Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reports on the many instances that the police refused to pursue allegations against Jimmy Savile due to his status and affiliation(s?). Savile was effectively above the law because it was not applied to hime
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the watchdog that looks at how the police function, looked for evidence of reports, complaints and intelligence that had been gathered on Savile down the years.
They didn’t find a great deal – just seven potentially actionable complaints which emerged during a series of incidents. The inspectorate lists a further series of incidents in which people tried to report Savile and, in effect, failed to get the police to record what they were being told. …
I want it on record that I have experienced the same in trying to get the police to investigate allegations of very serious crimes against former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Ian Blair. I have made serious allegations to the police which are simply ignored. This is exactly the same as with Savile – he’s protected through the police’s refusal to record or take action on any credible allegations against him. Similarly, again it is because of his status and affiliation(s?) although I’m sure that Blair can’t now have any friends and must be universally hated for the useless little shit that he is and has been.
Which brings us to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Why are police treated so differently when they are accused and investigated? Shouldn’t they simply be investigated like any other criminals? Why are they told of accusations against them?
On Christmas Eve, I claimed to have discovered a nasty spook. A spook is a term for a spy – somebody who presents a fake image for unsavoury purposes, usually to deceive.
I had had a few drinks so I could be mistaken … but it was wierd. We had been talking only briefly when I realised that I recognised him but I was unsure from where. I told him that I recognised him and then I realised from where. He presents himself totally differently elsewhere with totally different clothing and even a different nationality of accent.
As I say, I suppose that I could be mistaken but when you know somebody visually well, you can recognise them. I hadn’t seen this person for four months or so but I do believe that I recognised him and he didn’t deny it.
I know that this is one of spooks’ techniques because I’ve seen it before. At the bus bombing of 7 July, 2005 there is a white haired man with a strong Blackcountry accent giving statements to television reporters. I recognised him as a spook because he was one of UK’s biggest spooks, working for UK defence company Quinetic at the time. I know he’s a spook because we followed the same course at University.
It was a fake accent but he was exactly where one of UK’s highest spooks would be expected on 7 July, 2005. Spooks must practice the accents. His surname was correct while his first name was not. I’ve published his name elsewhere.
later edit: You may as well have the name. The name is Bryan/Brian Jones.
29/12/12: To be entirely correct: I am aware that he worked for Quinetic 1999-2000.
Since the last UK politics news review the main issue is that the official narrative of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has been proved to be totally fabricated. Feckin wake up will you? Terrrists that hate our freedoms brought down two skyscrapers, Suicide bombers in London, JCD was not murdered by Zionist scum? Come on.
There is a tradition of denoting something by it’s opposite. Marilyn Manson’s ‘Beautiful People’ for all those that died on 7 July 2005 from many different religions and belief systems ~ indeed actually more than that ~ the day after Dubya’s bicycle accident on his birthday. Robin Cooke wrote about 7/7 shortly before he died on Ben Stack.
Then there’s kaleidoscope. the word “kaleidoscope” is derived from the Ancient Greek καλ(ός) (beauty, beautiful), είδο(ς) (form, shape) and -σκόπιο (tool for examination)—hence “observer of beautiful forms.” Who was it that mentioned “kaleidoscope” (and “tea and biscuits”)?
I’m sorry to admit that I actually voted(1) Liberal-Democrat at the last general election. I could never vote Tory and I couldn’t bring myself to vote Labour even though it was no longer hijacked by Blair & Co. I’m going to have real problems ever voting Labour. They willingly allowed themselves to be hijacked by a Fascist, psychopathic nutter totally divorced from reality and any concept of truth who quite clearly pursued an alien agenda for so many years. Unison and Unite were so supportive of Him. Is it so important to remain in power that you prostitute all your values? Today, the Liberal Democrats may be following the same path.
Back to voting Liberal-Democat at the last general election. It was a tactical vote but I’m pleased to say that it had no effect since my constituency is certain to return a Labour MP.
As I’m sure that you’re aware – while there was no overall winning party at the General Election the Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats formed a coalition government, the ConDems. I was pleased that New Labour was eventually defeated and out of power and initially hoped that the Liberal-Democrats would restrain the Tories. No such luck. It turns out that Clegg is a Tory in everything except political party. A European Tory, immensely rich and privilleged and – although exactly the type that are repeatedly appointed – entirely the wrong person to hold any political office. Why oh why did they listen to the press and dump Campbell?
The ConDem coalition – essentially a Tory government – shit on the electorate. Tuition fees, the Education Maintenance Allowance that was so important to poor families and now the NHS. “No top down reorganisation”. What a Blair-faced lie that one was. “We’re not privatisng the NHS”. Well, you’re not selling shares but in every other sense the NHS is getting privatised. Foreign and UK companies running hospitals, the profitable bits getting cherry-picked and a cash-starved shell of an NHS having to pick up the pieces. Health insurance, pay or go without – isn’t that privatisation?. Opposed by all major healthcare associations and yet they continue in destroying the NHS.
“No top-down reorganisation”. There is quite obviously no mandate for change.
The Lib-Dems will and are getting blamed for this. Without them it would not be happening. The toxic comments they get on newspaper articles are instructive. Will it be fatal for them? I expect to be campaigning against the Lib-Dems with anti-Blair vigour unless they change their ways pretty quickly.
(1) To be continued.
19/9/11
DRAFT: to be expanded – particularly murders by police, the role of ACPO.
There are many issues.
I am regarded by oppressive state authorities as an anarchist and potential violent terrorist. This is really quite strange since I consider it important to vote and participate in the democratic process. There is something quite clearly wrong here.
It is clear that I regularly vote as some simple searches will demonstrate. Why then am I regarded as an anarchist? How can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong? Similarly, it is clear that I participate in the democratic process and that I have always participated within the discourse of politics. Why then am I regarded as a potential terrorist – a potential violent extremist? Again, how can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong?
I consider that a huge proportion of it is to do with my perspective and activity. As somebody who rejects fake, manufactured terrorism I have been cast as the enemy. As somebody who recognises and is able to identify the real terrorists, I am the enemy of those terrorists.
Accusations of terrorism used to involve issues such as making bombs and using bombs and the threats of such things. We have seen – particularly over the last decade – that terrorism is used by strong vested interests to promote and pursue a particular agenda. Accusations of terrorism are now cheapened and directed at those that oppose such strong vested interests.
Oppressive state authorities promote the official ideology of fake, manufactured terrorism while the true anti-terrorist is cast as the terrorist. Accusations of terrorism have come to be directed at percieved opponents of some powerful interest group.
The official assessment is so absurdly wrong because the world has been turned on its head. Those that should be concerned with fighting terrorism are the terrorists and those that are accused of being terrorists are the anti-terrorists.
20/9/11 Still in Draft: may be altered and to be expanded
The question remains: Why is the official police assessment of me so absurdly wrong despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary?
While it is accepted that the police are capable of staggering incompetence, there is more than that. I think that the answer is harassment – it is obvious that suspected terrorists can be violently killed by police with complete impunity at any time. This is a continuation of the harassment I endured from Ian Blair and John Reid. The same bullshit is involved – homegrown terrorists, liquid explosives, etc.
I think that many murders by police that are similar to me are intended to reinforce this point i.e. we can kill people similar to you so we can kill you. The police involved and their superiors are responsible for these murders by police and they are likely to continue until they are held to account.
