The Pedophile Scandal – Burning the Evidence

 I hope all y’all had a fine July 4th weekend. We don’t celebrate it over here, of course, as we lost!
We always feel a bit like Brazilians watching the World Cup final on July 4th.
Anyone familiar with my writing over recent years will know that a constant theme has been German use of pedophile networks to reward and ensnare politicians and senior civil servants.

This scandal has now blown into the open, and has led this week to the appointment of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss to head a judicial inquiry into the Savile Paedophile Ring.
This followed rapidly upon the heels of the appointment of the head of the National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children to an inquiry into missing dossiers about pedophiles supplied by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP.
I never met Geoffrey Dickens, but we were thinking along the same lines. He identified a number of pro-EU MPs and peers, mostly Tories, who were abusing children. What he did not do, with respect, was to make the connection to the EU.
that he missed the role of the Cabinet Office, which has been penetrated by German intelligence and linked to pedophiles since it was set up, at German request, in 1916.
The idea of the Cabinet Office, as explained in Spyhunter, was to have an over-arching government department, which could boss the others. That made German control of Whitehall easier.

The first Cabinet Secretary was the notorious Maurice Hankey, known in the trade as ‘Hankey Pankey’ for his naughtinesses with young boys. He and his protègés inflicted immense damage on Britain for five decades.

_________________________

The Whitewashes, Sorry, That Should Read ‘Inquiries’

Painting a convicted pedophile out of a mural

These latest inquiries will be whitewashes. The inquiry into the missing pedophile dossiers will probably be conducted under ‘Warwick Rules’, whereby the result is agreed with the Cabinet Office in advance, no offense to anyone intended.
Judicial inquiries are not conducted under Warwick Rules, at least not unless the judge has a dodgy dossier! I would not dream of suggesting that Dame Elizabeth is in any way dodgy, of course.
Judges however rarely get to the bottom of things, even with pedophiles. The problem, with respect, is that they tend to be naïve. They are easily fooled and have an institutional bias against allegations of wrong-doing involving the legal or political establishments, or the senior civil service.
They reached their nadir with the Hutton Inquiry, into the assassination of the brilliant weapons scientist and scientific intelligence officer Dr David Kelly. Lord Hutton is a nice chap, with respect, but his conclusion that David Kelly committed suicide brought the whole concept of judicial inquiries into disrepute.
Don’t expect anything to change as a result of these inquiries. With respect, I predict that Dame Elizabeth’s report will be well-written, beautifully expressed, bland and shallow.
To my knowledge there has only ever been one serious judicial inquiry, and that was Mr Justice Mahon’s report into the loss of the Air New Zealand DC-10 on Mount Erebus. The learned judge slammed the airline’s management and rightly so, although none of the witnesses was aware of the DVD’s role in setting up the disaster and murdering Captain Collins, his crew and passengers.
The Mahon Report was savaged by the New Zealand Court of Appeal, every judge on the panel later being exposed as having links to the airline. The Privy Council in London partially exonerated Judge Mahon, but with respect should have gone further.

It’s not just that Mr Justice Mahon conducted his enquiry in good faith. He also had an open mind and was not in awe of officialdom. I would have loved to appear in his court. He was everything that a judge should be, and his memory should be cherished by lawyers everywhere.

 _________________________

The Prosecution of Rolf Harris

Rolf Harris

It is a great shame that poor old Rolf Harris was convicted. Frankly, I do not expect his conviction to survive the inevitable appeal.
I do not approve of having juries out for eight days. It is not unknown, but it usual to give a majority verdict direction after two days. How can there not be a doubt after eight days of discussion, with not that many counts in the indictment and a single defendant?
I share the usual lawyer’s disdain for stale charges, based on events which allegedly happened years or decades ago. Most lawyers view uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct with reserve, even more so if they come from people who are admittedly unstable or have drinking and other problems.
The problem lies in deciding whether it is the chicken or the egg – do the mental health issues flow from sexual abuse, or do the allegations flow from a mind or personality which is not fully functioning?
I am commenting generally, as I was not present at the trial and did not hear the complainants give evidence. I have met Rolf Harris, however, and I do not accept that he is a sexual predator. He came across as a thoroughly decent and likeable man. It is common ground that the complaints are ancient and are not supported by eyewitness testimony or medical evidence.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were playing the old game of bundling – adding a bunch of weak charges together and hoping they would support each other. Rolf Harris should have had separate trials, one per complainant. I do not accept that the complainants were unaware of what other women were saying.

Operation Yewtree, the discredited Met operation which ensnared Rolf Harris, is a distraction operation. Its aim is to divert attention away from the Cabinet Office’s role in protecting Jimmy Savile and granting him access to government facilities where children might happen to be present.

Source