Skip to content

Why they harassed Michael Jackson but welcome Thomas O’Carroll. IS IT THE ANSWER?

May 18, 2010

I’ve always wondered why the UK press was so relentless in its harassment of Michael Jackson though accusations against him were never corroborated by any evidence and he was fully acquitted of all possible and impossible charges.

The answer to it may be totally unexpected.

While browsing for Thomas O’Carroll (aka Carl Tom), a self-confessed pedophile who suddenly became the talk of the internet as the author of an awfully slanderous book about Michael Jackson,  I came across a wealth of information suggesting that at exactly the same time when Michael was being trashed by British tabloids the media was covering up for real pedophiles in Britain.

These people were not only involved in their pedophile activities but were also spreading their ideas all over the British society and were doing it right through Thomas O’Carroll.

It seems that the media trashed an innocent guy like Michael Jackson to divert public attention from a big number of pedophiles who permeated the British establishment up to its government offices and at the same time break barriers and prepare ground for their triumphant emergence on the publicly accepted level – which is actually the cause Thomas O’Carroll has been championing for years.

This guy was one of the founders of the ‘accept-pedophiles’ movement and was indeed miraculously given numerous chances for propagating his ideas on a really wide scale. To name only a few of them:

  • In 1981 he successfully published his ‘academic’ study on pedophilia called “Paedophilia: Radical Case” where he advocated the idea of adult-child sexual relations being normal (the book is still being sold by Amazon.com).
  • In 2000 he was invited to the annual meeting in Paris of the International Academy of Sex Research by sexologist Richard Green who included O’Carroll’s book as recommended reading for his criminology students at Cambridge University.

Incidentally the same sexologist is now recommending the general public to read this pedophile’s latest book (this time about MJ), see here please:  https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/carl-toms-book/.

  • In 2003 Thomas O’Carroll was a panelist in the TV discussion program After Dark, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC where he championed the rights of pedophiles with so much ardor that the fellow participant Esther Rantzen proposed that O’Carroll should be committed to a mental hospital.  The Guardian described the show: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/04/digitaltv.broadcasting.
  • And today he is emerging with his most LETHAL WEAPON – a book of lies about Michael Jackson, an innocent victim of their manipulation  whose incredible popularity (or rather notoriety which was most probably the result of their concerted effort) is needed by them for using him as a ‘poster boy’ for furthering their cause. What an intricate and devilish plan it is – first turn an innocent man into a ‘child molester’ and then use his popularity to propagate their ideas among the public!

If Michael Jackson were alive he would die of horror that they are throwing his innocent name into support and legalization of child abuse as a ‘norm’ of human behavior – which was something totally unthinkable for a pure guy like him.

I myself am no advocate of conspiracy theories. It is just that I’ve come across some facts that truly surprised me and also explain a couple of strange things going on now. One of those strange things is that a pedophile like Thomas O’Carroll is given a free hand in popularizing his ideas, is openly supported by acamedic scientists and is allowed to go stronger than ever before – while at the very same time an innocent guy like Jackson is still being trashed on every corner.

It is strange because it should be one way or the other, and it can’t be both and at once too.

The documents I’ve found will probably help to explain this mystery. These are top serious and well-documented materials on the so-called “Loch Ness Monster” – the Scottish paedophile nexus, as well as other cases of child abuse in Britain covered  by this site: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27562&sid=ae8a0c45486ccf81fa975868da3ff38c&start=0

If this information is true (and I see no reason to doubt it as their links refer us to credible newspapers) it will become clear why various anti-pedophilia groups have been fighting a losing battle against Thomas O’Carroll and his academic supporters whose books are so widely published in Britain and now sold by the UK Amazon.com.

These people are probably too powerful for them to cope with.

*   *   *

This is only a small part of the materials provided by the Rigorous Intuition website mentioned above:

The ‘Magic circle’ in Scotland is a description that some Scottish citizens assert applies to a collective ring of purported establishment individuals who have engaged in sexual deviations, homosexual practices and paedophilia.

Twinned with this assertion, there is an overall contention by these same Scottish citizens that there was/is a conspiracy by these purported establishment figures that in order to foster and further their depraved ends they pervert the course of justice.

In Scotland the level of accusations rose to a fever pitch in the late eighties early nineties. Thus Lord Nimmo Smith was commissioned as a joint author of the Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland (1993).

As a taster consider the following :

Child porn arrests ‘too slow’
Sunday Herald, Jan 19, 2003OPERATION Ore, the police inquiry which plans to arrest a further 7000 men across the UK, in addition to Who guitarist Pete Townshend, for buying child pornography online is set to end in disaster with many suspects walking free.Detective Chief Inspector Bob McLachlan, former head of Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit, told the Sunday Herald that the lack of urgency in making arrests will lead to suspects destroying evidence of downloading child pornography before they are arrested.

NOTE: Please consider the dates of the events described.

The first time the accusations reached a high fever in the UK was in 1993 when a certain (parliamentary?) report was made on “the Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland” in connection with sex abuse crimes against children.

The second piece of information refers us to January 2003 when as many as 7000 people across the UK were to be arrested in connection with buying child pornography.

These dates may not ring the bell to the general public but to every Michael Jackson’s supporter they are quite meaningful as both times coincided with huge media campaigns against  Michael Jackson on similar allegations. The second date is especially interesting as Martin Bashir’s film full of innuendoes against Michael was shown at the very beginning of February 2003 and was actually made by a British journalist.

Back to the Rigorous Intuition site:

Let us begin in the 1970’s – a time of radical social ferment – where there emerged in Scotland an organisation called PIE.

This stood for the Paedophile Information Exchange

It was officially extant from 1974-82/84 ( dates vary ) , emerging as a special interest group within The Scottish Minorities Group (SMG) – a gay rights organisation founded in Glasgow in 1969. Leading figures included Tom O’Carrol, Michael Hanson , Ian Campbell Dunn, Keith Hose, Warren Middleton, Steven Adrian Smith & David Joy.

Its activities could be summarised as internal networking within the paedo “community”, publishing magazines with sociological & psychological justifications for their behaviour , international contact with people such as leading Dutch politician & “boy loving” advocate  Edward Brongersma & propaganda / campaigning efforts directed towards interest-groups likely to be sympathetic & / or useful to the cause of child molestation.

In 1975 PIE attended a conference organized by MIND, the national mental health organization, where it submitted a 17-page document to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent in which it proposed that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after prohibition by a civil court.

As a little lad I recall the media storm that blew up when this organisation began to come to national attention. The story I specifically remember concerned an article written by or about O’Carroll &  PIE’s ideas in a magazine for social-workers.

The general public were not, it is fair to say, receptive to the message. But its early efforts were by no means in vain however:

In 1975 it was invited to affiliate to the civil-rights advocacy NGO the National Council for Civil Liberties – a status it continued to hold whilst 3 future New Labour politicians of the most senior level held top leadership positions in the NCCL.

NOTE: The National Council for Civil Liberties is one of the eminent institutions to which Thomas O’Carroll is sending his gratitude in his ‘Paedophilia: Radical Case’ book.

Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE.  PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982.

NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of the People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.

Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on. The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974.

The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate.

In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O’Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to ‘deplore’ the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.

Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a ‘straight’, in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for ‘relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.’ The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. ‘An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,’ the motion went on. It was duly passed.

Before she became an MP [currently holding the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party], Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Jack Dromey, whom Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made.

NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll.”

Let’s move swiftly on to a middle-ranking mediocrity by the name of Margaret Hodge who was Labour leader of Islington Council in London before being “talent” spotted into Blair’s government.

A couple of interesting facts about Hodge … We learn from The Independent & the Wiki entry that: “Her husband, Henry Hodge, was a solicitor who gave Cherie Blair her first brief as a barrister & was also a Chairman of the National Council for Civil Liberties”

How wonderfully cosy – oh & that’d be the same National Council for Civil Liberties that invited “PIE “ to affiliate with it. And also:

Victims of child abuse say Hodge did not listen to paedophile claims by senior social workers

The Islington child abuse scandal has dogged her since 1992 when the London Evening Standard exposed how, for two decades, children in the borough’s care homes were molested, driven into prostitution and raped by people in positions of trust. Mrs Hodge initially derided the reports as “gutter journalism” but, within two years, accepted that there had been abuse and blamed her initial response on “misleading information” from officials.

Demetrious Panton, 35, Douglas Fitch, 28, and Yvonne Williams, 40….were subjected to abuse at the hands of different paedophiles in Islington children’s homes, have horrific stories of the suffering they endured in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr Panton, who had been placed in care at the age of 10, was one of the many victims of Bernie Bain, a notorious paedophile who was head of one of the borough’s care homes. He complained about Bain on three occasions, in 1979, 1985 and 1992, but no action was taken by the council. Bain, whose predilection was for boys aged seven or eight, was never brought to trial in Britain.

Mr Fitch and his brother, Michael, were harassed by Roy Caterer, a sports instructor at a boarding school used by Islington. Caterer was sent to prison for seven and a half years for abusing seven boys and two girls.

Mr Fitch claims that Mrs Hodge should have listened to senior social workers who raised suspicions about paedophiles and has approached lawyers to sue her. He said: “I hold Hodge responsible for what happened to me and I will not rest until I get justice.”

Ms Williams was sexually abused every day from the age of 10 for six years by Jeffrey Wildjones, the superintendent of her Islington- controlled home”.

The Labour government had the ideal job lined up for this individual when a new Government post was created for which she became its first incumbent: Minister for Children”.

*   *   *

Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) hasn’t gone away – it has of course migrated into cyberspace. It still exists on the web under a new name. The (ex) members of PIE still come to the attention of the authorities:

Paedos’ champ arrested
Underage sex campaigner jailed for ‘abhorrent’ child pornography collection

NOTE: There is indeed a website called IPCE where newsletters from Carl Tom are published under the real name of the author – Thomas O’Carroll: http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_27/mj_1.htm

This is actually one of the ways how we learned that Carl Tom and a convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll are one and the same person.

“There’s one final full-stop to the PIE story when prosecutions started happening in 1978 :

Five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements [ ] calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.

Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies.

It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up:  Mr “Henderson” had worked for MI6 and been a high commissioner in Canada”.

*   *   *

October 15th, 1997

PUBLIC FIGURES NAMED IN PAEDOPHILE RING

http://conformandobey.co.uk/pages/nick-davies-97.html

By Nick Davies, The Guardian (UK)

Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales. The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them. The Guardian today publishes for the first time detailed evidence about the alleged ring, which is said to have been based in Wrexham, and to have infiltrated local children’s homes over a 20 year period.

Witnesses claim that members of the ring used their connections with police and social services to conceal their activities. All of the accused have denied the allegations.

Those named to the tribunal include:

– A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.

– The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-age boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.

– A powerful public official who has previously been cleared of abuse. Six witnesses have given separate accounts to the tribunal of his alleged rape of young boys. Another has reported him attending parties in Wrexham which were supplied with boys from a children’s home.

-Two social workers and two police officers, one of whom was accused of abuse on four separate occasions and exonerated each time, another of whom has since been jailed in another part of the country for gross indecency with a child.

– More than a dozen other local men, including an executive with a local authority, a senior probation officer and a director of a major company.

The following comments come from the site: http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.com/

PAEDOPHILE POLICE ESCAPE PROSECUTION

High Level Masons such as Chief Superintendent Gordon Angelsea and at least 12 of his colleagues were “let off the hook” for sexual abuse crimes on children (some of who are now dead) in the North Wales Paedophile Ring Cover-Up.

High Level Government Masons such as Lord McAlpine, ex aid to Margaret Thatcher, was accused by numerous children of sexual crimes in the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Ups. He escaped public exposure by a specifically appointed Masonic Paedophile Judge”.

I have removed from this post the information which cannot be confirmed from credible sources, but what is left is serious enough for giving the matter a second thought.

If the scale of child abuse was really that big in Britain why was the British media preoccupied only with MICHAEL JACKSON who had only 2 accusers out of thousands possible (I mean all those who visited Neverland) and who could never prove any of their allegations either?

Was it because someone was using him to distract attention from something really serious going on? And was it because they wanted to turn him into their poster boy – a role to which he never agreed?

I also wonder why real convicted pedophiles like Thomas O’Carroll whose revelations are based on their experience with children are allowed to walk free and popularize their ideals among the general public?

Are they so powerful that no one can stop them?

* * *

ATTACHMENT February 26, 2014

Since this post suddenly got into a hit list almost four years after it was written I reread it myself and even went to the website from which information for this post had been taken.

The new thing I found there is a link to an article dated January 29, 2003. The article is very worrisome as it is about the key figures in the then UK government possibly involved in child abuse crimes and about the way this information was fully blacked out by the UK media.

But what is also extremely worrisome about this article is its date.

It is January 29, 2003 which, as you understand, was just a few days before Martin Bashir aired his slanderous documentary about Michael first in the UK and then in the USA on February 6, 2003.

What’s interesting is that information about British politicians being investigated by police of child abuse met with a media wall of silence as the journalist puts it, while Bashir’s documentary with totally groundless innuendoes about Michael Jackson was given the utmost attention possible.

What’s also interesting is that Bashir is a British journalist and that the police investigation of the worst child abuse ring in the UK had been going on long enough for Bashir to make his film about MJ.

JANUARY 29, 2003

Are Pedophiles Running Blair’s War Machine?

by MIKE JAMES

A child-sex scandal that threatened to destroy Tony Blair’s government last week has been mysteriously squashed and wiped off the front pages of British newspapers. Operation Ore, the United Kingdom’s most thorough and comprehensive police investigation of crimes against children, seems to have uncovered more than is politically acceptable at the highest reaches of the British elite.

In the 19th of January edition of The Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay sensationally reported that senior members of Tony Blair’s government were being investigated for paedophilia and the “enjoyment” of child-sex pornography:

“The Sunday Herald has also had confirmed by a very senior source in British intelligence that at least one high-profile former Labour Cabinet minister is among Operation Ore suspects. The Sunday Herald has been given the politician’s name but, for legal reasons, can not identify the person.

There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects. The intelligence officer said that a ‘rolling’ Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if arrests occur.”

The allegations are the most serious yet levelled at an administration that prides itself on the inclusion in its ranks of a high quota of controversial and flamboyant homosexual men, and whose First Lady, Cherie Blair, has come under the spotlight for her indulgence in pagan rituals that resemble Freemasonic rites. Unconfirmed information also suggests that the term “former Labour Cabinet minister” is misleading and that the investigation has identified a surprisingly large number of alleged paedophiles at the highest level of British government, including one very senior cabinet minister

The Blair government has responded by imposing a comprehensive blackout on the story, effectively removing it from the domain of public discussion. Attempts on the part of this journalist to establish why the British media has not followed up on the revelations have met with a wall of silence. Editors and journalists of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Mirror, The Sun, the BBC, Independent Television News and even The Sunday Herald have refused to discuss the matter.

Speaking from London, freelance journalist Bob Kearley told me:

“Whether or not a D-Notice has been issued is not clear. But based on some of the feedback I’ve been getting it’s apparent that editors and media owners have voluntarily agreed not to cover the story at this time. Operation Ore is still being reported, but not in regard to government ministers, and it’s taking up very few column inches on the third or fourth page. Don’t forget that the intelligence services are involved here, and Blair is anxious to ensure that the scandal does not rock the boat at a time when the country is about to go to war.”

“You can imagine the effect this would have on the morale of troops who are about to commit in Iraq. In fact morale is reportedly quite low anyway, with service personnel throwing their vaccines into the sea en route to the battlefront and knowing how unpopular the war is with the British people. And a lot of squaddies I’ve met think there’s something weird going on between Bush and Blair. If you’re then told that the executive responsible for the conduct of the war is staffed by child-molesters … well, then Saddam suddenly looks like the sort of bloke with whom you can share a few tins [beer].”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/29/are-pedophiles-running-blair-s-war-machine/

27 Comments leave one →
  1. February 26, 2014 4:14 pm

    “It takes my breath to read all this. Just imagine how all of this was going on when the whole world was wagging the tongues about Michael Jackson. This is such an extent of overwhelming information, it should have shattered the world, but what did we really know about it? Almost nothing – while the media stuffed us with every little detail Michael’s accusers invented for them – and while Michael was vilified and hounded to death as the personified innocence. What a convenient victim to distract from the real monsters!” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, you must be my twin and soul sister. You’ve said exactly what I was thinking about. It also takes my breath away to read it.

    Like

  2. February 26, 2014 3:59 pm

    Look, only recently we talked about the terrible double standards in treating Woody Allen’s and Michael Jackson’s cases which were running parallel in the US but were worlds apart in the way they were covered by the press.

    And now we see absolutely the same with the UK press. While all UK tabloids were whipping up public hysteria about Michael fictional “crimes” and even demanded that his children should be taken away from him merely because he clumsily showed his son in that hotel window, the UK then officials were sweeping under the carpet the most terrible cases of child abuse and the media of course couldn’t care less.

    And when the child victims complained you know what they said in reply? That it was “consensual sex” and that “paedophiles also have rights!”

    It is the contrast between the two approaches to the same allegations which is so staggering.

    Here are excerpts from one more article:

    Apologists for paedophilia: As the Mail exposes more links between senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group, one man who was abused as a child asks them: why won’t you admit you were wrong?
    By GUY ADAMS
    PUBLISHED: 02:18 GMT, 22 February 2014 | UPDATED: 13:19 GMT, 22 February 2014

    Demetrious Panton suffered terrible abuse at a children’s home in Islington in the late 1970s. The childhood of Demetrious Panton ended one night in July 1978, a few days before his 11th birthday. That was when a man called Bernie Bain, who ran a care home in North London where Panton lived, knocked on the door of his dormitory.

    An appalling sexual assault ensued. Immediately afterwards, Bain told the child never to talk about the events that had taken place that night.
    ‘We have a secret,’ Demetrious remembers thinking. ‘He’ll get me; he’ll hurt me if I ever tell anyone.’

    So began an appalling cycle of abuse. Within weeks, the assaults had escalated to rape. And they continued for more than a year.
    ‘He moved me into a bedroom of my own and would come in whenever he could,’ Panton has recalled. ‘I began to hate him.’

    Demetrious Panton was just one of hundreds of vulnerable children who were systematically raped and sexually abused in care homes run by the London borough of Islington in the Seventies and Eighties.

    He was targeted by a now notorious paedophile ring, whose members at some point ran every one of the council’s 12 care homes.

    Complaints were systematically brushed under the carpet by officials who appeared to give more weight to the so-called human rights of paedophiles than those of children.

    Though many of Bain’s co-workers were aware of the abuse, they turned a blind eye, Mr Panton says today. It wasn’t until he confided in his health worker in 1979 that any steps were taken to investigate.

    Even then, Bain was allowed to simply resign from the care home — without facing prosecution — and continue with his life.

    He told Islington Social Services that his sexual activity with the child was ‘consensual’, and they chose to believe him. Panton was never interviewed and the police were not contacted.

    Bain later moved to Morocco, where he was subsequently jailed for child pornography offences in the Nineties. He killed himself in Thailand in 2000.

    Appallingly, Bain’s departure from the home was not the end of Demetrious Panton’s ordeal. Not long afterwards, Islington appointed another predatory paedophile to run the care home at 1 Elwood Street.

    His name was Martin Ashley Saville. And for six months from January 1981, he conducted a series of sexual assaults against Panton.

    This time police were called and Saville confessed to the abuse. But, he argued that the then 13-year-old Panton had led him on — and escaped with a three-month suspended prison sentence.

    Even after that second crime, Islington Council appears to have taken a disturbingly relaxed view of Panton’s ordeal.
    ‘In a letter to my dad, on my file, they wrote that I’d had a relationship with a man,’ Panton has recalled. ‘How can a 13-year-old have a “relationship” with a grown-up? Why didn’t they do anything?’

    There have been a string of public inquiries, and formal apologies, for the systematic abuse that took place in the borough’s care homes and the subsequent cover-ups. Many of those who were abused have received compensation payments.

    But there has been no proper police inquiry into several of the men involved.

    Mr Panton, an intelligent, highly-articulate man with an IQ of 137, is today a respected professional with a PhD in philosophy. But he continues to live under the shadow of abuse. He has never married, and for most of his adult life has struggled to form romantic relationships.
    And, with the clarity of a true survivor, he now knows exactly who to blame.

    For Mr Panton believes that the events that tarnished his childhood, and hurt so many young children in Islington, were the inevitable fall-out from a PR and lobbying campaign waged by a sinister organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

    Formed in the early Seventies and boasting almost 1,000 members at its height, it waged a long-running campaign for paedophiles to be seen as ‘child lovers’ and abolish the age of consent.

    The organisation’s crowning achievement was to secure formal ‘affiliate’ status, from 1975 until the mid-Eighties, with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) — now the respected lobby group Liberty. At the time, the NCCL was run by a trio of future Labour grandees.

    This week, the Mail published an investigation into the full extent of links between the trio’s work for the NCCL and the paedophile lobby. We revealed that Hewitt described the paedophile lobby organisation in glowing terms as a ‘campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.

    We further told how the NCCL lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten — if the child consented and ‘understood the nature of the act’.

    Our exposé also revealed how it called for incest to be legalised, in what one MP described as a ‘Lolita’s charter’.

    What’s more, in 1975, NCCL lawyers attempted to muzzle hostile Press coverage of PIE and helped its members under investigation by the police.

    Pressure is mounting on these senior Labour Party politicians to explain their actions after it emerged that police are investigating PIE in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, following claims there was evidence that its members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

    Looking back to those days, Mr Panton believes the NCCL played a crucial role in helping the paedophile lobby influence social values and the Establishment.

    Indeed, by the late Seventies, it’s no exaggeration to say that PIE, and its twisted philosophy, had come to dominate the way that many radical Left-wing councils — such as Islington — ran their social services.

    Many were shocked years later when, despite what publicly emerged about the mistreatment of children in Islington care homes and her failure to acknowledge or address the matter, Tony Blair appointed Mrs Hodge, who was previously the council leader, as his Children’s Minister.

    PIE’s founder Peter Righton — a prominent social worker later prosecuted for importing child pornography from Holland — was, for example, put in charge of training courses on which council staff learned how to care for vulnerable children. Righton, who had a flat in the borough (as did PIE’s one-time key member, his friend Morris Fraser) once boasted: ‘Every Islington care home manager knows I like boys from 12.’

    Under Islington Council’s then trendy equal opportunities rules, employees who declared themselves gay were exempted from intrusive background checks that were supposed to prevent paedophiles working with children.

    That explains how Michael Taylor, an Islington care home manager exposed in a 2000 court case as a PIE member, was put in charge of several homes in which abuse occurred. He was later jailed for four years for abusing vulnerable children.

    Today, no one knows exactly how many Islington officials actually belonged to PIE, and Mr Panton will never be able to establish whether his abusers, Bain and Saville, were among their number, since its membership lists have never been published.

    But he has little doubt that what he calls the ‘tentacles of the organisation PIE’ and the ‘extreme political succour to paedophilia’ from figures who later became senior Labour politicians lay behind the abuse he suffered.

    He says: ‘The culture which PIE articulated, and for which these politicians were standard-bearer, was certainly something I came across.

    ‘The view of PIE — that children can consent to sex, and that paedophiles have rights — was exactly what I encountered when I tried to complain. The tentacles of PIE’s philosophy had infiltrated the psyche of Islington’s senior managers and politicians.’

    In 1985, when he was 18, he began writing letters to Islington Council seeking an explanation as to why he had been abused.
    At the time, the Council was run by Margaret Hodge. It took four years for Islington to respond. And even then, it insisted that correct procedures had been followed.

    ‘The barriers I came across when I tried to report what had happened to me was part of a culture where the rights of children were not taken seriously,’ he recalls. ‘It was a culture where the viewpoints of PIE on consent, and the rights of paedophiles, were given authority.’

    The full scale of the Islington scandal didn’t emerge until 1992, when the London Evening Standard exposed the systematic abuse of children and the failure of Margaret Hodge and colleagues to acknowledge or address the matter.

    It prompted a major inquiry into the affair, which reported a string of failures by the council to prevent abuse. But even then, Mr Panton did not receive an adequate apology. Quite the reverse, in fact.

    In 2003, Hodge, who was by then Children’s Minister in the Blair government, learned that he was helping the BBC make a radio documentary about the affair.

    She wrote to the BBC’s Labour-supporting chairman, Gavyn Davies, calling Mr Panton an ‘extremely disturbed person’ and saying the programme should be scrapped.

    Not surprisingly, Mr Panton sued. In November 2003, Ms Hodge agreed to issue a formal apology, pay his legal costs, and contribute £10,000 to a charity of his choice.

    By then, it was more than 25 years since the night that Panton’s innocence had been first stolen. For him and other victims of the Paedophile Information Exchange, it is now almost 40 years since Harman, Hewitt and Dromey worked to advance its objectionable agenda.

    ‘Our politicians have apologised about slavery,’ says Mr Panton. ‘They have said sorry for countless events, on a whole range of issues, for which they weren’t personally responsible. ‘So on their one-time support for paedophiles, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to say sorry now.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565352/Apologists-paedophilia-As-Mail-exposes-links-senior-Labour-figures-vile-paedophile-group-one-man-abused-child-asks-wont-admit-wrong.html

    Is it possible to imagine that all of the above was going on at the same time when the same establishment and its media were not giving Michael a moment of quiet?

    I cannot even imagine it. It is like two worlds apart. Like Alice in Wonderland.

    I wonder how those in the media will explain this phenomenon? One day someone will guess to ask them this question.

    Like

  3. February 26, 2014 3:28 pm

    It takes my breath to read all this. Just imagine how all of this was going on when the whole world was wagging the tongues about Michael Jackson. This is such an extent of overwhelming information, it should have shattered the world, but what did we really know about it? Almost nothing – while the media stuffed us with every little detail Michael’s accusers invented for them – and while Michael was vilified and hounded to death as the personified innocence. What a convenient victim to distract from the real monsters!

    Like

  4. February 26, 2014 2:11 pm

    Oh God, the more I look the more I find. It turns out that the British have finally started looking into the activities of those who covered up for real pedophiles. Has God heard our prayers?

    Seeing the scope of all this it is simply impossible not to notice that all these people simply used Michael Jackson as a SCAPEGOAT while they were rubbing their hands with glee that no one was looking their way!

    See what the Daily Mail wrote in December 2013:

    Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children
    – Magpie magazine distributed in the late Seventies to members of PIE
    – PIE is Paedophile Information Exchange – the name of a far-Left lobby group
    – Called for legalisation of child sex and age of consent to be lowered to four
    – Emerged this week Labour government of the time may helped finance the organisation and The Magpie
    – Home Office now ordered a ‘thorough, independent investigation’ into claims
    – Hewitt, Harman and husband Dromey encountered the PIE as young officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties
    By GUY ADAMS
    PUBLISHED: 00:27 GMT, 14 December 2013 | UPDATED: 11:46 GMT, 20 December 2013

    At first sight, it might be a harmless parish magazine or the newsletter of a respectable society of bird-watching enthusiasts.
    Called The Magpie, the now-yellowing A5-size pamphlet was distributed in the late Seventies to members of an organisation called the PIE. The inside cover carries a workmanlike ‘editor’s letter’ highlighting ‘our third annual AGM, which is to be held in London in the summer’, and inviting readers to seek election to ‘our Executive Committee’.

    Page three advertises a memorial service for recently deceased PIE member Alan Doggett, who worked as the conductor of the London Boys’ Choir, and was apparently to be remembered for his ‘friendliness, integrity and loyalty’. There follows a selection of short news stories, a letters page and several long feature articles, which are scholarly in tone and peppered with academic jargon.

    But it doesn’t take long for any right-minded person who flicks through The Magpie — dispatched quarterly in plain brown envelopes to up to 1,000 members — to realise that behind its matter-of-fact tone and appearance, something is terribly, terribly, amiss.

    For the initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange . This turns out to be the name of a far-Left lobby group which spent much of the Seventies and early Eighties publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex — and the age of consent to be lowered to four.

    Today, PIE has been widely forgotten. But at the time, it achieved prominence for circulating articles by tame psychologists and cod scientists promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles.

    Take, for example, a long article by Dr Edward Brongersma, a Dutch politician and academic who was renowned for his ultra-liberal views on sexual morality.

    ‘A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial,’ he argues, ‘providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.’

    Take also an article in which a PIE member called Keith Spence, who had recently moved to Stockholm, writes of his (unsuccessful) efforts to abuse ‘heart-shatteringly beautiful’ children at the local swimming pool.

    ‘If you think England is frustrating for paedophiles, you should try living in Sweden for a bit,’ he complains.

    Towards the back of the journal are adverts for a book called Towards A Better Perspective For Boy-Lovers, and admiring reviews of magazines with names such as Male International, Kim, and Boys Express.

    Today, almost 35 years later, the contents of The Magpie seem so vile and amoral, and the activities of a lobby group dedicated to advancing the human rights of predatory paedophiles so disgusting, that it’s incredible either was allowed legally to exist at all.

    However, it now seems that the Paedophile Information Exchange wasn’t just tolerated by the liberal authorities of the time. There is growing evidence that the era’s Left-wing establishment saw it as a socially acceptable pressure group and actively encouraged its ugly campaigns and sinister public meetings.

    Indeed, it emerged this week that the Labour government of the Seventies may even have helped finance the organisation and its morally bankrupt publication The Magpie.

    On Sunday, the Home Office announced that it had ordered a ‘thorough, independent investigation’ into shocking allegations that the Paedophile Information Exchange received public funds while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.

    It will examine whether tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was funnelled to it via the Voluntary Services Unit [VSU], a department of the Home Office that gave annual grants to charities and non-profit-making lobby groups.

    The probe comes after a whistle-blower had claimed the payments were signed off, over several years, by a senior civil servant who worked under Labour’s then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees.

    Dig beneath the surface of this ugly scandal, however, and you will soon discover that Lord Rees — who died in 2006 — is a long way from being the only prominent Labourite whose good name may be tarnished by it.

    For it also raises tricky questions for three of the most senior Labour figures of recent times: deputy leader Harriet Harman, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, and shadow housing minister Jack Dromey, a former party treasurer and Harman’s husband.

    Turn the clock back to the Seventies and this trio had strangely close links to the Paedophile Information Exchange. And the long-defunct organisation’s sudden return to the news pages may very well bring those links back to haunt them.

    Harman, Hewitt and Dromey first encountered the PIE when they were cutting their political teeth as young officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties [NCCL].

    This tub-thumping human rights organisation — these days known as Liberty — was far more radical than its modern equivalent, and was actively forging alliances with a host of ultra-liberal pressure groups.

    One such group was the PIE. In 1975, it somehow succeeded in convincing the NCCL to grant it official ‘affiliate’ status.

    The move was a signal victory for radical Left-wing activists, who had for years lobbied for more ‘enlightened’ attitudes towards sex between adults and children.

    It was also, of course, a PR coup for those who sought to promote paedophilia.

    ‘The PIE somehow managed to convince feminists and the gay rights lobby that they had shared values and that we all belonged in the same club,’ recalls one feminist writer whose magazine was lobbied for support by the PIE after the Exchange won NCCL affiliation.

    ‘Anyone who spoke out against them feared being called a “homophobe”, which in Left-wing circles at the time was about the biggest insult anyone could throw at you. So they were invited into the liberal establishment.’

    A PIE ‘information’ leaflet published at the time, called Paedophilia: Some Questions And Answers, shows how the organisation had managed to ally its cause to the gay rights movement.

    ‘Homosexuals are now widely regarded as ordinary, healthy people — a minority, but no more “ill” than the minority who are left-handed,’ it read. ‘There is no reason why paedophilia should not win similar acceptance.’

    The NCCL — then under the chairmanship of Henry Hodge, the Left-wing solicitor who would go on to marry Labour MP Margaret Hodge — appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker.

    ‘The PIE was also being picketed by the National Front, so a lot of people also supported them on the basis that our enemy’s enemy had to be our friend,’ says the writer. ‘It seems terrifyingly simplistic now, obviously, but that was the political context.’

    Over the ensuing years, the NCCL — which had Hewitt as its General Secretary from 1974-83 — provided valuable support to the paedophile lobby as it pursued a string of legal and political campaigns designed to advance its twisted agenda.

    In 1975, for example, the NCCL conference was addressed by the PIE chairman, Keith Hose. Delegates passed a motion declaring that ‘awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual’.

    In 1976, with Jack Dromey on its executive (he served from 1970-79), the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’.

    ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage,’ it read. ‘The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’

    The statement might have been cut-and-pasted from the propaganda book of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Two years later, in 1978, Harriet Harman, then a newly qualified solicitor, became the NCCL’s legal officer. She promptly wrote its official response to Parliament’s Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography.

    Her letter claimed that such a law would ‘increase censorship’, and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.

    ‘Our amendment [to the proposed law] places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,’ she wrote.

    Such statements, from officials in what was (and is) a respected human rights organisation, may go some way towards explaining how the Labour-run Home Office of the era might have allowed public grants to be directed towards the PIE.

    The NCCL presided over by Harman, Hewitt, Hodge and Dromey had, after all, helped foster an environment where woolly liberalism trumped child protection.

    To many on the Left, promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles came to be regarded as a legitimate act of political subversion.

    Sources close to the Home Office investigation, which was announced this week, say the whistle-blower who sparked it first came forward in the late Seventies. However, his concerns were ignored by officials working for Labour Home Secretary Merlyn Rees.

    I understand that the civil servant suspected of approving the Voluntary Services Unit grants to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the Seventies died in 2006.

    Officials are now trying to establish the nature of this man’s relationship with the late Steven Adrian Smith, a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange who was employed as a security guard in the basement of the Home Office during the same era.

    If the two men were working in cahoots, it will surely fuel suspicions that an establishment paedophile ring had been allowed to take root in the department.

    After all, it emerged earlier this year that Geoffrey Dickens, a Tory MP who campaigned against paedophilia, had approached the then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983 with allegations concerning widespread abuse of children, some of it by prominent individuals, in children’s care homes.

    Nothing appears ever to have come of Dickens’s claims.

    As for the Paedophile Information Exchange, its fortunes began to wane in 1981 when secretary Tom O’Carroll — a press officer for the Open University — was jailed for conspiring to corrupt public morals by publishing ‘contact’ advertisements (which put readers in touch with vendors of child porn) in an edition of The Magpie.

    Even after O’Carroll’s fall from grace, Patricia Hewitt was willing to stick up for the organisation. In a 1982 essay entitled The Police And Civil Liberties, she offered a thundering critique of his trial.

    ‘Conspiring to corrupt public morals is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof,’ she wrote, arguing that O’Carroll’s involvement in distributing child porn had ‘overshadowed the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution’.

    But sympathy in the National Council for Civil Liberties for the PIE’s aims was fading. In 1983, its affiliation was formally withdrawn. And the PIE disbanded in 1984.

    The ensuing years saw its reputation permanently sunk, following the convictions of dozens of prominent members for child sex offences.

    Among them was Peter Righton, a key government adviser on children’s homes, and a PIE founder, who was fined in 1992 for possessing child porn. He died in 2006, never prosecuted for abusing boys in his care — though he openly admitted doing so.

    As for Harman, Hewitt and Dromey, they went on to climb successfully the greasy ladder of politics.

    Despite the public revulsion against paedophilia, none of the trio would ever properly apologise for the NCCL’s historic links to the Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Indeed, a spokesman for Harman said yesterday that despite her employment by the NCCL during its formal affiliation, ‘the very suggestion that Harriet was in any way supportive of the PIE or its aims is untrue and misleading’.

    It has been left to Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty — who, born in 1969, had nothing to do with the affair — to offer the only public apology.

    ‘It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the Seventies,’ she told me yesterday.

    ‘The most important lesson learned by Liberty over the subsequent 30 years was to become a well-governed modern human rights movement in which protecting the vulnerable, especially children, will always come first.’

    With fresh light about to be shed on this dark passage in history, it’s a message that other — perhaps more guilty — parties would be well advised to heed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

    It is mind blowing!

    Like

  5. February 26, 2014 12:36 pm

    Some details from Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche (the most awful details are omitted).

    From The Daily Telegraph 01/2003

    Bill Hughes (SOCA Director General / NCS Director General):

    “These sites can be horrendous. The Operation Ore sites showed newborn babies being brutalized.”

    A regular excuse is to say it’s easy to stumble innocently on to one of these sites. “You can’t accidentally stray, you really have to go for it,” Hughes says. “First, you have to find the website, then you’re given sample images and if you’re still interested, you have to click to be offered membership. Next, you have to supply your credit card details. Then you are given a password, and finally you have to choose between babies, toddlers, children, teenagers and child rape.”

    In Canada, when the press accused the police of hounding internet child porn surfers, the police decided to show journalists a sample of the sites. “Several are still receiving counselling,” Hughes says. “We couldn’t do that here, but the police and the press must work together to ensure that we don’t all become either too hysterical or too flippant.”

    Until these suspected paedophiles are proved guilty, do we need to know that they include two hospital consultants, a classics master, a former deputy headmaster, a director of a big construction site and a famous newspaper columnist? Did someone really need to speculate that there were senior judges, two Labour MPs and more celebrities involved?

    “Whoever has been leaking is hugely irresponsible,” Hughes says. “It undermines us all if people think we’re celebrity-bashing. I haven’t seen any MPs on the list. Some of it is spiteful. People ring us up to say they know that Cabinet ministers are involved. It’s untrue. But the crime is committed across a huge spectrum.”

    “You wouldn’t expect us to turn a blind eye to a child being sexually abused on the street,” Hughes replies. “These images are created by the abuse of a real child. Every time someone downloads an image, it pays for more children to be abused. Gratification becomes more and more difficult. We’ve seen that in just four years. Viewers progress very fast from mild images to the really hard stuff. They’re obsessive collectors.”

    The question he can’t answer is whether the internet has allowed a repressed desire in men to come out or whether it has created a new demand; whether it is a substitute for the real thing or whether it promotes offending behaviour. He leaves that to Ray Smith, head of the US Postal Inspection Service’s child exploitation programme, who helped discover the list of names worldwide.

    “In America,” Smith explains, “over 35 per cent of the people we have arrested in the last five years for accessing indecent material from the net turned out to be child molesters. Either they had previous convictions or, in many cases, we discovered them still abusing children.”

    He worries that the internet is creating more deviant behaviour. “It’s so easy now to get these pictures. Some people do become de-sensitised, and a significant number, I fear, will eventually act on those fantasies.”

    Hughes and Smith have just been to the child abuse online international conference in Sussex, with representatives from 70 other countries. “What we agreed upon,” Hughes says, “is that you have to target the viewers, the perpetrators and the distributors. It’s the only way to bring this under control. You have to make it unacceptable in every community. People looking at these sites are creating child abuse. They are handing over money, which makes it worthwhile for profiteers to risk making these images.”

    A large number of men on the list appear to be merchant bankers, City lawyers, accountants and businessmen. “There’s no obvious pattern, but they are not all the pathetic, downbeat loners you imagine,” says Hughes. “Many are white collar, they have very expensive computers, credit cards and huge libraries.” One man arrested in London last month had 12 computers, 2,530 CDs, 518 floppy discs, 55 videos and 99 films.

    Very few women appear to be involved. “You do find women on the financial side, running the websites and a few have subscribed. But it’s even less talked about because it’s such a taboo,” says Hughes. “Females are supposed to nurture the young, not abuse them.”

    http://iamthewitness.com/Some.of.the.stuff.you.see.is.so.disgusting.htm

    Like

  6. February 26, 2014 11:48 am

    I have also looked up information on the Operation Ore mentioned in the article posted just now. Wiki says that some people were found not guilty but the scope of this police operation is still mind-boggling.

    But the most interesting point about it is that the investigation of child porn purchasers and everything around that case was so extremely quiet that none of us know anything about it.

    At the same time all of us know everything about the story of Bashir and Michael Jackson turning into Arvizos’s case and then into MJ’s trial, all of which was running parallel to Operation Ore.

    The media case against Michael Jackson was so big that no one actually noticed a huge police investigation of thousands of people who were buying real child porn of the children really abused, molested and raped. Not fictionally (by MJ) but really abused and by real criminals too, and thousands and thousands of people in the establishment even paying money to enjoy the sight.

    And the “Michael Jackson” distraction method was so effective that we are still busy discussing whether the adult magazines like Playboy sold in every store and found in Michael’s locked bag may or may not be considered “child porn”.

    This is how far this brainwashing has gone!

    WIKI about Operation Ore:

    Operation Ore was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. It was the United Kingdom’s biggest ever computer crime investigation, leading to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations and an estimated 33 suicides. Operation Ore identified and prosecuted some sex offenders, but the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations resulted in a large number of false arrests.

    Operation Ore followed the similar crackdown in the United States, called Operation Avalanche; in the US 100 people were charged from the 35,000 US access records available. In total 390,000 individuals in over 60 countries were found to have accessed material in the combined investigations.

    Between 1999 and 2001, after a tip off, a US investigation was conducted into Landslide Productions Inc, a Texas-based online pornography portal operated by Thomas and Janice Reedy. The portal was found to have provided access to child pornography and the Reedys were both convicted of trafficking child pornography in August 2001.

    Following the investigation and conviction “Operation Avalanche” was launched, in the US, to trace and prosecute child pornography users identified in the Landslide database. In addition the website was run for a short time as part of a sting operation by the FBI to capture new suspects. The FBI also passed identities from the Landslide database to the police organizations of other countries, including 7,272 names to the UK.

    In May 2002, Operation Ore was implemented in the UK to investigate and prosecute the Landslide users whose names were provided by the FBI. The British Police acted quickly and thoroughly targeting all names on the list, in which 3,744 people were investigated and arrested. The list included ministers, MPs and members of the British establishment.

    The charge of possession of child pornography was used where evidence was found, but the lesser charge of incitement was used in those cases where a user’s details were on the Landslide database but no images were found on the suspect’s computer or in their home. Because of the number of names on the FBI list, the scale of the investigation in the UK was overwhelming to the police, who appealed to the government for emergency funding for the case. Reportedly, several million pounds were spent in the investigations, and complaints mounted that other investigations were put at risk because of the diversion of the resources of child protection units into the case.

    Information from the Operation Ore list of names was leaked to the press early in 2003. After obtaining the list, the Sunday Times stated that it included the names of a number of prominent individuals, some of which were later published by the press.

    The Sunday Times reported that the list included at least twenty senior executives, a senior teacher at a girl’s public school, personnel from military bases, GPs, university academics and civil servants, a famous newspaper columnist, a song writer for a pop band, a member of a chart-topping 1980s cult pop group, and an official with the Church of England.

    An investigation followed the leak, and police complained that the advance warning would allow suspected paedophiles to dispose of evidence. A police officer was reported to have lost his job for leaking the names.

    After 2003 Operation Ore came under closer scrutiny, with police forces in the UK being criticised for their handling of the operation. The most common criticism was that they failed to determine whether or not the owners of credit cards in Landslide’s database actually accessed any sites containing child porn, unlike in the US where it was determined in advance whether or not credit card subscribers had purchased child porn. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell exposed these flaws in a series of articles in 2005 and 2007.

    It was a serious error that UK police received no information on the scale of the credit card fraud which had occurred within the Landslide business. Many of the charges at the Landslide affiliated sites were made using stolen credit card information, and the police arrested the real owners of the credit cards, not the viewers. Thousands of credit card charges were made where there was no access to a site, or access only to a dummy site. When the police checked, seven years after Operation Ore commenced, they found 54,348 occurrences of stolen credit card information in the Landslide database.

    The British police failed to provide this information to the defendants, and in some cases implied that they had checked and found no evidence of credit card fraud when no such check had been done. Because of the nature of the charges, children were removed from homes immediately. In the two years it took the police to determine that thousands had been falsely accused, over one hundred children had been removed from their homes and denied any unsupervised time with their fathers.The arrests also led to an estimated 33 suicides by 2007.

    One man was charged when the sole “suspicious” image in his possession was of young-looking — but adult — actress Melissa-Ashley. Also arrested were Massive Attack’s Robert Del Naja (later cleared) and The Who’s guitarist Pete Townshend, who was cautioned by the police after acknowledging a credit card access to the Landslide website. Duncan Campbell later stated in PC Pro magazine that their credit card charges and IP addresses were traced through the Landslide site, and both were found to have accessed sites which had nothing to do with child pornography. The actor and writer Chris Langham was among those convicted.

    Independent investigators later obtained both the database records and video of the Landslide raid. When this information was presented in a UK court, Michael Mead of the United States Postal Service contradicted his US testimony under oath regarding several details relating to the investigation. As a result of the errors exposed in the cases, some people arrested in Operation Ore filed a group action lawsuit in 2006 against the detectives behind Operation Ore, alleging false arrest.

    After Campbell’s articles appeared, the independent computer expert Jim Bates who analysed the hard drives was charged and convicted of four counts of making false statements and one count of perjury regarding his qualifications and barred from appearing as an expert witness. Bates’s judgement has been called into question on other matters. Bates was later arrested for possession of indecent images during his Operation Ore investigations. The search of Bates home was ruled as unlawful, as the police had applied for the search warrant using the wrong section of PACE, and were unable to examine any of the material seized from his house.

    CEOP and its Chief Executive, Jim Gamble, were accused of using vague terms which do not have a recognised meaning within either child protection or law enforcement when they defended the operation.

    On 6 December 2010, senior Court of Appeal judges rejected the appeal of Anthony O’Shea, stating that they were “entirely confident that the appellant was rightly convicted”. The judgement states in relation to the appellant’s assertions regarding the claim that his IP address had been disguised: “These suggestions are fanciful in the extreme. The appellant’s theory (for it is no more than such) that he [Mr O’Shea] was the victim of the machinations of a fraudulent webmaster is, in our view, pure speculation.”

    Jim Bates, an expert witness and critic of Operation Ore, was criticised for misleading comments during the hearing. The appeal had been considered to be a landmark case where success could have led to many of the other convictions achieved as a result of Ore being overturned.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore

    Like

  7. February 26, 2014 11:05 am

    Since this post dated May 18, 2010 has also suddenly got into a hit list I reread it too and even went to the website from which information for this post had been taken about 4 years ago.

    The new thing I found there is a link to an article dated January 29, 2003. The article is very worrisome as it is about the key figures in the then UK government possibly involved in child abuse crimes and about the way this information was fully blacked out by the UK media.

    But what is also extremely worrisome about this article is its DATE.

    It is January 29, 2003 and this, as you understand, was just a few days before Martin Bashir aired his slanderous documentary about Michael first in the UK and then, on February 6, 2003 in the USA.

    What’s interesting is that information about British politicians being investigated by police of child abuse met with a MEDIA WALL OF SILENCE as the journalist puts it, while Bashir’s documentary with groundless innuendoes about Michael Jackson was given the UTMOST attention possible.

    What’s also interesting is that Bashir is a British journalist and that the police investigation of the child abuse ring in the UK had been going on long enough for Bashir to make his film about MJ.

    JANUARY 29, 2003

    Are Pedophiles Running Blair’s War Machine?
    by MIKE JAMES

    A child-sex scandal that threatened to destroy Tony Blair’s government last week has been mysteriously squashed and wiped off the front pages of British newspapers. Operation Ore, the United Kingdom’s most thorough and comprehensive police investigation of crimes against children, seems to have uncovered more than is politically acceptable at the highest reaches of the British elite. In the 19th of January edition of The Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay sensationally reported that senior members of Tony Blair’s government were being investigated for paedophilia and the “enjoyment” of child-sex pornography:

    “The Sunday Herald has also had confirmed by a very senior source in British intelligence that at least one high-profile former Labour Cabinet minister is among Operation Ore suspects. The Sunday Herald has been given the politician’s name but, for legal reasons, can not identify the person.

    There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects. The intelligence officer said that a ‘rolling’ Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if arrests occur.”

    The allegations are the most serious yet levelled at an administration that prides itself on the inclusion in its ranks of a high quota of controversial and flamboyant homosexual men, and whose First Lady, Cherie Blair, has come under the spotlight for her indulgence in pagan rituals that resemble Freemasonic rites. Unconfirmed information also suggests that the term “former Labour Cabinet minister” is misleading and that the investigation has identified a surprisingly large number of alleged paedophiles at the highest level of British government, including one very senior cabinet minister

    The Blair government has responded by imposing a comprehensive blackout on the story, effectively removing it from the domain of public discussion. Attempts on the part of this journalist to establish why the British media has not followed up on the revelations have met with a wall of silence. Editors and journalists of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Mirror, The Sun, the BBC, Independent Television News and even The Sunday Herald have refused to discuss the matter.

    Speaking from London, freelance journalist Bob Kearley told me:

    “Whether or not a D-Notice has been issued is not clear. But based on some of the feedback I’ve been getting it’s apparent that editors and media owners have voluntarily agreed not to cover the story at this time. Operation Ore is still being reported, but not in regard to government ministers, and it’s taking up very few column inches on the third or fourth page. Don’t forget that the intelligence services are involved here, and Blair is anxious to ensure that the scandal does not rock the boat at a time when the country is about to go to war.”

    “You can imagine the effect this would have on the morale of troops who are about to commit in Iraq. In fact morale is reportedly quite low anyway, with service personnel throwing their vaccines into the sea en route to the battlefront and knowing how unpopular the war is with the British people. And a lot of squaddies I’ve met think there’s something weird going on between Bush and Blair. If you’re then told that the executive responsible for the conduct of the war is staffed by child-molesters … well, then Saddam suddenly looks like the sort of bloke with whom you can share a few tins [beer].”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/29/are-pedophiles-running-blair-s-war-machine/

    I’ve now included this article in the old post.

    Like

  8. November 11, 2010 8:35 pm

    “they are selling a book that BLATANTLY promotes this cause! Here is the title: “A Pedophile’s Guide To Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct“. Oh, and it gets better! Here is a quote from the author! “Every time you see them on television, they’re either murderers, rapists, or kidnappers, and that’s just not an accurate representation of that particular sexuality!”

    So they are presenting it as just another type of sexual orientation! Not accurately reported or understood! And mind it that someone has written this book, another one published it, and the third had the cheek to advertise it! So there quite a lot of people involved in the process, aren’t there? And I am sure that those who are fighting these people have a hard time proving that this book does not have the right to exist!

    Don’t you guys see that the process has really gone too far?

    Just imagine that while real p-les were committing their crimes the media and justice system were going crazy chasing an innocent man. To me it really looks like part of a big master plan meant to divert attention from the real problem to a fictional one. While everybody was busy hunting for MJ real p-les were publishing their books, doing their ‘research’, teaching students to be tolerant of p-lia because ‘ancient Greeks did it’ and because it is just another type of sexual orientation or because animals do it too. And by the time the innocent guy is dead everyone is almost ready to accept these ‘ideals’ and the charm of the dead man comes in very much handy to promote their cause…

    Like

  9. lcpledwards permalink
    November 11, 2010 5:27 pm

    Helena, you were right about p-es trying to sell books to promote their cause! Check out this story! People are trying to boycott Amazon because they are selling a book that BLATANTLY promotes this cause! Here is the title: “A Pedophile’s Guide To Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct“.

    Oh, and it gets better! Here is a quote from the author! “Every time you see them on television, they’re either murderers, rapists, or kidnappers, and that’s just not an accurate representation of that particular sexuality!”

    Well, at least he didn’t try to use MJ as an ambassador for his cause, unlike Thomas O’Carroll, Victor Gutierrez, or NAMBLA!!

    Like

  10. June 2, 2010 9:47 pm

    Jan, it seems that to be able to write a reply there you need to be a customer (I tried it but it isn’t working for me). If ANY of us is their customer, please leave a comment with a nice piece of news – that they are advertizing a book by a self-confessed pedophile.
    Please congratulate them with joining the pedophile gang!

    Like

  11. Jan permalink
    June 2, 2010 8:22 pm

    I wonder why play.com is still advertising this book:

    http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/14871608/Michael-Jacksons-Dangerous-Liaisons/Product.html

    Like

  12. Suzy permalink
    June 2, 2010 4:27 pm

    @ Skeptic

    Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that. Probably because of the context, which you forgot to add: that they were not credible at all. So discredible that not even Sneddon found them credible enough for a trial. And that must have been REALLY discredible, because he desperately used someone like Jason Francia, who was very discredible (and that was easily exposed by the defense and their witnesses on trial). And that was Sneddon’s “most credible” – and only – other accuser – imagine what the others could have been…. I wouldn’t be surprised if these so called other “accusers” (if they exist at all – and that’s a big IF!) had been people who never even met Michael, just saw their chance in all this. Because it’s very telling that not even Sneddon used them for anything….

    Because fact is, Sneddon turned every stone to find more accusers (set up a website, made his people travel the world to look for more accusers – and spent an awful lot of tax payer money on all this), but he didn’t find anyone credible. If he had any more, just remotely credible accusers, they would have been on the trial testifying against Michael. The fact there weren’t speaks volumes….

    I’m a fan of Michael but after the 90s I was a bit detached from him. So when he got accused for the second time in 2005 I really followed his trial with an open mind. I followed it because I wanted to find out the truth about him. I have to admit at the beginning I was even leaning towards him maybe being guilty, simply because of the “where’s smoke there is fire” effect and the “smoke” was to me that this was already the second time he got accused of doing this. But as the trial went on, day by day, witness by witness, evidence by evidence, it became more and more clear to me that the accusers are not credible, their case is full of holes and that Michael hasn’t got the pattern of a pedophile.

    Pedophiles prey on every little boy they can prey on, not just one-two (or even five). Michael was surrounded and left alone with children, boys all the time in Neverland. If he had really been a molester I’m sure Sneddon wouldn’t have found it this difficult to find other accusers. Instead one boy after another came out saying: nothing ever happened. (Among others those about whom Jason Francia and his mother claimed that they have seen Michael molesting them – that was one of the big blows to the Francia testimony, but there were others too.) A pedophile can’t help himself when he is left alone with little boys. So it would be very non-typical for a pedophile to have them in his room or even in his bed – and not try anything with them. That’s one thing.

    The other is the pornography they found in Michael’s possession. Ironically that was used by the prosecution as an evidence against Michael, but I think they shot themselves in the foot with that. Because what they found was heterosexual, adult pornography. Girlie magazines like Playboy, Hustler and others, also videos of that nature. He had 16 computers, all were confiscated and sent to the FBI for a check. The FBI checked them several times very thoroughly (this was in the FBI files those vere released last year) and found nothing incriminating! All they found were: pictures of naked women and traces to adult, heterosexual porn sites. NO child pornography at all! No traces to “man-boy love” sites. Nothing like that!

    Again, that would be VERY unusual from a pedophile! In the vast majority of pedophile cases they find child pornography in the posession of the molester, they find traces to child porn websites and “man-boy love” websites (like boychat, for example). They didn’t find anything like in Michael’s posession or on his computers. Instead they found stuff that many heterosexual adult men would have.

    So why did the prosecution try to use this as an evidence? That left many observers puzzled. Celebrity biographer J.R. Taraborelli was in the courtroom and he reported that they showed these magazines with graphic pictures to the court, one after another – but he didn’t understand the point why. Was it just to humiliate Michael? Because there was no other point. I remember another observer noted after this: now at least we know that under the make-up and the lipstick there’s a guy with a normal, regular, heterosexual interest. (Many people sounded rather surprised by that.)

    Of course, the prosecution’s intention wasn’t to portray Michael as a normal, regular, heterosexual man. But this is all they could come up with! So not having any child pornography to show, they decided to show this on court. Their theory was that Michael had these magazines and videos not for himself but to arouse little boys. But that doesn’t make much sense. If he only had these magazines for this purpose then he would have had one or two but not almost 80, dated from 1991 to 2003! Obviously he was a regular consumer of those magazines. A pedophile would maybe have a couple of these magazines (to arouse little boys) but otherwise the vast majority of his porn collection would be made of child pornography. In Michael’s case they found heterosexual, adult porn – and no child porn. What does it tell us?

    I don’t say that Michael’s porn (and lack of child porn) is a definite proof in itself, but to me it does point to a certain direction very strongly – and it’s not what the prosecution wanted us to believe. And of course, Michael wasn’t acquitted because of his porn collection. But you have to add up all these little details – together with the very questionable past and credibility issues of the accuser. All I can say: I am convinced the “non guilty” verdict was the right one.

    Like

  13. Skeptic permalink
    June 1, 2010 10:02 pm

    Just to clarify I am not saying he is guitly – but there are some things that raise doubt. I really hope he didn’t do this.

    Like

  14. Skeptic permalink
    June 1, 2010 9:51 pm

    Well he slept in the same bed as Jordan Chandler. And everybody is ignoring this fact that he continued to allow children into his bedroom.

    Here is a clip of where Aphrodite Jones states that Michael had 5 accusers:

    at 1:53 onwards.

    I’m not the kind of person who would make things up.

    Like

  15. Suzy permalink
    June 1, 2010 7:21 pm

    @ Skeptic

    “Fact is, he wasn’t just accused twice but 5 times (that I definately know of – this is stated in the Aphrodite Jones True Crimes documentary)”

    I’ve just watched the Aphrodete Jones documentary to check out this claim of yours (because I have never heard of 5 accusers before) and I found there’s no such thing claimed in this documentary!

    Like

  16. June 1, 2010 7:15 pm

    Pixie Dust, I agree with you ABSOLUTELY.

    Michael’s belief in God is very different from conventional one – very trusting, genuine, simple and awesome in its strength and deepness. I was completely knocked off my feet when I saw THIS kind of belief in God in a man in whom I least expected it. A belief like that makes a person no longer accountable to human beings (no matter how disrespectful it may sound) as there is only one Absolute with whom he incessantly checks his feelings, thoughts and deeds and to whom he reports directly for everything he does or doesn’t do in his life.

    A person like that cannot do any harm to anyone at all for the simple reason that the rules he sets for himself in his direct relationship with God are absolutely voluntary and far more strict than those which any human beings can ever devise. From the way Michael behaved and spoke the only thing he was afraid of was to let HIM down and fail to stand up to HIS expectations. And though he did suffer of all that humiliation and insults from humans like any other person would his belief made him really fearless and made him go the only unique way he was going.

    How do I know all this? Just read Michael’s poems or his speech at Oxford University and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    To harm a child (or anyone at all) for such a person is UNTHINKABLE.

    Like

  17. Suzy permalink
    June 1, 2010 6:26 pm

    @ Skeptic

    “If he hadn’t slept in the same bed as that boy then all of this would not have happened.”

    But the point Helena was making is exactly that he didn’t sleep in the same bed as that boy. He slept on the floor, while the boy was in the bed. That’s what was said in the Bashir docu.

    “One could argue this was down to his naivity – however after 1993 he should never have let a child sleep in his room, period.”

    Yes, that’s right, he was stupid, naive and stubborn – that’s what he is guilty of, not of molesting children.

    “If your child said to you that they had been molested and you knew they had slept in the same room as the alleged abuser – would it be absurd to believe that they might be telling the truth? …I don’t think so.”

    Janet Arvizo KNOWS exactly that Michael didn’t molest her son. It was her idea to say he did. Just like she made her kids lie under oath in the JC Panny case.

    I suggest you to watch “The Untold Story of Neverland” by Larry Nimmer:

    I also suggest you to watch what Azja Pryor said about the Arvizos:

    Like

  18. June 1, 2010 6:14 pm

    Skeptic, I really don’t remember 5 accusers but the number is not even the point. With all that hysteria around Michael I am surprised that hundreds of people who attended Neverland did not accuse him of unforgivable crimes like tickling their shoulder, stroking their hair or even kissing their cheek.

    Let’s compare Michael’s numbers with those of a real child molester. Since the self-confessed pedophile Thomas O’Carroll openly speaks of the ‘beauty’ of sexual relations with children he must have had LOTS and LOTS of them coming his way. Where are they? If you look up the internet you’ll be surprised to see NO information about any of his actual accusers – no victims found! The only reason they managed to jail him for a year or two was because some revolting children porn materials were found by the police in a safe vault of one Anglican priest which was not even in O’Carroll’s home (don’t know how they managed to prove that he had something to do with it).

    But if the experience is there where are the actual victims? The BBC news mentioned that both guys were frequent visitors to Eastern Europe in the 70s and 80s which was the time of the Iron Curtain and complete lack of communication between the police of both sides. So they committed crimes in one place and shared their experience in another… (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm)

    Why am I saying all that? Because the key to this problem is COMPLETE and TOTAL SECRECY of such crimes. It would be unfathomable for any of these criminals to say, God forbid, that they ‘give their bed for children to sleep in’. These people NEVER TALK about their crimes – they are so clever and secretive about their ‘activities’ that their immediate neighbors will be the last people to know what’s going on behind their fence.

    If that is the case one should be a complete lunatic to declare at every public forum that he loves children and allows a child to sleep in his bed if the kid wants it. Michael wasn’t a lunatic and it is exactly his unique openness about his attitude to children which makes him completely DIFFERENT from those people. The reasons for his behavior may give rise to various speculations but the main thing is clear about it – real molesters NEVER behave that way. Someone who believes himself even minimally guilty of such a crime will keep it hush-hush, will hide somewhere in a quiet corner and will do his best not to attract attention hoping that things will settle down as time goes by and everyone forgets…

    AND WHAT DOES MICHAEL DO? Only a few months after settling that unfortunate case with the Chandlers he speaks with Diane Sawyer and, barely suppressing his indignation with her questions, practically demands that she states her case clearly about those accusations. He once again confirms it that if children want it he will allow them no matter what other people think of it. He says it with the defiance of a man who is sure of his innocence and who is deeply insulted by all those hints:

    Diane Sawyer: I just want to… is it over? Are you gonna make sure it doesn’t happen again? I think, this is really the key thing people want to know.

    Michael: Is what over?

    Diane Sawyer: That there are not going to be more of these sleep-overs, in which people have to wonder.

    Michael: Nobody wonders when kids sleep over at my house. Nobody wonders.

    Diane Sawyer: But are they over? Are you… are you gonna watch out for it now?

    Michael: Watch out for what?

    Diane Sawyer: Just for the sake of the children and for everything you’ve been through.

    Michael: No! ’Cause, it’s all… it’s all moral and it’s all pure. I don’t even think that way, it’s not what’s in my heart…

    Diane Sawyer: So you’ll… you’ll do it again?

    Michael: I would never ever… Do what again?

    Diane Sawyer: I mean, you’ll have a child sleeping over.

    Michael: Of course! If they want.

    Lisa Marie: He has…

    Michael: It’s on the level of purity and love, and just innocence. Complete innocence. If you’re talking about sex then that’s a nut. That’s not me! Go to the guy down the street ’cause it’s not Michael Jackson. It’s not what I’m interested in.”

    Those who know WHAT makes people really fearless will also know that it is only the TRUTH which can stand behind that incredible boldness.

    Like

  19. "Pixie Dust" permalink
    May 31, 2010 11:39 pm

    I truly believe Michael was innocent,when a man has a love for God that is so strong you know he speaks from his heart and soul.As no man that truly loves God would betray God.(Smile)

    Like

  20. Skeptic permalink
    May 31, 2010 10:18 pm

    There’s no way to go round the issue – Michael was partly to blame for this. If he hadn’t slept in the same bed as that boy then all of this would not have happened. Him being the adult – he should have set some boundaries.

    One could argue this was down to his naivity – however after 1993 he should never have let a child sleep in his room, period.

    If your child said to you that they had been molested and you knew they had slept in the same room as the alleged abuser – would it be absurd to believe that they might be telling the truth? …I don’t think so.

    Fact is, he wasn’t just accused twice but 5 times (that I definately know of – this is stated in the Aphrodite Jones True Crimes documentary) – so you have to ask yourself why didn’t he stop allowing children to sleep in his bedroom?

    Alot of people keep saying that people who believe he molested boys have no foundation – but as you can see, what I have said above raises some doubt.

    Now i’m not saying he did – I wasn’t there so I couldn’t possibly know – but you have to admit that it could be possible – just like it could be possible that he didn’t. Nobody here can be 100% sure either way.

    Like

  21. "Pixie Dust" permalink
    May 31, 2010 9:17 pm

    Exactly I know that Michael has a soft heart especially for children,unfortunatly kids also know .As the saying goes children are the best judge of character.They definiatly know how to twist and arm to get what they want.Pure innocence.

    Like

  22. May 31, 2010 8:50 pm

    Jan, this Airtrooper guy doesn’t know exactly what he is talking about. Blaming Michael for ‘sleeping with boys’ he says: “He admitted this in either the Martin Bashir or Ed Bradley interview, I can’t remember which, in which he described it as “sweet”.

    Not really knowing what they are talking is typical for the majority of Michael’s haters – they’ve always heard ‘something’, ‘somewhere’ from ‘somebody’. I see only one way of handling these people – give them the definite wording. As far as I remember Michael didn’t say anything about ‘sleeping with boys’ in an interview with Bashir – he said he didn’t sleep in the same bed, he always slept on the floor, but even if he did it there wouldn’t be anything bad about it as it would all be about giving hot milk and things like that.

    By the way it is a big question who slept with whom there – those children crawled into every place where Michael was, even in spite of his wish. When children get into their parents’ bed or fall asleep in their father’s arms nobody says that ‘parents sleep with their children’ – it is the wording which is completely wrong here! Of course he wasn’t their parent – he was more like a big brother to them or a foster parent – and are foster parents allowed to let their child into their bed if the child demands it?

    Michael’s only problem was that he couldn’t say NO to anyone (he admitted it himself in those tapes with Shmuley). Would Michael be able to say NO to MacCauley Culkin, for example? Particularly if the latter simulated a cold and asked for some hot milk to be brought to him for his sore throat? My personal opinion is that those little monkeys could twist Michael round their little finger and could get out of him anything they wanted.

    I’ve read MacCauley’s testimony at the 2005 trial and he said they would play games half the night and all of them would fall asleep everywhere around the bedroom and often in their daytime clothes – which is absolutely non-pedagogical of course but nothing criminal either. NO DOORS CLOSED, NO NOTHING – and MacCauley’s father would know where to find him in the morning and would enter the room without asking to wake him up to ride horses.

    Like

  23. Tracene Osbourne permalink
    May 31, 2010 8:49 pm

    Jan I truly agree with you 100% (Smiles)

    Like

  24. Jan permalink
    May 31, 2010 6:37 pm

    some people just won’t listen when it come to MJ it’s totally unbelievable and unjustified:

    http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?page=1&thread=232def5f-a786-4262-b8a6-d77592b5843c&board=00000071-0301-0000-0000-000000000000

    Like

  25. Samantha M. permalink
    May 25, 2010 10:28 am

    Thanks for having touched on the subject of this despicable book and its equally despicable author including those so-called ‘respected’ academics who ‘endorse’ this load of trash.
    I agree with Suzy’s sentiment,exactly what kind of a world are we living in????

    Like

  26. Suzy permalink
    May 24, 2010 3:00 pm

    I appreciate the job you are doing here. This is very well researched and also scary. I’d like to add my small, but personal experience with all this. When I saw the book of O’Caroll and realized what it was (pedophile propaganda) I contacted several people and authorities whom I thought could help to stop this. I deliberately didn’t focus on Michael, because I don’t think he is the major issue here, although it’s bad enough that his name is getting dragged into all this. In my mails I focused on the very fact that any pedophile propaganda needs to be stopped. So I e-mailed to the publisher of the book, I also e-mailed to Julie Ovington, a local politician (local where the book is about to be published), plus this organization: http://www.cpiu.us/

    NO answer from anywhere! Absolutely nothing! Not even, a “we are looking into it” or a “we can’t do anything about it”. NOTHING! Silence. Which made me wonder and reading this article of yours makes me wonder even more.

    What world are we living in?

    Like

  27. May 19, 2010 5:35 am

    Wonderful and terrible investigation at the same time. We have to organize a very serious campaign about this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: