BEN FELLOWS: TORY GAME OF THRONES – KENNETH CLARKE INTRODUCED NICK BOLES AT BILDERBERG – IS HE THE NEXT TORY PARTY LEADER?
November 9, 2012 By 5 Comments
November 9, 2012 By 12 Comments
Former Conservative Party treasurer, breaks silence over internet rumours linking him to the North Wales child sex abuse case, describing them as “wholly false and seriously defamatory” Gordon Rayner The Telegraph Lord (Alistair) McAlpine’s name circulated widely online after Steve Messham, a former resident of the Bryn Estyn home in Wrexham, told Newsnight he had been abused by a high-ranking Thatcher-era Tory. After the Guardian newspaper named Lord McAlpine but reported that he had been a victim of mistaken identity, the peer released a strongly-worded statement addressing the “slurs”. He said he had visited Wrexham “only once” and that was in the company of an agent from Conservative Central Office. “I have never been to the children’s home in Wrexham, nor have I ever visited any children’s home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature,” he said. “I have never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, I did not own a Rolls Royce, have never had a ‘Gold card’ or ‘Harrods card’ and never wear aftershave, all of which have been alleged. “I did not sexually abuse Mr Messham or any other residents of the children’s home in Wrexham.” He added: “I wish to make it clear that I do not suggest that Mr Messham is malicious in making the allegations of sexual abuse about me. He is referring to a terrible period of his life in the 1970′s or 1980′s and what happened to him will have affected him ever since. “If he does think I am the man who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person.” A local councillor who was also a victim of abuse at Bryn Estyn told The Guardian that he believed a different member of the McAlpine family may have been mistaken for Lord McAlpine. Several sources have suggested that Mr Messham may have been referring to Jimmie McAlpine, who chaired the building firm Alfred McAlpine Ltd, and who lived in Chester, near Wrexham. The Waterhouse inquiry into the abuse allegations recorded that, according to Mr Messham’s statement to the police, “X (the letter used to hide the identity of the McAlpine family member) had several different motor cars and would wait for him at the bottom of Bryn Estyn Lane.” Jimmie McAlpine, who is now dead, had one of the largest private collections of cars in Britain. Reporters covering the inquiry at the time concluded that Lord McAlpine could not be the person referred to as the abuser because Mr Messham said his abuser was dead, whereas Lord McAlpine is alive. And when a Times reporter put Lord McAlpine’s name to Messham in 1996, he said his abuser was in fact called ‘Tom’… Read more
November 9, 2012 By 358 Comments
Full public inquiry and special commission must happen nowPeter Sterry 21st Century Wire As the rippling waves emanating from the cesspool that is Sir Jimmy Savile’s legacy break on the shores of the British establishment, it is becoming increasingly clear how the establishment is attempting once again to protect its own. In response both to Tom Watson’s questioning in the House of Commons – and the fabulous impromptu exposure by Philip Schofield (an event surely set to become legendary in television history) British Prime Minister David Cameron’s singular response is that anyone with any evidence should go to the Police, regardless of how powerful the accused may be. Is Cameron aware that multiple victims in the North Wales inquiry names the same high ranking Tory politician, and in at least one case, the police deemed their testimony as “fantasy”? For a Prime Minister, it is a breathtakingly, though probably deliberately naive approach. It feels like a government’s greasy denial that paedophiles are operating in positions of power. North Wales abuse victim Steve Messham testified that his life was threatened by his abuser, which is a common intimidation tactic seen in many abuse cases. Death threats change the playing field considerably. So where exactly is David Cameron suggesting survivors take their evidence ? The serving police officers referred to by some of those abuse at the hellish Bryn Estin in North Wales? Or is the Prime Minister proposing just walking in to your local cop shop ( if you can still find one of course, given the aggressive programme of police station closure now being implemented by Cameron’s government) and saying “Hey! I was raped by ********* twenty years ago”? Sensitive matters such as child rape require sensitive solutions. Cameron’s response is not only inadequate, it is simultaneously ignorant, insulting and ludicrous. Lest anyone has missed it, serving police officers and members of the judiciary are among those named by Bryn Estyn victims. It is increasingly clear that the original inquiry was a cover-up, and let us not forget the Masonic connection. The Waterhouse Tribunal set the tone for its approach to freemasonry right from day one. In the very first session the barrister for one of the groups of former residents of care homes made an application about masonry. The barrister, Nick Booth, asked that “the Tribunal should keep a register of the masonic membership amongst its staff, the members, its representatives and witnesses who appear before it”. He explained: “The duty of loyalty to a brother mason and his duty of impartiality if he is involved in the administration of justice is not a new one and it’s one that’s very much in the public eye, particularly at the moment.” “The Tribunal will be aware of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee which is investigating the issue,” he added. “Sir, I stress, if I have not stressed it before, that I am not making any suggestion of disreputable conduct, merely to put the matter beyond the reach of any possible public comment which might undermine the public confidence in the Inquiry.” The chairman of the Tribunal, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, and the two other members of the Tribunal, retired for a brief adjournment. “It will not surprise you that the application is refused,” said Sir Ronald on their return. “As far as the staff are concerned,” Sir Ronald said, “in so far as the application carries any reflection upon the integrity of the staff of the Tribunal it’s repudiated, wholly unwarranted; there is no evidence whatsoever to support any suggestion that they have not acted with complete integrity… ” “The members of the Tribunal are in this position: the Tribunal was set up by Parliament and the members of it were appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales and the [criticism of the composition] should be addressed through the proper channels.” He said that the Tribunal’s own Counsel, Gerard Elias QC, was appointed by the Attorney General. “Any criticism … should be addressed through the usual Parliamentary channels,” he suggested. Gerard Elias said nothing during Booth’s application and he remained silent after Sir Ronald had made the Tribunal’s ruling. Yet both Sir Ronald and Gerard Elias knew something that journalists reporting on the Tribunal would have wanted to know. Gerard Elias is a mason. He’s a member of perhaps the most powerful masonic lodge in Wales, Dinas Llandaf. The lodge, which meets in Cardiff, is made up mainly of legal professionals and members of the Conservative party, although there are members from other political groups. This in and of itself is not a problem, but there is a problem if fellow members have an oath of loyalty to each other which supersedes their oath to uphold law and conduct due diligence in any proper investigation into organised crime. British ‘Justice’ done in the dark Imagine a mafia trial where the prosecution and the defense had members of the mafia embedded in key positions. What would be the chances of full disclosure? We have to ask ourselves, is it possible to have an investigation free from private allegiances stemming from Masonic interference? The British people will demand both a full public enquiry into the extent of child abuse , rape and murder in Britain both past and present, and a new independent Police investigation with a remit to arrest and prosecute, headed by officers prepared to DECLARE PUBLICLY that they are members of any secret society. David Cameron can do this now, and retain some personal integrity, or wait until his hand is forced, and retain none. …. RELATED STORY: THE BBC: ‘IT’S THE VATICAN AND THE MAFIA ALL ROLLED INTO ONE’
November 9, 2012 By 38 Comments
21st Century Wire says: Politicians normally don’t like surprises, or having to answer tough questions off the cuff. Even Question Time is a staged routine where party leaders pretend bite back for the camera – pure Punch ‘n Judy. But ITV’s This Morning Show turned out to be an unlikely arena for this prime ministerial showdown… but was it real? PANIC STATIONS? PM David Cameron appeared to get the shock of life Thursday morning when a seemingly harmless character, host Philip Schofield, challenged the PM about the government’s policy of denial regarding any paedophiles, past, present or future, in No.10, or anywhere else in Westminster for that matter. Question: Was this whole incident staged by Whitehall and ITV producers? If it was, Schofield had to have been put up to it, possibly coerced into it. Schofield is last guy you’d expect to go for the PM like this, but now thousands are Tweeting and Facebooking support for Schofield, and his ‘street cred’ index for 18-35′s has just shot into orbit. The only line Schofield crossed, was to rightly challenge a public politician on a serious issue. If the incident was genuine, it was a rare display of balls in the mainstream media – which has made him a sort of people’s presenter. No doubt, and all too predictably, ITV will be pressured by Downing Street and Ofcom to sack Schofield for his challenge to the PM – let’s see if ITV have got some of the family jewels that the BBC clearly lack. But if they cave in, ITV will have cut loose what appears to be its coolest asset in years. What did Cameron mean about a ‘witch-hunt’? Last time we checked, no one is looking for witches, we were just hoping the Tory government might be kind enough to assist in hunting down delinquent paedophiles who have been allowed to roam freely in British public institutions. Call it a gaffe, but what Cameron said in this interview was very revealing, however, because host Schofield at no time mentioned anything about ‘gays’ in Tory government, but there it is. Westminster’s ‘Gay’ Secret? Cameron may have inadvertently revealed a commonly known secret within the halls of Parliament and something the public are mostly unaware of, gay members of the government who are still ‘in the closet’, as it were. Is this what Cameron was referring to? Cameron has raised a few important questions here. Firstly, are there gay MP’s who are in the closet? Of course there are. Secondly, if you were a gay MP and still in the closet, would you wanted to be ‘outed’? Of course not. So, could MP’s or politicos threaten to ‘out’ a gay MP, in order to gain some political leverage? That’s an important question, because the same logic would apply to any paedophile working within government. Hmmm, that could be a problem if that were to happen. Bottom line: Britain, and not just the BBC, has an institutional child abuse problem, and it appears like the establishment are only interested in sweeping it back under the rug. Maybe someone should be asking Cameron exactly what he meant when he referred to ‘gays’… …. RELATED STORY: THE BBC: ‘IT’S THE VATICAN AND THE MAFIA ALL ROLLED INTO ONE’