Whole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth CoalitionWhole Truth Coalition
FREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLD
FREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLDFREE MINDS BUILDING A BETTER WORLD
Robert Green, the man who was brave enough to speak out about the horrific paedophile rapes of Hollie Greig, the most probable murder of her uncle Robert Greig to “shut him up”, and the sickening wall of silence by the Scottish establishment, has been arrested. We believe the charge is Breach of the Peace.
We understand Robert is in court today Monday 15 Feb 2010 – not an Aberdeen Court as might be expected, but Stonehaven Court which is some 50 miles south of Aberdeen. Staff in Aberdeen Court admitted the handling of Robert Green is most unusual. A judicial scam?
The whole thing stinks of a cover-up using the ‘law’ to threaten and imprison a man fighting for the truth about the terrible abuse of Hollie Greig. We also understand that law firm Levy & McRae (who have and are still threatening the UKColumn) are the Legal Advisers to every mainstream newspaper in Scotland with the one exception of “The Scotsman”. It is also of interest to the public that Mr Peter Watson, head of litigation Levy & McRae boasts an interesting CV which includes Dunblane.
Picking up on the Hollie Greig abuse scandal, the highly regarded Scottish Law Reporter states the following
[Scottish] Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is linked to Lord Advocate’s choice of lawyers. Amazingly, it can now be revealed the Scottish Government’s current Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has long standing ties to Levy & McRae, the same law firm used by the Lord Advocate to threaten media publication of the Hollie Greig case. Mr MacAskill is now known to have served his apprenticeship at Levy & McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor.
Levy & McRae sent out legal threats to websites, newspapers, & online forums. Mr MacAskill could not be contacted for any comment on developments in the case, and officials said he would not answer any questions over his previous involvement with Levy & McRae. However, several MSPs alerted to the fact the Lord Advocate has used the same firm which once employed the Justice Secretary himself, have now vowed to investigate the goings on in the Hollie Greig case. An aide to an MSP today said there may well be a problem for the Justice Secretary since the Lord Advocate has used his old law firm, throwing up the question of conflict of interest and whether the intervention against the media by Levy & McRae “may have implied Scottish Government support for the law firm’s work on behalf of the Lord Advocate.
Abusive
Levy & McRae were abusive and threatening in their calls to the UKColumn and they have sent a number of communications alleging that they act on behalf of the Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini. Levy & McRae refuse to state whether they act for Mrs Agiolini in her official position and capacity, or her capacity as a private individual. Normally reliable sources close to the Scottish Government allege that Angiolini has been using Scottish taxpayers money to pay Levy & McRae – including legal threats to Google over their exposure of the Hollie Greig paedophile abuse. Levy & McRae’s actions are further compounded by their recent reference to Sheriff Bucchanan. who was named by Robert Green in his public statement. It is not clear if Levy & McRae are also acting for Bucchanan.
The UKColumn considers that it is in the overwhelming interest to publish the letters we have received from Levy & McRae, together with our replies. The general public must be aware of not only the details of the Hollie Greig paedophile case, but also the legal wheeling and dealing being used to silence press and media. With what objective? To prevent the truth of paedophile abuse of children being exposed? What have these people got to hide?
Since Ms Angiolini is in charge of criminal prosecutions in Scotland, it appears that she can now prosecute those who dare to question her position and role in handling paedophile cases. Such a situation is not just unhealthy it is close to a soviet style dictatorship, which threatens the safety and welfare of every man, woman and child in Scotland.
NESCPC
Deeper research reveals other strange facts in the Hollie Greig abuse scandal. Colin McKerracher, the Chief Constable of Grampian Police – the force which failed to investigate Hollie Greig’s abuse, but can arrest Robert Greig for speaking out – is Chairman of the North East of Scotland Child Protection Committee NESCPC. He is the main signatory of NESCPC’s 2008 – 2009 business plan
The mission of NESCPC is:
that the core business of the NESCPC continues to be about ‘child protection’ as opposed to the wider ‘protecting children’ agenda but that there should be links with other agendas such as Getting it Right for Every Child. ‘Child Protection’ is the recognition of, and response to, concerns that a child or young person is suffering or likely to suffer from significant harm.
Child protection is a big thing for Mr McKerracher it seems unless the child concerned is Hollie Greig. Or is there another interest by Grampian Police?
NESCPC budgeted for an expenditure of £276,146 in their business plan. The very mention of children, money and business plans makes UKColumn staff uneasy.
UK Wide?
Interestingly enough, against the background of the Hollie Greig paedophile abuse case, Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday 14 Feb 2010, reported on homosexual pornography and politics in his article ”Loathe Gordon? Wait till this lot get into power.” (Scroll two thirds down the page.)
Hitchens wrote…
How long can David Cameron’s bodyguard of media toadies continue to protect the Tory Party from the criticism it so richly deserves?
…
But my favourite bit is the claim that the local party computer crashed because it was overloaded with homosexual pornography.
Not exactly the party of the people, is it? And if you loathe Gordon Brown, then just imagine what this lot will be like after a couple of years in government, if they can’t even get a grip on themselves in opposition.
Well revealed Mr. Hitchens, and just to keep the pot boiling, the UKColumn wrote an article in October 2007, which we will reprint on the website soon, exposing links between the website of Francis Maude MP, then Tory Chairman, and homosexual porn sites.
Mindful that perverts appear in pin striped suits, and returning to the case of Hollie Greig, we can ask one simple question. How is it that Hollie’s paedophile abuse case was never fully investigated by Grampian Police and never pressed by Angiolini’s office, yet the same authorities can arrest Robert Green for daring to speak out? Is the Scottish elite frightened of something? You bet.
But the truth is emerging fast on a can of worms that may yet claim scalps in very high places and in very big law firms.
As the Hollie Greig paedophile abuse case grows we are seeing the true state of our political and judicial elite – in Scotland and in England. Please keep doing all you can to spread the word. Publicity and understanding by the wider general public is key to exposing these sick individuals.
In the October 2009 print edition of the UK Column, we reported in our article “BBC Hides Truth of Girl’s Sexual Abuse Ordeal” the shocking ordeal of Downs Syndrome girl, Hollie Greig, who was horribly abused by an Aberdeen paedophile ring, over a period of ten years. After investigating and planning a documentary, the BBC abruptly dropped the case, despite admitting that Hollie was a reliable and accurate witness. It is important to stress that both the police and qualified medical experts have described Hollie as a competent and entirely honest witness.
From the age of just six, Hollie was repeatedly sexually abused by her father, Denis Charles Mackie. Later, Mackie began sharing his daughter with a gang of paedophile “swingers” that has been operating in Aberdeen for many years. The identities of a further seven child victims are already known. There is no question that the gang are well-connected, efficiently organised and totally ruthless. Our frightening story is that they are protected by individuals of “high standing” within the Scottish establishment.
In 2000, after 14 years of terrified silence, Hollie eventually told her mother, Anne, about the abuses. Formal statements were made to Grampian Police, providing all the horrifying details and the names of the abusers. They included a senior Scottish Sheriff, a policeman, social workers, a nurse, a solicitor, an accountant, a fire officer, married couples and others. Some of the rapes were carried out at the homes of these individuals, including that of the Sheriff’s sister. Other children were sometimes involved, including children of the paedophiles themselves.
The latest chapters in this astonishing and horrifying story about Hollie, and the seven other abused children, have taken place over the past few weeks. The key issues are a continued refusal by Grampian police to fully investigate the overwhelming evidence for the paedophile rapes, and a wall of silence by the Scottish establishment.
Whilst there has been some general Scottish media coverage, notably in The Firm and the Aberdeen Press and Journal, the media has been largely silent on what must be one of Scotlands worst top level paedophile scandles. A key figure in the press silence is the Lord Advocate, in her former role as Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, when in 2000 she is alleged to have effectively buried the case. Was this to prevent her associate and most influential member of the paedophile ring, Sheriff X, from being investigated, along with the other named members of the fifteen-strong rape gang?
Elish Angiolini, the Scottish Lord Advocate, is in charge of all criminal prosecutions. She is alleged to have reacted immediately to public calls for a full police investigation, by pressurising against publication. Subsequently, and under considerable duress, The Firm published an apology. Shortly afterwards the Press and Journal ran a story accurately describing the case, mentioning a sheriff and police officer without identifying them. Angiolini was not discussed in the article.
Mrs Angiolini`s role in the case recently aroused further suspicion, when it was claimed that she had used a private law firm, Levy and McRae, to issue warnings against all major Scottish editors, threatening them with legal action if any mention was made of her involvement in the case. Suspicious and angry, many individuals directly working to obtain justice for Hollie, as well as a growing number of the general public, now consider that key establishment figures, many with direct responsibility for criminal investigations and justice, have made a concerted and continuous effort to conceal the facts from the people of Scotland. Despite the pressure, investigators and campaigners for Hollie continue to stress that they hold documentary proof of the Lord Advocate’s actions, as well as proof that she has repeatedly failed to tell the whole truth about her connections with the Hollie abuse case for whatever reason.
The senior partner in the Law Firm, Peter Watson, who is also head of litigation, is understood to have refused to comment as to whether the firm’s fees have been billed to Mrs Angiolini personally, or if they are being paid by the Scottish taxpayer.
Mrs Angiolini’s office decided in December 2009 that they would not pursue the case due to “insufficient evidence.” Corroborating evidence by private investigators and researchers indicates that other than Hollie, not one of the twenty-four named abusers and victims has even been questioned by Grampian Police.
This follows the pattern of 2000, when the crimes and perpetrators were first reported. At that time, the police later admitted that only one of the gang, Hollie`s father, had even been interviewed.
The UK Column is aware that investigators have just received from the Crown Office, after years of rebuttals, the Post Mortem report of Robert David Greig, brother of Hollie`s mother Anne. Robert died mysteriously in an alleged car fire in 1997. Despite extreme inconsistencies in witness statements and circumstances, no inquest took place and the cause of death was officially due to smoke inhalation.
The Post Mortem stated that Robert has suffered considerable damage to his skull, two broken ribs and a broken sternum. Informal professional medical opinion so far is of the view that Robert had been severely beaten, had alcohol forced down his throat and then thrown into the burning vehicle.
Although this was not known at the time, Hollie, in 2001, told her mother that just prior to his unexplained death, Robert had caught Hollie`s father sexually abusing her.
The campaign for justice for Hollie, and other vulnerable victims of paedophiles in England and South Wales, not only goes on, but has intensified as outraged members of the public have flooded Aberdeen with leaflets naming all current members of the gang, including the head of a special school. All Aberdeen Councillors and MPs have also been alerted, but with little effect. There appears to be a conspiracy of establishment silence where the abuse of Hollie is concerned. Many people in Aberdeen are asking just who possesses the courage and decency to stand up against these staggering and shocking crimes against most vulnerable members of society? Certainly not their elected national and local representatives.
UK Column volunteers continue to be shocked by the quantity and quality of evidence reaching them on the subject of paedophile and sexual abuse against young and vulnerable children in care and otherwise. The common theme is that victims and their supporters are unable to get any real support from Members of Parliament, Local Councillors, the Judiciary, Police and other ‘officials’. Many describe the creation of a wall of silence, often accompanied by targetted intimidation against the victims.
Recently a policeman personally told the UK Column that police had themselves experienced their own paedopile investigations suddenly being dropped by senior police officers. He added “If you want to really get to the paedophiles you should look at Westminster”. The implications of this statement are frightening – a paedophile ring amongst our political leaders – the political elite which has control of education and Social Services? The general public needs to open its eyes and confront this evil – and fast.
Officers are being encouraged to sign up to a course by Tom Silver, who is better known as a ‘celebrity hypnotherapist’ on American chat shows, in an attempt to gain more information from suspects.
Mr Silver, who has appeared on the Montel Williams and Ricki Lake chat shows on US TV, where he gave a guest an “orgasmic handshake”, normally charges £1,000-a-day for courses in his home country.
But after being contacted by PC Mark Hughes, of Cheshire police, Mr Silver - a master hypnotist - agreed a ‘free one day taster course’ for cops before they sign up to his six day course, costing £1,500.
The course will teach students ‘cutting edge techniques’, including an introduction into Electroencephalography (EEG) and will be paid for out of police coffers, according to respected industry magazine Police Review.
EEG is the recording of electrical activity in the brain gathered by placing sensors on the scalp which monitor ‘neuron activity’ - which cops believe can help ‘encourage’ suspects and witnesses to tell the truth.
A bill proposed by the British government and now making its way through parliament would impose the most burdensome and intrusive regulation on homeschooling in the English-speaking world.
“This bill is breathtaking in its scope and reflects a perverse level of suspicion towards parents who home-educate their children,” says HSLDA Staff Attorney and Director of International Relations Michael Donnelly. “If this bill were to pass, it would be the most restrictive and overbearing law in the English-speaking world. It places total discretion in the hands of local educational officials to determine whether or not they will ‘register’ a home education program and would require criminal background checks for parents before they could begin homeschooling their own children.”
The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a UK-based “think tank” and registered charity, has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations. The scheme is being promoted as a more cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions than investing in alternative energy sources and offers a way for elitist racists to feel ethical in their quest to exterminate the third world masses.
A BBC News article on the proposal dutifully reports the OPT’s proposal and their justifications for proposing it. They note that the program is designed to fund “contraception” programs in poor nations, a term that helpfully obscures the fact that such programs—including those run by FPA, one of the agencies listed as a supporting organization of this new program—have used bribes to get poor men and women to volunteer for sterilization. The article does, however, allow space for a detractor of the proposal to point out that even if one does accept that limiting carbon emissions is necessary (which it is not), the focus on limiting emissions of people in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is in itself nonsensical: “Carbon emissions from people in much of sub-Saharan Africa are so low that they can barely be counted.”
What this error exposes, however, is not that the OPT has set its sights on the wrong target. In fact, they are simply introducing the idea as a politically expedient precedent which will eventually be expanded to include the developed world as well. Indeed, this is merely the latest such proposal from the group, which has previously said that the world’s population must be cut by as much as half and the UK’s population reduced to as little as 17 million in order to reach “sustainable levels.” The group’s patrons include world renowned environmental campaigners, academics and media figures like Jane Goodall, James Lovelock and Sir David Attenborough.
One patron of the Optimum Population Trust who stands out is Jonathon Porritt, a well-known baronet and a green campaigner who advises the likes of Prince Charles on environmental matters. He has long argued the link between “environmental sustainability” and enforced abortions. He once claimed to be “unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.” He is also on the board of BBC Wildlife magazine, perhaps explaining why BBC News tends to treat every pronouncement from the OPT as if it were a major policy announcement (see this and this and this for starters).
‘Parents who want to accompany their children to Christmas carol services and other festive activities are being officially vetted for criminal records in case they are paedophiles. In the latest expansion of the government’s child protection agenda, parents are checked against a database of people banned from working with children for sex offences and for other reasons.
Among those affected are parents at a village primary school who have been told they must be vetted before they can accompany pupils on a 10-minute walk to a morning carol service at the local church. Other primaries have instituted vetting for parents attending Christmas discos on school premises. Some schools require checks on parents who volunteer to walk with children from the school to post letters to Father Christmas.’
Let me tell you about William. He is a very bright child and comes from a nice home. William is extremely polite, courteous and a very normal healthy child. William has a friend called Zoe. She is Asian but William and Zoe are inseparable in the Surrey school they go to near Bagshot.
However last week, Zoe and William had an argument in which William used the term‘Zoe Bin Laden’. Zoe is not a Moslem but a Thomasian Christian, one of the oldest Christian sects in the world alongside the Copts in Egypt..
(Saint Thomas is credited with introduction of Christianity in India in 52 AD[3]. Most of the Christians in India are converted from Hindu or Muslim. 70% of Indian Christian Population is Dalit, who like many other Hindu converts have even after conversion continued with their caste system. According to the 3rd century text Acts of Thomas, (written in Syriac), when the apostles were in Jerusalem and divided the world among them, it was decided that Saint Thomas would go to India. Saint Thomas then arrived in North West India, and baptized King Gondophares and his brother, thereby heralding the beginning of Christianity in India.[11] However, the Acts of Thomas may be apocrypha, and may not be a historical account, and its characters may have been influenced by the Indo-Parthian Kingdom that existed in north-western India).
Zoe’s mother, Maria, received a phone call about ‘a very serious matter indeed and it could not be discussed on the phone and the Police might be involved, subject to our discussions today- that is if you come right now?’ William’s mother Carol also received a phone call about ‘a very serious matter’.
Almost panicking, both mothers rushed to the local school. I have changed the locations because the matter is still being investigated. Be content that it is somewhere in Surrey close to where I live. I know both women personally and both are well educated and well balanced. At the school they were almost frogmarched into the presence of the School Manager who sat behind a desk accompanied by a Police Officer- in fact I learned later there were two of them.
William’s motherwas already there but her son had been isolated in a special room away from all other children. The school refused to allow his mother access to him. She complained but was only allowed to see a very frightened and tearful little boy after she had been ‘interrogated’ (in her own words) by the officers and the Manager.
Zoe’s mother was made to wait while William’s mother was seen first. It was obvious the school were interested in William’s mother’s attitudes and that of his father, a car dealer. Eventually she was asked to wait outside and Zoe’s mother was asked to go in, where it was explained that the ‘very serious matter’ concerned her daughter being called ‘Zoe Bin Laden’.
Trying not to laugh, Maria asked why should such a trivial childish bit of name calling result in such excessive behaviour by the school? The Manager replied that the school took racist incidents very seriously. The Police were not officially involved at that moment dependent upon their ‘preliminary inquiries.’
Maria asked the School Manager if this was ‘some kind of prank or perhaps a surprise birthday gram’ as it was her 43 birthday? It soon dawned upon her that the school was quite serious.
Maria is rather fiery by nature and does not suffer fools gladly. She like a lot of Indians is quite plain spoken.
‘Are you telling me that my daughter’s best friend is being accused of racism?’
‘Yes!’
‘Are you sick in the head Head Mistress- two five year old children for heaven’s sake? A child cannot differentiate between one race and another- he probably heard it on the radio or TV! Please tell me this is not a wind up?’
‘No it is not!’
Maria demanded to see her daughter immediately and despite refusals, the child was eventually brought to her. She took her daughter’s hand and removed her from the school. She told the school that she had no intention of returning her and that she would continue to play with William. The school said she could not do this and that matters might be made worse if she did so.
She asked if they were threatening her?
‘No but we might have to bring in the social services!’
It was then that she noticed her friend and William’s mother in the room with a crying child.
She entered the ‘quiet room’ where little William was incarcerated. The Manager tried to stop the friends having contact.
Mary told the woman to ‘shut up’ and went into see Carol and William. The little boy crying like mad hanging on to his mother for life and clearly terrified said, ‘I didn’t mean to be naughty mummy and auntie Carol, please tell the teacher that! Please mummy … I didn’t mean to be nasty to Zoe!’
The women immediately took the children despite protests of the school- the Police were clearly embarrassed apparently when it was clear the school was exagerating- and the women left the school. Neither William or Zoe will be returning.
Yesterday, both mothers received letters from Social Services to make an appointment to see the families concerned and both are now ‘under investigation’. The school also wrote a letter to Zoe stating that William’s remarks would ‘remain on his school record’.
In English Law a child under 10 years is incapable of committing a crime.
Brussels bureaucrats are plotting a massive expansion in the use of surveillance and controversial extradition powers, a report warned last night.
At the same time they will also increase their meddling in Britain’s justice system, it was claimed.
The EU wants to create its own version of the Home Office to oversee the policy changes, and even has plans to train a third of the police service to create a Blocwide ‘common culture of policing’.
There would be an increased sharing of British DNA, health and tax records with foreign governments and investigators, as well as the introduction of new Big Brother surveillance techniques.
Cash from the EU’s £1billion justice and home affairs budget is being used to look at whether CCTV cameras can be installed to predict whether somebody is about to commit a crime - not just to catch them if they do so.
The report, by the Open Europe think tank, details how the EU has already adopted swathes of surveillance powers. But it says once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified this will increase dramatically.
Analyst Stephen Booth said: ‘How can citizens expect their fundamental rights to liberty and independence from the state to be protected by unaccountable institutions which have a vested interest in creating more laws?
‘We are fast approaching a situation where the EU will have the full coercive machinery of a state but without the proper democratic controls or robust checks on power that citizens should expect.’
Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.
The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.
Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.
Mr Neather said there was a ‘driving political purpose’ behind Labour’s decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.
He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.
Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.
‘I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,’ he said.’
‘Today, the consultation period ends on government plans to impose new restrictions on the thousands of parents who educate their children at home. It is a consultation in name only, because the Government has already decided what it wants to do. Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, has accepted the recommendations of a review carried out by a former council chief called Graham Badman.
He concluded that since parents are clearly not to be trusted with the education of their children, they will have to register with the local authority, be subjected to inspection visits by Ofsted and submit a statement of how they intend to educate their child.’
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, has been told that she will not be allowed to bring up her own child, who she has already named Ben.
Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand the implications of getting married”.
She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.
After hearing the news, Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, who is 26 weeks pregnant, said: “I couldn’t believe it. I am so upset – I can’t stop crying.”
Mr McDougall, an artist, said he wants to take on full responsibility for his son but claims that he is powerless because he is not married to Miss Robertson.
He added: “Social Services are ruining our lives. As we are not married – because social workers would not let us marry – it seems I have no rights as a dad at all.
“Kerry’s gran is trying to apply for custody of Ben but social services have already told us it is unlikely she will be successful. We feel helpless.”
The trouble with establishing a dictatorship through stealth is that people both within and without the system begin to protest. Not everyone is afraid. Some speak their minds. Some fight. And when people fight, inevitably the truth starts to leak. Initially such leaks can be put down to “conspiracy theory,” or “eccentricity,” but eventually, as the dictatorship gets closer to fruition, the numbers of people seeing the truth are too great. It is at that point, that the establishment acts to silence the dissenters.
Maurice Kirk is one man who has caused that establishment no end of trouble
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Tel.: 01-8305792
Thursday 24 September 2009
Dear Mr Justice Clarke
May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.
May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-
1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;
2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan: Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)
3. The Government’s unlawful use of public funds
in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called ‘assurances’ from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;
4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements ‘containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill’, namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.
May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.
The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.
The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State ‘confirms its commitment to the European Union’ which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year’s referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.
You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.Nowhere in the Referendum Commission’s information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an ‘additional citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens’ rights and duties vis- a -vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.
One would think that there could be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the ‘information’ material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority.
You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the ‘additional’ citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU ‘citizenship’ of today.
It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the e4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.
As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage.
In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the ’solo runs’ on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this. Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several examples I could give, I quote two.
A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to ‘propose’ and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make ’suggestions’ only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person’s appointment being in the gift of the Big States.You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.
Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the ‘additional’ citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical ‘complementary’ EU citizenship we are said to have today was ‘of no great consequence’ either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.
You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them
‘the general explanation of the subject matter’ of the Constitutional Amendment ‘and of its text’, on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.
On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission’s failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts. Yours sincerely
Anthony Coughlan
Director
President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels
PS. I intend to release this letter to the media this weekend and to circulate it widely to Irish opinion-leaders
David will be speaking against Globalisation, The European Union and the Lisbon Treaty. He will be supported by Brian Gerrish speaking on ‘ Common Purpose’ and other speakers to be advised.
Once again, we have reached a crossroads in our history. We are confronted with an enemy that would destroy our nation and its people. We have some hard decisions to make - each of us, individually. Are you prepared to make them?
The British Constitution Group’s call for Lawful Rebellion now moves up a notch and our campaign ‘Wanted – 1 million rebellious Britons’ has commenced, to be formally declared at our conference in London on the 13th June.
If you share our ambition to take back control of our country, then we need your commitment and attendance at this conference, at which we will outline our strategy to build our campaign into a force to be reckoned with.
There is a national mood for rebellion shared by patriots the length and breadth of the country. This must be harnessed under a single campaign with carefully defined objectives in order to win the war to claim back our sovereign right to govern ourselves.
Make no mistake about it, this is a war.
Fought by our enemies (within this country) with the weapons of lies, deceit, subterfuge and betrayal, their aim is to destroy the prinicple of the nation state, and replace it with regionalised global dictatorship. In order to win, we must be prepared to tell the truth about our plight to fellow Britons, the majority of whom exist in an awareness vacuum or a state of abstract denial.
We cannot go to war without an army and ‘Wanted – 1 million rebellious Britons’ is the foundation to building that army. We know that millions of our fellow countrymen and women share our views but most have been rendered impotent, convinced that there is nothing that we (the majority) can do to challenge the authority of a duplicitous minority.
Our task is to cajole, encourage, persuade, prod, push and insist that the nation rally to our cause and sign up to lawful rebellion as the only means by which we can now take back control of our country.
An honest majority can impose their will, peacefully and lawfully, on the dishonest minority - if they have the collective will to do so. It is our challenge, indeed our duty, to rally the nation around this cause.
We need ordinary Britons in their masses to unite behind our campaign. We need to invoke our Constitution, restate our right to govern ourselves and educate a dumbed-down populous to the reality of their virtual enslavement - a harsh fact that few will recognise or are prepared to accept as true despite overwhelming evidence.
We are over-regulated, over-taxed, spied on, burdened by bureaucracy and political correctness, to the extent that we are even told the words and phrases that we can and cannot utter. Thieves, muggers and drug dealers escape with meaningless cautions, whilst the law abiding majority are fined and harassed by a militia-like officialdom who themselves take orders from compliant and controlled strata of middle mangers with an inflated sense of self-importance, hand-picked for their enthusiasm for social engineering and their busy-body mentality.
These people must be challenged; made to realise that they are working to an agenda of destruction, in which moral values are abandoned, families devalued and society fragmented and manipulated. Whilst we are all caught up and distracted in the chaos so inflicted, the way is clear for the power elites to build their edifice from which they can look down and control us.
Each one of us should know and take heart that we are pushing back the tide of deceit. The elite’s plans are exposed - never before has the collective political establishment (the puppets of the elite) been so despised and distrusted.
We know our enemies’ strengths and we know they are enormously powerful, but we also know their weaknesses. We know that ultimately our power once harnessed is much greater than theirs. Our power so harnessed is their greatest fear.
Our power comes from our numbers and our ability to funnel these into a single campaign with the objective of taking back control. Our ability to harness this power comes from our preparedness to tell the truth about our predicament, to alert the wider public and fire their passion for freedom and true democracy. They know they are being conned by a dishonest and self-serving elite, they just need to know that there is a way in which they can be empowered. We must offer the direction and inspiration for others to follow. It is up to YOU to carry that message to the wider audience.
Do you have the courage to do so?
If you are willing to play a part in reclaiming our national sovereignty then you will need to grasp the truth of the situation, which is that the three main political parties are controlled by a global elite… whose agenda will not be disrupted one iota by elections, no matter who wins. The Brown, Cameron, Clegg show is just that… a play in which the actors create an illusion that they are in charge, but in reality it is the directors behind the scenes, hidden from our view, who are firmly in control and who will not be revealed to us until the final curtain falls – by which time it will be too late.
We are calling for our Constitution to be reinstated and our laws to be upheld, but even these are useless in the face of tyranny and oppression – ultimately they require the people to stand up and defend them.
Prof Julian Le Grand, the architect of a clutch of New Labour policies such as baby bonds, is calling for marriage to be the legal “default” setting for new parents.
Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child’s birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair’s former Downing Street health adviser, said.
Those who later decide to separate would have to go to court to seek a divorce in exactly the same way as a couple who had married formally in church or a register office.
The London School of Economics professor, who is also chairman of Health England, argued that the idea would make family units more secure.
Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP, rejected it as “ludicrous” and warned that it could spell the death of marriage.
The academic has attracted controversy in the past with calls for smokers to be forced to buy permits before they can buy cigarettes and the introduction of separate supermarket checkouts for alcohol to put people off buying drink.
‘A baby was placed into care and is facing adoption after a psychologist misdiagnosed the mother’s mental state. The child has been in foster care for six months even though experts have said that the mother posed no immediate risk. A psychologist told Ipswich County Court this week that she had inaccurately assessed the mother as having factitious illness, formerly known as Munchausen’s by proxy.
That assessment resulted in Suffolk County Council putting the baby on the childcare protection register. The diagnosis was based on accusations that the mother had made up illnesses for her son from another relationship, which she denied. The diagnosis was changed after a psychiatrist said that there was no evidence that the mother had fabricated anything about her son.’
EU and Nato help should be called upon to boost security at the London 2012 Olympics, an influential group of peers has said.
Lord Jopling, chairman of the European Union committee, urged the Government to begin talks with the EU Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) civil protection unit “as a matter of urgency”, and expressed “surprise” that this has not already been taken in hand.
“It is increasingly clear that the 2012 Olympics could be a prime target for terrorists and it is vital the Government takes every possible step to ensure other EU member states are fully prepared to assist the UK in the case of a potential attack,” he said
PARENTS should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise.
Instead, any discussion of values should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called “amoral”.
Talking to Your Teenager About Sex and Relationships will be distributed in pharmacies from next month as part of an initiative led by Beverley Hughes, the children’s minister.
‘For most of the past century, Britain’s secret state bugged, blacklisted and spied on leftists, trade unionists and peace campaigners, as well as Irish republicans and anyone else regarded as a “subversive” threat to the established order.
That was all supposed to have been brought to a halt in the wake of the end of the cold war in the early 1990s. MI5 now boasts it has ended its counter-subversion work altogether, having other jihadist fish to fry (it will have soon doubled its staffing and budget on the back of the 9/11 backlash).
Whether those claims should be taken at face value must be open to question. But it now turns out that other arms of the secret state have in any case been stepping up to the plate to fill the gap in the market.’
Below is the text of a letter sent to all Common Purpose Employees
Also a chronological series of emails between Justin Walker an Joanna Thorpe of ‘Common Purpose’
To all employees of Common Purpose, please read:
My friends,
You are, I’m sure, already aware that your charity is controversial to a growing number of people. Now, it may be that you are not bothered by this and that you have been reassured by internal memos sent out by Julia Middleton and her central team, but I feel I must warn you that the Charity’s inability to defend itself publicly when asked to do so by a TV channel, who very recently allowed air time to Brian Gerrish, one of your main detractors, is strange to say the least and not what you would expect from a respectable charity. Please watch this http://www.tpuc.org/node/538 and see for yourself the severe allegations being made against the organisation you work for.
As you will see from the emails below, I have attempted to persuade the Charity to accept their ‘Right of Reply’ made by the presenter of the programme. To date, I have had no reply. If Common Purpose has absolutely nothing to hide, then it should readily and enthusiastically accept this offer to restore the Charity’s good name. It would be even better if Julia Middleton had the courage to debate live with Brian Gerrish and so sort out these allegations properly.
There are now millions of people in this country who know that the planned Orwellian European Union Superstate, after the full ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is just a matter of time…..a case of ‘when’ not’ if’. However, there are now hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people who know that ‘Fifth Columnists’ are actively weakening the UK internally and who are preparing, behind the scenes, new government structures, putting in place ‘new leaders’ or Quislings for when this dreadful time happens. Well, I have to tell you, the good people of this country are organising and Common Purpose, unless it publicly clears its name, will be brought to justice and account under Common Law. Do not be surprised if you see citizen arrests of Common Purpose employees and graduates as we seek to flush out and expose the treason and criminal activities being done against our country.
Please, I urge you most earnestly, if you have absolutely nothing to hide, will you please take up this offer by Edge Media TV to clear yourselves of the accusations being made against you. Failure to do so will mean we reserve our Common Law right to do the decent, lawful and honest thing to save our country.
As you can see from the message below, I contacted you back in June of last year about the attacks on Common Purpose and how astounded I was that this ‘charity’ that you work for was refusing to clear its name in the courts as any proper charity would. Last week I saw on the Edge Media TV Channel an interview with Brian Gerrish who put forward a compelling and convincing case that your charity is, without doubt, taking part in treasonous and criminal activities (http://www.tpuc.org/node/538). The presenter of the programme, Theo Chalmers, offered repeatedly a ‘right of reply’ to Common Purpose to defend itself at a future date. I earnestly hope that you will take up this offer…..ideally you should agree to a live debate with Brian Gerrish so that we can sort out once and for all if there is any substance to Mr Gerrish’s allegations. Failure by yourselves to take up this offer, which would cost the charity very little if anyth ing financially, will make ordinary decent people believe you have something to hide and will leave you open to actions under Common Law to bring Common Purpose to justice.
As you can see, I have again CC’d my MP, Tim Farron, who I’m sure will be interested in how you respond to this.
Thank you for your email of Monday 16 June and concern about Common Purpose’s reputation.
Common Purpose’s reputation is being attacked by a small number of persistent people, who are making a number of untrue claims about our organisation, which range from Common Purpose grooming children for sex to being a pro-EU criminal organisation working to secretly abolish the UK state. You will have noticed that some of the criticism also comes from organisations like the British National Party. There is no doubt that these claims are defamatory.
We take the protection of our reputation very seriously and continually seek advice about how to handle, and review our strategy for dealing with, these untrue claims. Sadly the internet today is the perfect medium for all sorts of conspiracy theories. Common Purpose is very happy to discuss the work we do, and respect anyone’s right not to agree with or support it, but it is important to us that the facts are correct. As such, we took the steps to create a website to communicate the facts and to correct the untruths about the organisation. Setting up a website is actually a fairly comm on response. We trust that people will read the claims and make their own informed decision about the m otivation of those people who have written them. From reading the www.commonpurpose.net site you will understand we are small/medium sized educational charity and our funding structure is different to the large fundraising charities like Macmillan. You can read our accounts here:
We continue to monitor the need to take legal action, and the expense involved in this. We are of course, in touch with the Charity Commission, as our regulator, about these claims too.
To: Joanna Thorpe
Marketing Director
Common Purpose
Dear Ms. Thorpe,
Your Charity is clearly under attack on a very large scale if you have had to publish a section ”Is it true that Common Purpose…..” here on www.commonpurpose.net (Tim, please scroll down to the bottom to find it). I know of no other charity that has had to resort to such measures.
Back in 1999, I worked for Macmillan Cancer Relief as a fundraiser. During an internal ’teach-in’ day for the Charity in Manchester, I remember talking to Nick Young, the Charity’s then Chief-Executive (now Sir Nicholas Young, CEO of the British Red Cross) and during our chat I remember asking him what would Macmillan do if somebody criticised the Charity to the point that it damaged the Charity’s good name and the ability of the Charity to fundraise effectively. He said, without any hesitation whatsoever, that Macmillan would first make sure it was not at fault; then it would try and reason with the source of criticism; and, if that failed, would then resort to legal action to protect the Charity’s good name and reputation.
I have to say that I am astounded that you have not attempted to silence, through legal action, your critics. If you are a bona fide charity, as you claim to be, with absolutely nothing to hide, then you would have taken your critics to court by now for slander and libel. Common Purpose’s excuse for not doing so, which I read in a copy of a letter you wrote recently to one of your clients, was that you didn’t want to give th e ‘oxygen&nb sp;of publicity’ to your critics. This is pathetic. If you are being maliciously targeted, then you are duty bound to seek legal redress to restore your good name - this is what is expected of any decent charity with absolutely nothing to hide. One gets the feeling that you would not like your critics to have their day in court under oath.
I await your reply with interest.
You will see that I have copied this letter to my MP, Tim Farron, who will also be interested in your response to this letter.Yours sincerely
“British jobs for British workers” simply cannot happen while we’re still in the prison of nations that is the European Union. For we’ve signed away, without any consultation with the British people or, whisper it if you dare, any vote or referendum on the subject, our right as a country to decide who comes to this country or who works in this country.’
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.
“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”
The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians “have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents’ decisions are in their children’s best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Why is the BBC obsessed with making working-class people seem racist?
Watching BBC news bulletins yesterday, it was very easy to believe claims that the current spate of wildcat strikes is inherently motivated by xenophobia. Constant emphasis was placed on objections to “foreign workers” per se, rather than fear of workers’ wages being undercut, which would seem to be the real issue.
The 10 o’clock bulletin gave us a good example. A voiceover by the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, (about 12 mins in) told us: “Beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straightforward xenophobia.” Cut to woolly-hatted worker telling BBC reporter: “These Portugese and Eyeties – we can’t work alongside of them.” There we are: northern white bloke refusing to work with foreigners. Case closed.
Except, watch Paul Mason’s report on Newsnight, featuring the same interview (about 4:30 in):
These Portugese and eyeties – we can’t work alongside of them: we’re segregated from them. They’re coming in in full companies.
Even taking into account the dodginess of the use of “Eyetie” to refer to an Italian person, one has to admit that it would be very difficult to portray the second, full quote as racist or xenophobic. It’s a statement addressing basic workplace issues – British workers literally cannot work alongside foreign workers, as they are separated. There really is no excuse for editing and presenting a quote in such a misrepresentative manner, unless one is setting out to prove something – namely, that working-class people are racists.
A Union Flag at a police station was replaced by a gay rights flag in a move that has triggered a fresh row over political correctness.
The rainbow flag was hoisted outside Limehouse police station in East London to mark Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender history month in February.
Metropolitan Police rules state that only the Union Flag and its own flag can fly from force buildings.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the new Met commissioner, angrily ordered the flag to be taken down after being told of the controversy it had caused.
One officer said: ‘I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw it.
‘The police are playing politics again. I can understand the need to show acceptance to people of all sexualities - but the Union Jack should never be taken down.’
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the decision to display the rainbow flag for the first day of LGBT history month had been taken by the borough commander, Chief Superintendent Paul Rickett.
But he added: ‘The Met policy is that only two flags should be flown: the Union Flag or the Met flag. The commissioner reaffirmed that he expects all staff to adhere to this policy.
Entries (RSS)