December 22, 2012 By 39 Comments
21st Century Wire’s Patrick Henningsen discusses with RT about the current political state of affairs in the country of Bahrain, who is struggling to integrate democratic reforms and is hamstrung by its human rights record and a somewhat precarious relationship with Washington and London. In the final analysis, the West appears to be headed in the very same direction at home… ….
December 10, 2012 By Leave a Comment
November 30, 2012 By 14 Comments
By Eamonn Fingleton Forbes Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Although the aphorism is overused, it accurately describes the dog’s dinner that British leaders have made of their society in the last half century. A good example of what I mean is the news overnight that the British government has appointed Mark Carney the next governor of the Bank of England. For anyone concerned for the British national interest, Carney has three strikes against him: 1. Canada. 2. Goldman Sachs. 3. The Bilderberg Group. Let’s first consider his nationality: he carries a Canadian passport. Not a hanging offense, you might think, and the Canadian people, of course, fully deserve their reputation as more than averagely decent world citizens. The Canadian approach to financial regulation moreover has, as I have pointed out in a previous note, been a huge success. But here’s the thing: a clear majority of Britons want out of the European Union, and fundamental, quite tough and courageous decisions will have to be made in the next few years. More than ever, it is important that the loyalties of the governor of the central bank should not only be aligned with those of the British people but be absolutely unambiguously seen to be so. In the circumstances, a British passport would appear to be a minimal job requirement (and it always was in the bank’s previous history of more than three centuries). Then there is Carney’s Goldman Sachs connection: he served the firm for 13 years in New York, London, Tokyo, and Toronto. Yes, things could be worse: he might have been a don in the Sicilian Mafia or a bagman for the Colombian drug cartel. But for anyone who knows how the world really works, a career of rising “success” in an outfit like the latter-day Goldman Sachs does not smell good. For nearly three decades now, Goldman Sachs has brazenly thumbed its nose at its previous reputation for probity: in plain language its ethos lately has been that anything goes, provided only you stay out of jail. Readers of the American and British press are aware of some of the problems. In the John Paulson affair, for instance, Goldman is on record as having defrauded its customers. Goldman Sachs’s flexible approach to ethics has also been central to the disasters that have befallen the citizens of Greece. To be fair, Carney has not been implicated in either the Paulson or Greek scandals. But, if Wikipedia is to be believed, he was on the scene in an earlier flap when in the late 1990s Goldman played a two-faced role in advising investors in Russian bonds. That said, what concerns me more than anything is Carney’s spell in Goldman Sachs’s Japanese branch. After 27 years of studying the Japanese financial system from a vantage point in Tokyo, I claim some expertise. Japan’s kyoiku mamas education mothers have long counseled their sons that gentleman do not take jobs in the Tokyo securities industry. Thus firms like Nomura, Daiwa, and Sumitomo’s Nikko subsidiary have long had to scrape the bottom of the educational barrel in hiring. What is less well known is that foreign securities firms in Tokyo rank even further below the salt than their Japanese counterparts. They do the work that even the Japanese securities firms consider beneath them. Ethical Western investment bankers posted to Tokyo are immediately appalled by what they are expected to do. Perhaps Carney was too but there is no record of this. Then there is Carney’s Bilderberg connection. Founded in the Netherlands in the 1950s, the Bilderberg Group is ostensibly merely a top careerist’s mutual aid society –nothing more than the Freemasons on steroids. Carney is officially acknowledged to have attended the most recent Bilderberg meeting, which is interesting as the British finance minister George Osborne, who appointed him to the Bank of England job, is an avid Bilderberger. For the British national interest, there is more here than mere mutual back-scratching. The Bilderberg group was founded by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a German-born erstwhile Nazi noted throughout his life for his “everything is relative” approach to ethics. The group’s main aim in its early years seems to have been to rehabilitate Germany and to this day the group is viewed in Europe as a tool by which a crypto-mercantilist “Germany Inc” promotes the careers of those it smiles on. Basically you are received into the Bilderberg group if the powers that be in Berlin, Munich, and Stuttgart consider your views helpful to the German national interest. The trouble is that Germany’s advantage very often proves to be someone else’s disadvantage. George Osborne seems to be no more a Peter-principled naif. The question the British nation should consider is this: is Carney, with his Harvard education and his spell at the sharp end of the Japanese financial services industry, a similar babe in the woods?
November 30, 2012 By 347 Comments
FILM: “MAX DOES WESTMINSTER” Directed & Edited by Jeff Angel and featuring Max Keiser and George Galloway. This film was funded, shot, edited & distributed (online) within 10 days. However, the information disseminated is both vital and timely. Max Keiser is a world renowned economic commentator and gives his breakdown of the history of ‘bubbles’ and how the City continues to game a system to breaking point. He is flanked by Respect MP George Galloway. Watch… Please go to http://www.piratemyfilm.com for further details. http://maxkeiser.com ….
McLibel 2.0 – Why Did ITV Hand Over 125K for ‘Schofield’s List’ and Can You Sue 10,000 Twitter Users?
November 23, 2012 By 16 Comments
By Peter Sterry 21st Century Wire Senior Editor Extraordinary – another out of court settlement – this time by ITV over the notorious ‘Schofield’s List’. Is this getting out of hand? Notice the pattern emerging. All deep pockets, all settling out of court. It stands to reason though, if you’re going to sue, because lawyers need to be paid and paid a lot – so it makes perfect sense from the plaintiff’s point of view to go for the fattest targets. All very sensible, wouldn’t you say? What’s becoming very clear, very quickly here, is that this is no ordinary libel case and the media atmosphere surrounding the case is a labyrinth of smoke and mirrors, set on the background of a highly charged political and social debate involving this nation’s most prestigious and long-standing institutions. Yesterday afternoon on the UK Column Live daily show, 21st Century Wire colleague, Patrick Henningsen, effectively re-coined the term “McLibel” as a transplant on to Lord McAlpine’s current ‘litigatorial charge of the light brigade’. But the ‘Mc’ similarity in the name is not all that draws comparison here, as we’ll explain. Although McLibel 2.0 has been reported throughout the media, very few, if any, media moguls are challenging the technical basis of it. None seem to be able to state categorically who, and exactly how, and on which technical basis the BBC and ITV have libeled this seemingly powerful establishment figure. Act One: ‘The Case of the Missing Leak’ Nothing about this case makes much sense. We all watched the Newsnight broadcast that Friday night, with many viewers expecting that a ‘top Tory’ name would be revealed in relation to their investigation into the North Wales child rape and abuse scandal. The BBC’s lead investigator Iain Overton from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism(BIJ), and Channel 4′s Michael Crick – both tweeted earlier that day something to effect, ‘If all goes well…’ blah, blah etc, ‘a name will be revealed on the programme tonight..’. Wonderful. Only it wasn’t revealed on the programme. The BBC did not broadcast any name, and in the end Lord McAlpine’s name was never mentioned on Newsnight. The current party line is that the whole fiasco began with a cock-up by the police – Lord McAlpine was not the “McAlpine” apparently identified by the police to Steven Messham, we are told that it was probably Alastair McAlpine’s cousin the late ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine, who died in 1991. Another case of ‘mistaken identity’, as it were. So why not sue the police? Hmmm. The BBC Scotland have been asked to conduct another ‘internal investigation’ (the BBC are very adept at investigating themselves when there is any alleged wrong doing) into what actually took place, and naturally their chief snoop into this affair, a rather affable chap named Ken McQuarrie, seemed to come up with everything except the one thing the license paying public was actually interested in – who leaked McAlpine’s name? So let’s say it wasn’t the BBC, then was it the BIJ? If not, was it Michael Crick? If not, was it the police? Can anyone actually tell us plebs who done it?!? Apparently not – and that ladies and gentlemen, is the foremost, biggest problem with the BBC rushing to pay the McLibel 2.0. Conclusion: The BBC’s Newsnight programme in question was slapped together in just 5 days, in what has turned out to be a very elaborate smokescreen designed to externalise the issue of child abuse in high places and provide much-needed PR cover for their institutional cover-up of rancid asset Sir Jimmy Savile, and finally to distract the public from its willful failure to investigate itself properly – not that it should be ‘investigating itself’ anyway, it’s a public broadcaster. It appears here that the maligned actor in this drama, Lord McAlpine, was merely a tool used by establishment in order to save the BBC from hemorrhaging public confidence and to shield it from other emerging scandals of a similar nature. Look at the results – it worked. The BBC did the usual ritual of paying off an outgoing DG, and hired a new safe pair of hands. No one is talking about Savile, and no one is wanting to look for skeletons in the BBC’s basement. Job done. There is one aspect of this clever plan which will come back to bite the establishment, however. They used a child abuse victim, Steve Messham, in order to pacify their institutional desires. The public will never forgive them for that. Remember McLibel 1.0, when McDonalds dragged that poor English couple through the courts for 20 years? We’ll get back to that in a minute… Act Two: Scholfield’s List This is more or less, a repeat of Act One, where the nation’s second largest British broadcaster, ITV, has agreed to pay Lord McAlpine £125,000 in damages, plus legal costs, in another out of court settlement over This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield’s alleged onscreen stunt confronting David Cameron, a stunt we are told, had linked several Conservative politicians with allegations of child sex abuse. The only problem here is that this writer, nor anyone else I know, saw any name on ‘Schofield’s List’. Who was actually linked to child abuse? It is alleged that some could see – by freeze framing the show’s recording, names on the list handed to PM David Cameron. I still don’t know who the names were. Does anyone? I did a ‘Schofield 5 minute’ super search on the internet for those names – and I cannot find them! So how did ITV libel McAlpine then? Are we getting ridiculous? On another legal caveat, it’s also worth pointing out that if a member of the public passes information to an elected representative listing people who may possibly be involved in serious crime – then that official, in this case David Cameron, is responsibly to then pass on this information to the police. Did this happen? I believe it did not. What are the implications of that? Still there is not a court in the land that has ruled yet on whether or not Lord McAlpine was libeled by both the BBC and ITV. In the end, it really does not matter whether he was, or wasn’t, because that’s how things work in the injury lawyer. Indeed, decisions were made behind closed doors in both broadcasting institutions to pay out – most likely in order to avoid a drawn out court battle that might sully the broadcasters’ media reputation somewhat, but would it really? After all these things happen in our society every day. Conclusion: In case of ‘Schofield’s List’, again like the BBC, the public was not aware of Lord McAlpine’s name being mentioned on ITV’s This Morning program. On both counts, the public was only made aware of the name after someone within those media houses, the government, or the police – had leaked them. If a libel case is to be decided on its proper legal merits, then the police and the courts need to begin with finding out those individuals who actually leaked them. This makes the threat to sue 10,000 Twitter users who McAlpine’s law firm RMPI believe had ‘linked’ their client’s name to the scandal, something built on a house of cards. Find out who is responsible for the leaks first. That would be the proper way to go about this. Chasing ghosts on Twitter does nothing to find out how his name was leaked in the first place – which started that chain of events, propagating information online. There we can achieve an accurate trail of accountability. ‘Trial By Twitter’, or echoes on Twitter? Lord McAlpine and his legal attack team were seen to some out swinging last week, with cries of ‘Trial by Twitter‘. But before we dissect what did or didn’t happen on Twitter, it’s important to understand the nature of this particular social networking tool. It’s amazing how few people in the media and government actually do. When it comes to news, Twitter is a long way away from a newspaper or magazine of record - it’s a hyper active forum – a 21st century digital echo chamber. In IT terms, it’s a crowd-sourced, information and headline aggregator. For members of the public who aren’t aux fait with the social networking tool, Twitter also allows users to use ‘hash tags’ or #tags in order to group conversations which are taking place within the Twitter information cloud community. Phrases on Twitter are the lowest common denominator there is when it comes to information. Twitter functions as the online equivalent of a social info-feed, complete with zero depth, zero analysis and as is the case so often – zero credibility when it comes to any reports. Even a headline from CNN on Twitter must be clicked through to a substantial article if one is to believe the headline. It’s highly limited. After the alleged Newsnight leak took place, and Lord McAlpine’s name was entered into the tertiary conversation surrounding the show, his name began to trend massively on Twitter. This is how Twitter works. Twitter is only limited to 160 characters, and doesn’t really quite qualify as a news publisher - more like a rumour mill. The other peculiar aspect about Twitter which separates from the others is how it works on highly a linear timeline, where users are almost exclusively attentive to Tweets which are less than 24 hrs old, and many users with large ‘follow’ lists only see what is less than 1 hr old. After this, it’s almost ancient history for Twitter users, because users are only reading and responding to happening, what is breaking, or is trending – in short, what is happening now. Old news, and opinion is constantly being overwritten by the cloud community of over 500 million active users, which ironically, gives very little weight in terms of public impact as to what ideas actually churn on that platform. Sadly, it pales in comparison to a major website, newspaper, a well distributed book, or a large TV broadcaster. For any serious opinion forming information on issues, news or op-ed, all Twitter users are forced to migrate over to larger news websites who can display more than 160 characters at a time in order to test the public perception of any said news report or rumour – sites like the Independent, The Times, or even The Drudge Report. A Tweet by a high enough profile person with many followers, like a celebrity for instance, would be picked up by many readers within a short space of time, so if a celebrity slanders another celebrity, it would move up the media tree very quickly and into the Corporate Mainstream Media sphere – here a public impact could be measured because it was large enough. Should other Twitter users actually commenting on what is actually happening in real-time be considered libel then? For banal subjects such as pop gossip, it’s taken very seriously by adolescents and teenagers who are following the movements of pop artists, Paris Hilton, and who want to know where Kim Kardashian is shopping that afternoon, or what Ronaldo did after Wednesday evening’s match. Can a personal be slandered or libeled on Twitter? Absolutely. But what constitutes a libel with the narrow margins of Twitterland versus, let’s say, the front page of the Sun newspaper – are two very different things indeed. Firstly, there is the issue of intent. If a publication runs an article saying that Mr X is perpetrating a serious crime – like paedophilia or child abuse, going on to describe the allegations in detail, along with claims of evidence, then Mr X has the right to challenge the both the author of the article, and the publication on the veracity of the allegations in question. In this instance, the intent of publication was clear – to expose the crimes of Mr X. But if the publication does not have the evidence to support such allegations, then Mr X’s libel claim is likely to succeed, and the newspaper’s subsequent claims would then be deemed malicious and defamatory by the courts of justice. The issue of intent is much murkier with regard to mentioning someone’s name on Twitter – especially if Mr X’s guilt or innocence in relation to the media expose was inconclusive at the time. Twitter users were simply commenting in real-time on what they were seeing, without any premeditated malicious intent. Other recent reports regarding ‘Twitter libel’ cases can be found here, here and here. Conclusion: How information is presented and distributed on Twitter – and how society defines this, is a conversation which certainly goes hand in hand with McLibel 2.0. To equate Tweeting and ReTweeting with libeling McAlpine, not only over-rates the significance of Twitter in terms of public opinion forming, but sets a rather dangerous and slippery precedent, where we have a law firm issuing a blanket threat over the public, while the basis of the entire chain of events involving Lord McAlpine – has been hidden from public view via a series of out-of-court agreements, namely, the BBC and ITV thus far. Again, we come back to the fundamental question in all of this - who leaked the name? Remember ‘McLibel’ 1.0? Ahhh, those were the good old days – pre-internet, when the strong preyed upon the weak and under-resourced. It was known as the “McLibel case”, where a lawsuit was filed in English courts by the humble McDonald’s Corp against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (“The McLibel Two”) over a pamphlet critical of the company’s environmentally destructive footprints overseas. The original case lasted ten years, plus another 10 for ECHR Appeal – making it the longest-running case in English history, subsequently made famous in McLibel, by filmmaker Franny Armstrong. Although the goliath character in this case, McDonald’s, won two hearings of the case in English courts, the drawn-out public nature of the litigation embarrassed the company. In short, it backfired in the long run. For McDonalds execs, seemed like a good idea at the time. After Goliath’s lawyers had collected all their fees and were hence finished destroying David’s life, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) then ruled in Steel & Morris v United Kingdom - that the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The court awarded a judgment of £57,000 – against the UK government. In the end, McDonald’s itself was not involved in, or a party to, this verdict. Conclusion: After the state’s own corrupt justice system was finished protecting the rich and powerful McDonalds, and abusing the poor free speech activist, the state ended up paying the victim in the end. The left wing of the establishment used Leveson in order the hijack free press and speech. Now we have the right wing of the establishment using the Savile and Newsnight incident to curtail free speech and to cover-up the disgusting problem on organised institutional paedophilia, not only in the BBC, but in government, and especially within in the child care industry itself. Shame on our leadership for allowing this issue to be reversed back into the shadows through their clever spin and cover. Wikileaks is being shut down for publishing public interest information, and it’s founder put under permanent house arrest, and now Twitter is in danger of being nothing more than a shopping guide for commercial news, shoes, and handbags – because users are being intimidated for doing nothing more than commenting. What’s next, ‘Trial by #HashTag’? The establishment don’t like, and never have liked, the horrid internet, because of what it represents – an affordable, endless community of open source networks and information. A vulgar concept for those who have successfully monopolised and controlled media for hundreds of years. A local carpenter named Paul, whom I often share the odd pint with at me local in Crouch End, said to me yesterday, “I think that Lord McAlpine is over cooking the pie, and that’s not on, son.” That is the crux of the matter, as we see it.
November 19, 2012 By 343 Comments
Even London’s Black Cabbies are at the end of their rope, Israel is, as they say, “BANG OUT OF ORDER”… Palestinians would beg for South African Apartheid instead having to endure of Israel’s violent military collective punishment of its people. Disgusting. Where is the UN? The UN is a joke. The War on Terror is a joke. The shame of our puppets. Obama and Cameron are supporting an Israeli regime who sits outside of civilized norms, and far outside of so-called international law… It’s nothing more than a racist, Israeli Terrorist State. Watch: ….
Two Jags Prescott Loses Out on Nice Perks Job – but delivers exit warning about ‘Privatisation of Police’
November 18, 2012 By Leave a Comment
21st Century Wire Two Jags lost on Friday, but as we still left pondering why the state has created this new Police Commissioner’s office in the first place – in the end, we’re now wondering if he might have actually been a better candidate for the job… Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, famous for having two Jaguar cars whilst on the taxpayer clock, lost out yesterday in the Humberside Police election to wealthy Tory businessman, Matthew Gove. Voter turnout across Britain was abysmal with the lowest region showing a pathetic 7% of eligible voters at the polls. Humberside area was high in comparison with a 19.48%, in the end Prescott came up 2,000 votes short, not enough to win this nice little retirement position, no doubt with all the usual perks and payouts of a newly created high profile public-funded ‘CEO’ office. As they say, “it beats working”. Lord ‘Two Jags’ did surprise 21st Century Wire readers however, with an unusually relevant point on his way off the stage, as Prescott quite rightly warned the British public against the “privatisation of the police”. A moment of clarity… Prescott would’ve got my vote on that comment alone. If Lord Prescott is in fact, serious to his word on the dangers of a private policing force in Britain, then we would hope (but certainly not holding our breath) that he would consider become a campaigner against the corporatisation of the UK’s struggling police force, is dystopian future where sworn-in officers and support workers are being replaced – with for-profit ‘staff’ from insider-approved contractors like of international companies G4S and Serco, accountable only to their shareholders. Also up for grabs in the high stakes, state-funded gold rush for lucrative contracts are the UK’s already gargantuan surveillance system contracts (which has yet to put a noticeable dent in crime rates) and the rolling out of new drone and cyber snooping units throughout the country in the next decade as Britain rushes to maintain its leading role in implementing ‘modernised’ domestic police state operational measures. This trend is extremely fascist in nature, as it facilitates the convergence of state and corporate interests in the extreme. The editorial team of this website, and surely too, others we’ve discussed this issue with, believe this latest move is a localised, globalist-oriented transition currently being rolled out in Britain in order to politicise the police forces, further degrading their overall accountability, and opening up the institution to a whole new level of corruption – where the heads of police can now interface directly with various business interests on a regional level. By all accounts, it’s a dangerous road ahead. If you are in any doubt as to what the future holds for this country with a privatised police force, then just take a few minutes to watch this shocking news report we shot recently. The victim in this film could be anybody… ….Patrick Henningsen
November 17, 2012 By 325 Comments
By Jerry Lawton The whistle-blower who exposed the Welsh children’s home sex abuse scandal has cheated death in a suspect car smash after his brakes failed. Police have seized care boss Malcolm King’s motor to see if it was sabotaged. The car, a regularly-maintained Volvo S60, careered across a busy A-road and was hit side-on by an Alfa Romeo. Afterwards Mr King, 68, who suffered a broken leg, found his brake pedal unattached and lying on the car floor. The outspoken former boss of social services in Clwyd, where much of the abuse took place, told the Daily Star yesterday: “I guess I’ve pissed a lot of people off over the years. “My friends tell me I’m crazy not to be more suspicious about it, but I can’t live my life being paranoid. “If a man could die from paranoia I’d have been dead a long time ago.” Labour councillor Mr King blew the whistle on a paedophile ring operating at north Wales children’s homes in the mid-1980s. It allegedly involved shamed TV star Jimmy Savile and other celebrities, politicians, police chiefs and judges. Mr King, a county councillor and former chair of North Wales Police Authority, was one of only 12 people given copies of the 1996 Jillings Report, which named every abuser. Read more at Daily StarThe married dad-of-two’s brake pedal mysteriously failed on the A525 near Ruthin days after the scandal blew up again two weeks ago. Mr King said: “I pushed my foot down hard on what I thought was the brake pedal but nothing happened. “I’ve no idea whether the pedal was attached at this stage or not. “The car flew across the junction and a car coming from my right smashed into my side. “If I’d shot across the junction a split-second sooner I’d be dead because it would have hit where I was sitting rather than the bonnet. It doesn’t bear thinking about. My car, which is a write-off, is now in the hands of the crash investigators. “It’s a good car and I’ve always maintained and serviced it regularly at the best garage in town. “The police officer at the scene told me they’d examine it very thoroughly. They said they’d go over it with a fine-tooth comb.’’ The Jillings Report was so explosive insurers ordered it to be pulped but a copy has been found in council archives…
November 17, 2012 By 269 Comments
Peter Sterry 21st Century Wire Senior Editor An ugly truth: our system of law enforcement and justice is broken. Quite simply, it bullies the victims, and protects men in positions of power. Old wounds are being reopened again… Another previously buried report of organised paedophilia in North Wales has turned up – fears that revelations could lead to the authorities being sued – again. It’s the same pattern of key evidence and key witnesses NOT being included in these Inquiries and Hearings. It prompts the question: what else hasn’t been included as evidence? Was evidence destroyed? More key incriminating evidence in the North Wales scandal has been reported as ‘lost’ by the police. This appears to be generally acceptable for the government, seeing that no counter investigation was launched to find out who has been ‘losing’ all this important evidence. It’s also known that former Deputy Director of the Bryn Alyn boys home, Des Frost, was NOT called as a witness, despite being one of the men who had originally reported abuse at the home to the police. What should be clear by now, is that the Waterhouse Inquiry was anything but thorough, and now Lords Peers are calling for further Waterhouse reviews to stop. Question: What did then Welsh Secretary, William Hague, know and when did he know it? The establishment’s story line today were expected to support is this: five separate documented cover-ups in 27 years, and 0ver 2000 witness statements… are all the work of media vandals and deluded conspirators. It seems like those in positions of power and influence, as well as wealthy elites in public life are pushing back, because they don’t want certain dirty deeds to be exposed to the public at large. If they are exposed, it will most surely alter the power structure in Britain for some time to come. These revelations simply cannot come to light, period. Watch this latest report about ‘lost’ evidence… Here is Sian Griffith’s interview she speaks, among other things, about Thomas Kenyon, son of Lord Kenyon, and others, along with more ‘missing evidence’, more proof (how much does the government need?) that from the onset, the police and judiciary have intervened to suppress evidence which is in the public interest: The elite claim that all these witnesses are lying, and making up their abuse. To what benefit? But if the elite are covering up their sordid crimes, one can easily see why they would want to do this, Qui Bono? You decide… RELATED: Police ‘Lost’ Thick Dossier But Seized by MI5 on Suspected Paedophile Sir Cyril Smith RELATED: The Original SCALLYWAG Magazine paedophile ring investigation is available online ….
November 14, 2012 By 362 Comments
21st Century Wire says: As we detailed earlier this week, the establishment is desperate to draw a line under any serious independent investigations into organised paedophile rings and child abuse in British establishments, because exposure threatens individuals who sit within the very power structure of multiple institutions – including government, the judiciary, the police, child care, ‘children’s charities’ and the BBC. They want our horror to end with their fixer Jimmy Savile, and the sacking of BBC’s Pope, George Entwistle – and quietly move on. The Government’s move to spike any further inquiry into past and present existence of paedophiles in power is part of damage limitation exercise - a coordinated attempt to shut down the national conversation – despite overwhelming evidence that this is an organised, institutional disease. The Waterhouse Inquiry into the North Wales Boys Home sex abuse criminal network was a typical government-run whitewash, where the establishment failed to probe into the heart of the problem, where institutional members covered for each other’s interests, and where police fumbled evidence and failed to secure arrests of powerful men. In the end, the bureaucracy won and justice was sadly lost. The recent Newsnight scandal over the naming of Lord McAlpine (by the police, not the BBC) was a staged event used by the establishment to distract, and further close down the public’s view into their seedy world of child sex. David Cameron’s recent ‘gay witch-hunt’ cries serve the very same ends – to distract and cover.. New victims are coming out daily to testify about abuse at the hands of the rich and powerful. Will the public let this pass without a fight? We shall see…