21, 1994. Tony Blair’s election as Labour Party leader and the birth of “New Labour.” 
Blair made the Labour Party acceptable to the new establishment – he got rid of Clause IV, – the party’s commitment to nationalization, in 1995 – and was rewarded with support from the Murdoch media empire. He led Britain into a series of “military interventions,” all cheered on by neocon/faux-left commentators who by now had become entrenched in the British media. Meanwhile, he ensured that there would be no return to the genuinely progressive post-war economic settlement which had served the interests of the majority of people so well. The railways remained privatized and received more taxpayers subsidies than in the days of British Rail, and PFI (Private Finance Initiative) expanded. The crony capitalists and endless war brigade were delighted that Britain’s Labour Party had been captured.
10. December 18, 2007: The election of Nick Clegg, of the Orange Book faction, as Liberal Democrat leader. 
The Liberal Democrats fought the 2005 election on positions to the left of New Labour: they supported re-nationalization of the railways and opposed the Iraq war and still clung to a form of social democracy which Labour, under Blair, had deserted. But in 2007, this party was captured too by the “Extreme Center” with the election of banker’s son and enthusiastic neoliberal Nick Clegg as leader. In office, the Orange Book Lib Dems have carried on with the policies of war and privatization, policies which they were criticizing only a few years earlier. New Labour destroyed Iraq, the Lib Dems have helped destroy Libya and Syria.
What a difference they made! But the neocons and faux-left establishment knew Clegg’s party wouldn’t make a difference, so they were happy for them to come to power.
Posted by 

Posted in UK0 Comments

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ silencing techniques

NOVANEWS

As Terrifying as child abuse

Elders in my congregation knew that there was a predator in our midst. But they threatened to punish those who spoke out

DO NOT USE!!!
 Candace Conti as a child. Photograph: Candace Conti

Candace Conti was the first child sexual abuse victim to win a jury trial against Watchtower

Growing up in a Jehovah’s Witness family is different. As a child, I didn’t celebrate birthdays, Christmas or July 4. Nor did I, or anyone I knew, mix with non-Witness families in Little League or Girl Scouts. Instead, I spent much of my time sharing the “good news.” I used to go door-to-door on my own with a big, strong, well liked man in my congregation, named Jonathan. I was just 9 and 10 when he repeatedly sexually abused me.

It is really hard for kids to speak up when they’re abused. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses make it a lot harder.

They have a “2 Witness” rule, which says that anyone who accuses an adult of abuse must have a second witness. If there is no second witness, the accuser is punished for a false accusation – usually by ordering that no Witness may talk with or associate with the “false” accuser. This is called dis-fellowshipping. For a kid raised only with other Witnesses, it was horrifying. Even your parents would have to ignore you. It was more terrifying than Jonathan.

It was the elders of my congregation who had assigned Jonathan to team up with me. When we separated from the others, he forced me into his pick-up truck and drove us to his house. Then he would say “Let’s play”. It happened too many times. Like everyone else in the congregation, my parents liked “Brother” Jonathan and trusted him in our family.

My parents were consumed with some really huge problems in those years, and later divorced. I was emotionally alone – and wanted to be the best Jehovah’s Witness I could be. That’s why I went out to field service – the door to door ministry that Witnesses are known for.

What my parents didn’t know, was that Jonathan had sexually molested another girl in our congregation. The elders knew this and had kept it a secret. They were following orders from Watchtower leaders, based in the world headquarters in New York, who in 1989 had issued a top-secret instruction to keep known child sex abusers in the congregations a secret. This instruction became Exhibit 1 at my civil trial.

The elders and the Governing Body all knew that child molesters hide in religious groups and often are people who are likeable and friendly – like Jonathan. They knew molesters would likely do it again. But they chose to ignore the safety of the kids, in favor of protecting their image – and their bank account – from lawsuits. It was all in that 1989 letter.

A recent report by the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that they have continued to issues directives urging silence around child abuse. Last November, elders were instructed to avoid taking criminal matters like child abuse to the authorities. Instead, they were told to handle them internally in confidential committees. The report also showed that Jehovah’s Witnesses evoke the First Amendment to hide sex abuse claims.

It took me learning about Jonathan’s other victims for me to speak up. In 2009, I looked on California’s Megan’s Law website, the state’s official list of registered sex offenders. There, I found he had been convicted a few years before for sexually abusing another 8-year-old girl. I felt horribly guilty that I hadn’t spoken up about him earlier. Now, I need to stop predators from doing this again.

The only way to end this abuse is by lifting this veil of secrecy once and for all.

Posted in Human Rights, UK0 Comments

How Thatcher’s Government Covered Up a VIP Pedophile Ring

NOVANEWS

Image result for Thatcher’ PHOTO

Now that most of the major figures are dead, the truth is emerging about the systematic sexual abuse of children by members of the British government.
LONDON — A newspaper editor was handed startling evidence that Britain’s top law enforcement official knew there was a VIP pedophile network in Westminster, at the heart of the British government. What happened next in the summer of 1984 helps to explain how shocking allegations of rape and murder against some of the country’s most powerful men went unchecked for decades.Less than 24 hours after starting to inquire about the dossier presented to him by a senior Labour Party politician, the editor was confronted in his office by a furious member of parliament who threatened him and demanded the documents. “He was frothing at the mouth and really shouting and spitting in my face,” Don Hale told The Daily Beast. “He was straight at me like a raging lion; he was ready to knock me through the wall.”

Despite the MP’s explosive intervention, Hale refused to hand over the papers which appeared to show that Leon Brittan, Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary, was fully aware of a pedophile network that included top politicians.

The editor’s resistance was futile; the following morning, police officers from the counter-terror and intelligence unit known as Special Branch burst into the newspaper office, seized the material and threatened to have Hale arrested if he ever reported what had been found.

More than 30 years later, an inquiry into allegations of child sex abuse rings, murder, and cover-ups has been launched by the British government after Scotland Yard detectives said they believed statements by victims who claimed they were systematically abused as young boys at sex abuse parties attended by judges, politicians, intelligence officers, and staff at the royal palaces.

In 1983, a controversial MP, Geoffrey Dickens, had made a series of incendiary claims about active pedophiles in the corridors of power. He handed a file containing the names of alleged perpetrators to Leon Brittan; publicly the authorities shrugged off the claims and no trial or prosecution would follow. The dossier mysteriously disappeared.

More than 30 years later, an inquiry into allegations of child sex abuse rings, murder, and cover-ups has been launched by the British government.

Decades later, Brittan claimed he had simply handed the papers to his subordinates to investigate and heard no more about it. Last year, he was forced to clarify his statement when it emerged that he had later written to Dickens to say the initial investigation had been deemed “worth pursuing” by investigators.

It is now claimed that confidential Home Office papers collated by Baroness Castle of Blackburn and passed to Don Hale, editor of her local newspaper, the Bury Messenger, claimed that Brittan had played an active role in overseeing the investigation into the pedophile network. “Leon Brittan was mentioned in everything you picked up, his fingerprints were over everything, he was the instigator,” Hale said. “He really had his finger on the pulse, he wanted to know everything about it; all the documents were cc’d back to Leon Brittan or it was an instruction directly from Leon Brittan.”

Brittan, a protégé of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had been promoted to Home Secretary at the age of 43, making him the youngest person to preside over Britain’s domestic law enforcement and national security apparatus since Winston Churchill before the First World War.

Brittan, who died in January, has been accused of raping a woman and sexually abusing boys. He denied the allegations and was never charged, although police investigations have continued after his death.

Baroness Castle, then Barbara Castle, a Labour member of the European parliament, told Hale she did not trust Brittan to investigate the allegations thoroughly. “Barbara never said he was a pedophile, she was just very, very hostile about him. ‘He’s the last person you want this to go to,’ she said, which inferred that he was somehow involved,” Hale explained.

Worried about the integrity of the Home Office investigation, Castle had tried to interest the major newspapers in the classified documents but she turned to Hale when they rejected her overtures. “She was saying, ‘I’ve been everywhere else, I’ve been to the nationals, nobody would touch it with a barge pole, but what do you think?’” Hale recalled. “As a journalist of course I was interested.”

Great Britain’s notoriously tough libel laws insured that obviously he couldn’t repeat the allegations included in the Home Office papers that about 16 MPs and members of the House of Lords, and 30 high-profile figures from the Church of England, private schools, and big business, were members of, and advocates for, the Paedophile Information Exchange. The shadowy group, which operated partly in the open, campaigned for the age of consent to be abolished and incest to be legalized. It also allowed pedophiles to send each other secure mail and to meet in person.

Instead, Hale planned to run a story explaining that the Home Office was actively investigating these men and repeat some of the concerns voiced to him by Castle, who died in 2002. He set about contacting some of the men named in the papers, and the Home Office, for their response. The very next morning he was surprised to see the 400-pound figure of Cyril Smith, the Liberal Party MP for nearby Rochdale, arrive at the office. “I’d interviewed him probably four times, and when he came in I was like, ‘Oh, hello, Cyril.’ And he was, ‘Never mind all that.’ And he was straight at me,” Hale said.

“He said to me quite clearly, ‘I know who’s given you this, it’s Barbara Castle.’ I wouldn’t say who it was, but it was pretty obvious he knew. He’s a hell of a sized guy, he’s over six feet tall and he’s huge; took up three seats. He’s not a guy you could deal with easily, he was a horror.”

Hale managed to stonewall Smith but the following morning, he had more visitors. “That’s when Special Branch turned up,” he said.

Three vehicles pulled up to the newspaper offices and about 15 men barged inside. Two pushed him up against a wall and brandished a search warrant and something they described as a “D-notice.” The D-notice system was established in 1912 and was supposed to be used on very rare occasions when national security could be threatened by a news story.

The rest of the men were searching for the files, which they described as stolen, confidential Home Office papers. “These bully boys come storming in, they said, ‘We’re not here to negotiate. Hand them over or we’ll arrest you now.’ I couldn’t argue, because as soon as you opened the files it had got ‘Not to be removed’, ‘Confidential’ and ‘For your eyes only’—all these sort of things on them. I wouldn’t have had a hope in hell legally. I would have ended up in prison and the story would have gone nowhere,” he said.

The story went nowhere for a generation.

A new breed of backbench politician began to reopen these issues in the last couple of years. Simon Danczuk, MP for Rochdale since 2010, focused on one of his parliamentary predecessors. In a book published last year, he revealed that Sir Cyril Smith, the man who “had steam coming out of his ears” as he remonstrated with Don Hale, was himself allegedly a predatory pedophile with more than 140 complaints filed against him. Throughout his life he had been protected from prosecution.

Among the retired police officers Danczuk interviewed, one recalled the time Special Branch officers forbade them from asking a victim about Smith. Others remembered the day Smith was allowed to walk out of a police station without charge despite indecent images being found in his car after an unexplained telephone call from London.

It wasn’t just Special Branch that seemed keen to keep MPs out of the clutches of the law. In a candid interview for the BBC in 1995, Tim Fortescue, a former Conservative Party chief whip, described the grubby calculations routinely applied within elite political circles:

“Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, ‘I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.”

Fortescue’s callous words could have come directly from the script of House of Cards, the original British version of which was first broadcast in 1990.

There is growing evidence that MI5 and MI6, Britain’s security services, took a similar view. MI5 is alleged to have repeatedly blocked investigations into a sex abuse ring at the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland in order to protect its intelligence-gathering operation.

The longtime deputy director of MI6, and former High Commissioner in Canada, Peter Hayman was himself allegedly a pedophile, and was ultimately named as such in parliament by Geoffrey Dickens. Hayman had been caught with explicit material in 1978 but no charge was brought. Secret files discovered at the National Archives this year revealed that the attorney general at the time believed it wasn’t in the public interest for Hayman to be prosecuted. Prime Minister Thatcher ordered his depravity to be concealed from the public.

Thatcher must also have known about the allegations against her Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, because 1984’s most explosive gossip had appeared on the pages of the scurrilous Private Eye newspaper. Her bodyguard Barry Strevens now says he personally warned her that another of her most trusted lieutenants, Sir Peter Morrison, had also abused underage boys. She appointed Morrison to run her 1990 re-election campaign regardless.

Time and again crimes were reported but voices from above silenced the complaints before they came to court. Carl, who does not wish to give his second name, told The Daily Beast that this culture of secrecy, which had apparently paralyzed the British legal system, helped to scare off victims who wanted to report their powerful abusers.

Carl was abused by a pedophile ring from the age of 7, and the emotional and physical torture went on for nine years. Some of his attackers, he says, were men with influence and authority. “The authority is not what stops people from speaking out, it’s the fear that is instilled by these people,” he said. “It appears the cover-ups did happen and it makes survivors very wary because you don’t know who you can have confidence in to report.”

One of the people who dedicated their lives to amplifying the voices of the victims, trying to ensure the powerful would be held to account, was Liz Davies. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, she was a social worker in Islington, North London, with an unusual problem: Teenage boys, usually so reluctant to seek help, would line up outside her office on Hornsey Road waiting to come inside.

She would later discover that the international office of the Paedophile Information Exchange was just a few hundred yards from her desk, and her patch was home to a host of prolific child attackers linked into a network of powerful abuse rings that stretched from Westminster to Northern Ireland, Wales, and the island of Jersey in the Channel.

In 1990, she raised concerns at a local council meeting that a large number of boys in the area were showing signs of abuse. She claimed that Margaret Hodge, then leader of Islington council and later the Minister for Children under Tony Blair, ignored her warnings. It was 2014 before Hodge would apologize for her “shameful naivety in failing to properly investigate the claims of abuse. She is now chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which is responsible for oversight of all government spending.

Determined to continue her own investigation into the abuse, Davies began working with a colleague in the police force to gather more evidence. “We started interviewing a lot of the boys. With this being a small area, I knew them, I knew their families, I’d helped their parents, so I wasn’t seen as a bad person,” she told The Daily Beast. “They didn’t like the police because they were always nicking them for things but I would get them to speak to the police officer.”

They started putting maps up around the office, linking the boys, listing those affected and those suspected of abusing them. “We were breaking a lot of ground,” she said.

Then came a call from the regional headquarters. Davies and her boss, and her police counterpart and his boss were summoned for a meeting. “We were both told to drop all our investigations, that we had no evidence and we had no right to be interviewing the boys,” she said.

It was a heartbreaking moment, but this mini-abuse fighting team vowed to continue their work. “We made an agreement that we would carry on under the radar and that’s what we did,” she said.

In 1991, their investigations led to the conviction of a fire official called Roy Caterer. When police officers raided his home they found exactly what her boys had described, along with albums and albums of indecent photos.

Davies thought her work would finally be taken seriously by the authorities; she was wrong.

She had amassed evidence of abuse perpetrated against 61 victims, but she claims council officials continued to tell her to stop causing trouble. A year later she finally quit social services when she says she discovered that the boys she had been trying to save were being sent back into the Islington care home system only to suffer yet more sexual abuse. “I was networking these children into another network which was running within the care homes. I was handing over the most vulnerable, sexually exploited children to more pedophiles,” she said. “I have to live with that.”

Davies took a suitcase stuffed with evidence, including graphic photographs, to the Metropolitan Police. She said the well-intentioned superintendent looked at her haul and mournfully confessed that powerful figures still controlled what might be exposed. “I won’t be able to investigate here at Scotland Yard,” he said.

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK: Establishment child abuse

NOVANEWS

Council staff feared civil servant was murdered for planning to expose colleagues, report claims

Staff reportedly feared a civil servant was killed as a possible outcome for anyone who ‘asked too many questions’

Police investigating a historic sex abuse ring in Westminster are attempting to uncover whether a man was murdered in the Nineties because he planned to expose child abuse at a London council.

An unpublished internal investigation into abuse by staff within Lambeth council seen by Sky News reveals claims that a civil servant was planning to expose how council property was used to carry out sexual assaults.

Bulic Forsythe was beaten to death at his flat in 1993 after he reportedly told a colleague that he knew about a sex ring operating at children’s homes.

The case featured on a Crimewatch reconstruction, in which police appealed for help in tracking down three smartly dressed men who left the flat the day after the murder, but the case remains unsolved.

The report alleges that Forsythe died three days after he told a colleague he planned to report members of staff, and it was feared he was killed as a possible outcome for anyone who “asked too many questions.”

Other shocking allegations detailed in the document include senior Lambeth civil servants using council premises to carry out rapes, with one female staff member claiming she was raped alongside children and animals by senior council staff.

Although the report recommends a criminal investigation, its findings were not formally investigated by police at the time, but culprits were dismissed from their posts.

Detective Inspector Sean Crotty told Sky News: “This report provides the context to people who were abused in Lambeth.

“What we need is for people who were children at the time and who were abused to come forward.”

A council spokesman said: “Lambeth council has been supporting Operation Trinity – Scotland Yard’s investigation into historic abuse cases in the borough. This is a renewed police investigation which opened in November 2012.

“Council officers have been working closely with specialist police investigators and providing documents requested to support their work. This investigation is ongoing and several people have been charged.

“Lambeth council is determined to do all that we can to support this renewed push to tackle the issue, and ensure that offenders who had previously escaped justice are now held to account.”

The revelations come after Labour MP John Mann last year called on police to investigate the suspicious deaths of Forsythe and an unnamed whistleblower who was said to have obtained videos of child sex “parties”.

Last month, Theresa May’s tumultuous search for a judge to head an investigation into historic sex abuse in the British Establishment saw her appoint Justice Lowell Goddard, who sits in the New Zealand high court and will be given tough new powers to force witnesses to appear.

The Home Secretary’s previous choices were forced to resign over concerns with their links to establishment figures.

The inquiry was announced last summer in the wake of a series of child-abuse scandals and claims a paedophile ring operated at Westminster in the 1980s. It will also delve into sex abuse allegations dating before 1970, with Justice Goddard compelling witnesses to appear and hand over relevant documents.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Did Cage director train Jihadi John?

NOVANEWS

Mos uncovers new evidence that links apologists for ISIS butcher to his desert weapons camp

  • Director of Cage may have been involved in training Jihadi John in Syria
  • Photograph appears to place Moazzam Begg at same camp in late 2012
  • Mohammed Emwazi later joined ISIS and began his murderous campaign 
  • Picture shows Mr Begg sitting around table with terror group leaders
  • He denied knowing Emwazi in Syria and denied being at the training camp
  • Cage rights group sparked outrage by calling Emwazi a ‘beautiful man’
By ABUL TAHER FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
15 March 2015

The director of a human rights group which sparked outrage after it called Jihadi John ‘a beautiful young man’ may have been involved in training him at a camp run by militants in Syria.

A Mail on Sunday investigation has uncovered evidence that appears to place Cage director and former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg at the same Syrian training camp as Mohammed Emwazi – the real name of Jihadi John – in late 2012.

Emwazi later joined Islamic State (ISIS) and began the murderous campaign which has seen the beheading of five Western hostages.

A photograph of Cage director and former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg appears to place him at the same Syrian training camp as Mohammed Emwazi – the real name of Jihadi John

A photograph of Cage director and former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg appears to place him at the same Syrian training camp as Mohammed Emwazi – the real name of Jihadi John

Official sources have confirmed to The Mail on Sunday the existence of a photograph of Mr Begg with a Syrian camp commander, who also appears in a video with a man believed to be Jihadi John, apparently taken at the same camp.

The picture was part of police evidence against Mr Begg in a trial last October at the Old Bailey, when he was charged with attending a terrorist training camp in Syria between October 2012 and April 2013.

In the photograph, Mr Begg is sitting around a table with Abu Omar Al-Shishani, who was then leader of the militant group Katibat Al-Muhajireen (KaM), and British jihadi Rabah Tahari with other militants, apparently sipping coffee. The photo was apparently taken at the group’s camp in Northern Syria in December 2012.

A source, who did not want to be named, said: ‘The picture definitely puts Begg in Syria. There were other individuals in the same photo, and they all looked like militants rather than ordinary people.’

The photograph was never produced in court and its existence has not been acknowledged until now.

The trial collapsed within days of opening, due to new evidence being given by MI5 to the Crown Prosecution Service which apparently made the likelihood of a conviction unlikely.

Mr Begg (pictured) denied knowing Emwazi in Syria and denied being at the camp

Mr Begg (pictured) denied knowing Emwazi in Syria and denied being at the camp

Months after Mr Begg’s photo with Al-Shishani was taken, a two-minute video was filmed of a masked man believed to be Emwazi, apparently at the same camp, also with Al-Shishani.

When approached last week, Mr Begg denied knowing Emwazi in Syria and denied being at the camp, before driving off from his £500,000 home in Birmingham.

The possibility of a connection between Begg and Emwazi is likely to add more pressure on Cage, which has been condemned for its pronouncements on Emwazi.

Last month the group caused outrage when it described him, as a ‘beautiful young man’ at a press conference, and adding the cold-blooded killer was an ‘extremely gentle’ and ‘humble person’, radicalised by MI5.

The video apparently featuring Emwazi appeared on the internet last month. In it, he gives a speech as red-bearded Al-Shishani stands behind him. Emwazi announces the merger of KaM with another militant group called Jaish Al-Muhammad.

The new bigger group would be called Jaish Al-Muhajireen wal Ansar (JMA), and would be led by Al-Shishani, the masked figure announces.

In late 2013, Al-Shishani defected from JMA to take up a commander role within Islamic State. Al-Shishani took half of JMA’s fighters with him, believed to have included Emwazi.

Months later, Emwazi would become one of the world’s most wanted men, after beheading five Western hostages on camera, including Britons Alan Henning, 47, and David Haines, 44.

Emwazi’s training at KaM in late 2012 and early 2013 suggests an overlap with Mr Begg’s travels in northern Syria at the same time.

Details of Mr Begg’s visit to Syria emerged at the Old Bailey trial, where he and an associate called Gerrie Tahari, 45, from Birmingham, were charged with terrorism offences.

The court heard that Mr Begg visited northern Syria between October 2012 and April 2013.

His visit was intended to investigate the rendition of a Libyan man from Syria to one of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s jails with the help of MI5, Mr Begg claimed.

Emwazi later joined ISIS and began the murderous campaign which has seen the beheading of five Western hostages

But he also stayed at a training camp for foreign fighters who were at the time fighting the Assad regime, the court heard.

The prosecution said that detectives found electronic documents in Mr Begg’s computer with titles like ‘tactical training schedules’ and ‘fitness training schedules’ which were used at the camp.

Another allegation made in court was that Mr Begg bought a Honda electricity generator for Gerrie Tahari’s husband, Rabah, who at the time was fighting in Syria as a junior leader of KaM.

After his trial collapsed, Mr Begg gave an interview to The Guardian, where he admitted to training recruits at a camp in Idlib, North-West Syria. The training included exercises using fake wooden guns.

He told the newspaper that such training was not an act of terrorism as it was an attempt to help people defend themselves against a murderous regime.

Separately, in the same month, Mr Begg’s colleague and friend at Cage, Cerie Bullivant, gave an interview to the Foreign Policy journal.

Mr Bullivant told the magazine that Mr Begg stayed at a camp called Jaish Al-Muhajireen wal Ansar (the outfit previously known as Katibat Al-Muhajireen) which was run by Al-Shishani.

Rafaello Pantucci, a Syria expert at the think-tank RUSI, said: ‘It is very likely that Emwazi was at the KaM camp because his friends also went there.

Mr Begg is sitting around a table with Abu Omar Al-Shishani (pictured), who was then leader of the militant group Katibat Al-Muhajireen

Mr Begg is sitting around a table with Abu Omar Al-Shishani (pictured), who was then leader of the militant group Katibat Al-Muhajireen

‘It is also likely from the evidence of the photograph that Moazzam Begg was linked to the same camp.

‘So Moazzam Begg should reveal what interactions he has had with this camp or other camps.’ Kuwaiti-born Emwazi, who grew up in the Queen’s Park area of West London, is believed to have travelled to Syria in late 2012, apparently fleeing Britain in the back of a lorry.

He is thought to have joined the ranks of KaM, which was fighting the Assad regime at the time. Three of Emwazi’s friends from London joined KaM months before him.

They included Ibrahim Mazwagi, 21, Mohammed Al-Araj, 23, and Choukri Ellekhlifi, 22, all of whom have been killed in Syria.

Last night Lord Carlile, the Government’s former counter-terrorism watchdog, said: ‘I think if Moazzam Begg was present at the camp as has been alleged, then I would hope that he makes full disclosure of his activities there.’

A spokesman for Cage said: ‘Cage reiterates its position that the last contact we had with Mr Emwazi was in 2012 over email.’

Logo: The symbol for jihadi group Jaish Al-Muhajireen wal Ansar, which was run by Al-Shishani

Logo: The symbol for jihadi group Jaish Al-Muhajireen wal Ansar, which was run by Al-Shishani

Cage also denied claims that it was an ‘apologist for terror.’

A spokesman said: ‘To explain and seek answers to people turning to violence is not to apologise.

‘No Muslim organisation or leader has excused Emwazi’s actions, but we want to understand how a young man brought up here ends up engaging in such behaviour.’

Last night, Birnberg Peirce & Partners, the law firm acting for Mr Begg, said: ‘Mr Begg at no time ever met Mohammed Emwazi; he knew nothing of his existence in Syria or anywhere else.

‘He, Mr Begg, did not train at the Katibhat Al-Muhajireen camp.’

The Charity Commission has investigated the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and The Roddick Foundation over the two bodies’ six-figure donations to Cage.

The Rowntree Trust recently stopped the funding after Cage’s links to Emwazi emerged in the wake of him being unmasked as Jihadi John.

Internet gaffe by US government as UK extremist’s sharia law photo used in free speech ad

The US government has made a bizarre internet gaffe by posting a British Muslim extremist’s photograph of veiled women calling for sharia law, citing it as an inspirational example of free speech in the West.

The American State Department’s ‘Think Again Turn Away’ campaign is designed to dissuade Muslims from joining IS – also known as ISIS – and other extreme groups. 

The campaign posted the picture on its Twitter account last week, adding: ‘In open societies, all faiths enjoy freedom of speech; under ISIS rule, no such thing as freedom of expression.’

The photograph shows Muslim women, all in black burkas, running a campaign stall in Dalston, East London

The photograph shows Muslim women, all in black burkas, running a campaign stall in Dalston, East London

The photograph shows Muslim women, all in black burkas, running a stall in Dalston, East London. They are standing behind a trestle table covered in leaflets and a banner reading: ‘Shariah law or man made law. Which is better for mankind?’ 

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has found the banner was used in an extremist campaign called Stay Muslim, Don’t Vote, which calls for strict sharia law to be imposed on Britain, as well as urging Muslims not to vote in elections.

The photo was given the caption ‘Muslims coming out inviting society to Islam’ – which was copied by the US State Department – by a man calling himself Abdulrahman Muhajir, whose Twitter account is suspended.

Blunder: Moshiur Rahman, who posted the image online

Blunder: Moshiur Rahman, who posted the image online

The Mail on Sunday can reveal he is Moshiur Rahman, a 33-year-old from Luton, who last year was one of 12 Islamists given Asbos banning them from taking part in demonstrations over a violent protest rally on Oxford Street. At least two of the gang are believed to be fighting for IS in Syria.

Anjem Choudary – the hate preacher who has repeatedly blamed British foreign policy for terrorist attacks and whose al-Muhajiroun group was banned by the Government – was present at the event in Dalston on March 7. He has also given talks in Walthamstow and East Ham at demonstrations where the sign was used.

The photo appropriated by the US State Department was first placed on Twitter last week by a woman calling herself Umm Usmaan, who is a leading figure in the anti-democracy campaign.

She described it as an ‘Islamic roadshow’ and included the slogan ‘stay Muslim, don’t vote’ when she put the photo on Twitter.

Yesterday she posted a picture of another sign with the message: ‘The right of legislation belongs to none but Allah!’

Last night, terror expert Douglas Murray, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, said: ‘It’s an incredibly weak “fail”,’ he said. ‘They should be putting a bit more thought into their sourcing. With all of our resources, it’s not even as accomplished as the crudest IS propaganda.’

US Twitter users were also quick to ridicule the State Department, with one calling it an ‘epic fail’. 

Conservative US commentator Mark Steyn added: ‘Why is the State Department promoting sharia for the United Kingdom? Aren’t they supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Sharia’s incompatible with that constitution, as it is with the legal inheritance of Western civilisation.’ 

The State Department did not respond to requests to comment yesterday. 

 

Posted in UK0 Comments

The ‘wife killer’ UK won’t kick out

NOVANEWS

Croatian shot his wife 14 times then fled here. But our judges refuse to send him back to face justice… and yes, it’s because of HIS right to a family life!

  • Branko Loncar, 55, moved to UK after being cleared of murdering his wife
  • He won asylum by claiming he fled country due to anti-Serb discrimination
  • But Croatian court convicted him in his absence during a retrial in 2000
  • Croatia asked for his extradition from UK in 2005 but lawyers fought move
  • They said he had right to family life with new Serbian partner in the UK 
  • Loncar continued claiming benefits and was convicted of common assault
  • High Court has now ruled it ‘oppressive’ to send Loncar back after so long
By NEIL SEARS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

16 March 2015

Branko Loncar, 55, won a long legal battle against being returned to Croatia to serve four years in prison for attempted murder

Branko Loncar, 55, won a long legal battle against being returned to Croatia to serve four years in prison for attempted murder

A man who shot his dying wife 14 times as she was hanging from a noose can continue to live freely in Britain – after judges refused to extradite him.

Branko Loncar, 55, has won a long legal battle against being returned to Croatia to serve four years in prison for attempted murder, despite committing further crimes, including an assault, while living in London.

He earlier won asylum after complaining he had to flee Croatia because of anti-Serb discrimination – and his lawyers argued locals would persecute him over the shooting.

Last week’s High Court ruling is a sharp reminder that while the Government talks of ejecting foreign criminals, in practice the criminals routinely win the right to stay here.

Loncar, who has been on benefits and had a drink problem since arriving in Britain with his two sons in 1999, made the extraordinary defence that he was not aiming at his wife when he fired repeatedly from a few yards away.

In any case, his lawyers claimed, she died as a result of hanging herself, not because of the 14 bullets he ‘accidentally’ fired into her defenceless body. A Croatian court which heard the case in his absence rejected his defence, sentenced him to four years in prison, and ten years ago the country formally issued an international arrest warrant and requested his extradition from Britain.

His lawyers first successfully fought against the extradition on human rights grounds, arguing that he had a new Serbian ‘partner’ in Britain – who actually lives a hundred miles away – and that he now had grandchildren in London.

And last week British judges finished off the extradition bid for ever, giving Loncar the right to remain free here, after ruling it ‘oppressive’ to send him back to prison in Croatia after so long.

He was also commended for raising his children alone after shooting his wife.

Speaking in broken English to the Daily Mail last night at his housing association flat close to fashionable Camden in North London, Loncar said he had every right to remain in Britain, adding: ‘Croatia is dangerous – they still want me there.’

The case began in 1994, amid the chaos of the Balkan wars, when Loncar, an ethnic Serb and former soldier in the Yugoslavian army, lived with his wife Mirjana and two sons in the village of Ostrovo. The area was declared part of a Serbian republic but was also claimed by Croatia.

UK court documents note: ‘After a quarrel with his wife Mirjana, she went out of the house, stood on a ladder, took a rope and indicated she intended to kill herself. As she stood from the ladder and the noose tightened around her neck and rendered her unconscious, the defendant fired a number of bullets into her body.

‘The cause of death was determined to be by strangulation but was accelerated by the injuries inflicted from the defendant’s gun. The defendant was charged with murder.’

The subsequent trial – by a Serbian court – heard that Loncar had fired 14 shots from his handgun ‘causing a number of injuries’.

Last week, British judges finished off the extradition bid for ever, giving Loncar the right to remain free in the UK, by ruling in the High Court (pictured) that it would be ‘oppressive’ to send him back to prison in Croatia

Last week, British judges finished off the extradition bid for ever, giving Loncar the right to remain free in the UK, by ruling in the High Court (pictured) that it would be ‘oppressive’ to send him back to prison in Croatia

He told the court ‘that when he saw that his wife had jumped off the ladder, he took the gun and ammunition out of the holster he had under his arm and fired the gun from three to four metres away, but did not know in which direction.’

After a single pathologist claimed Mrs Loncar had already died of strangulation before being shot, he was initially cleared of murder.

In 1999 he then flew to England with his children and successfully claimed asylum, saying that his ethnic Serbian children were discriminated against by Croatians at school – but also complaining of ‘local antipathy resulting from the death of his wife’.

 We have reached the firm conclusion that it would be oppressive to extradite Mr Loncar by reason of the passage of time
High Court ruling in Loncar’s favour

While he began a life on benefits here, Croatia’s supreme court in 2000 ordered a retrial, with Loncar’s village now a part of Croatia, and the following year he was convicted in his absence of attempted murder. Four doctors said Mrs Loncar was still alive when her husband shot her. He was given a four-year prison sentence on the grounds that he ‘had an intention to kill’.

Croatia, a member of the European Union, some years later sought Loncar’s extradition, and in 2006 British police arrested him.

A UK court swiftly rejected the request, noting with sympathy that he had to bring up his children alone after shooting his wife. But in 2014 he was arrested again, and although he was immediately freed on bail the case was sent to the High Court in London.

Last week’s High Court judgment in Loncar’s favour, by judges Lord Justice Aiken and Mrs Justice Popplewell, the conclusion of the long legal battle, noted: ‘The offence for which the extradition of Mr Loncar is sought is undoubtedly a very serious one. Moreover, Mr Loncar has not led a blameless life as a British citizen.

‘He has a caution for theft in 2012 and a conviction for common assault in 2013. Nevertheless we have reached the firm conclusion that it would be oppressive to extradite Mr Loncar by reason of the passage of time.’

The ruling was also sharply critical of the Croatian legal system, and observed that he had served a year in prison before being initially cleared almost 20 years ago.

And in reference to the Human Rights Act’s ‘right to a family life’ clause, judges said Loncar had ‘been in a relationship with the same partner since prior to 2006, although they do not live together’.

Far from living together, the Daily Mail has discovered that ‘partner’ helping provide him with a ‘family life’ to maintain here is an ethnic Serb born in Britain and living 100 miles from him in Leicester. 

 

Posted in UK0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field
March 2015
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031