Tony Blair

Paedos cry terrorists!

Spread the love
Image of Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher
Jimmy Savile and Margaret Thatcher

It’s going to be awfully difficult for me to develop the thesis that Tony Blair (and Dubya Bush) are paedophiles without naming them. Luckily I’m just a kitchen table blogger rather than the speaker’s wife. Can we work on the basis that I’m exploring the possibility rather than outright accusing them of being child rapists? Good.

It might be worth pointing out too that I don’t have any money so there is absolutely nothing to be gained by suing me. Lucky you can’t have a pound of flesh, eh? It’s also worth pointing out that I do retaliate to harassment. I do fight my corner.

Many – probably about five – years ago I was researching Blair’s background, trying to get a handle on him. I was finding paedophilia, paedophilia, paedophila. I thought that it was me, my prejudice and hatred of the man and what he’d done to me. It’s not though. It’s all around him from his teens, paedo after paedo related to Blair.

Then there’s the way he acts around children: very weird. On a school visit he’ll avoid any eye contact with all the children. Weird that he can go to a school and ignore the vast majority of the people there. I have a theory about that. Why does he not want to catch any child’s eye?

The subject of Paedophilia on the web is fraught with dangers. Claims are made without adequate research. However, there are many well documented accounts. There are accounts of Blair being called Miranda and being interested in boys, even accounts of him prosecuted for importuning. Pretty straight kinda guy, eh? That’s what first woke me about his sexuality actually. I’m a pretty straight kinda guy. There are also well documented accounts of shenanigans at the Whitehouse.

I don’t care if they’re gay or bisexual. That would be hypocritical of me. I do care about children being abused.

to be developed

23.40pm later addition: Blair’s sexuality is important in the sense that he portrayed himself very much as the straight, family man. I suppose it’s just one further example of his lying and deception. He’s such a nutjob he might actually believe it – he does seem quite capable of believing total absurdities despite very powerful oppositional evidence.

 

 

Continue ReadingPaedos cry terrorists!

Jimmy Savile, Ian Blair, the police and the IPCC

Spread the love

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

The missed chances to get Jimmy Savile

The official report into what police knew – and, critically, failed to do – about Jimmy Savile makes grim reading.

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?

Continue ReadingJimmy Savile, Ian Blair, the police and the IPCC

UK politics news review

Spread the love

 

Since the last UK politics news review the Labour party conference has ended and the Conservative scum conference has started. Towards the end of the Labour party conference there was the unveiling of familiar NHS imagery and the start of a criticism of the Conservative-Liberal-Democrat Con-Dem policy of austerity.

The Conservative scum party came to power illegitimately, having campaigned on many promises of protecting the NHS – “no top-down privatisation”, “I’ll cut the defecit, not the NHS”, etc – and then joining with their Liberal-Democrat-Conservatives to form the coalition government. While there was no clear winner from the 2010 general election, the ConDems have proceeded to pursue policies contrary to their election pledges for which they cannot possibly have any electoral mandate.

The Conservatives are known as the nasty party and follow Blair’s policies and philosophy. It has been noted by several commentators that their conference is a showpiece affair. Slasher Bully-boy Osborne’s speech was certainly of the reciprocal applause every sentence affair. Bully-boy and British prime minister David Cameron is expected to make his “I’m a pretty straight kinda guy” speech today – I feel that it could never be as deceitful as Blair’s on a very fundamental level.

 

Continue ReadingUK politics news review

UK politics news review

Spread the love

  • A Step Towards the Dock

    …

    The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”(2). This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter(3).

    That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair’s cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His Attorney-General warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN Security Council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.”(4) Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

    His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, “i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.”(5) None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him “A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”(6)

    Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.

    …

  • Law criminalising squatting to be challenged in court by cottage dweller

    A woman who has lived in an abandoned Welsh hillside cottage for 11 years is to challenge legislation that criminalises squatting.

    Irene Gardiner, 49, raised her family in the 500-year-old timber and stone house at Newchapel, near Llanidloes, Powys.

    Backed by lawyers in London, Gardiner is bringing a test case against the police and Crown Prosecution Service seeking assurances she will not be thrown out of the home she has inhabited since 2001.

    Her cottage, which has no electricity or running water, has been occupied by squatters for several decades.

    …

    Gardiner’s case is supported by the law firm Leigh Day & Co. The claim, to be lodged in the high court in London next week, alleges prosecution would breach her rights to personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

    Ugo Hayter, of Leigh Day & Co, said: “This legislation will have impacts on the most vulnerable people in society, and will be a further burden on already strained public services.”

    She added: “There is existing criminal and civil law which enables property owners to swiftly evict squatters.

    “Homeowners will derive no further protection from this new legislation. It will simply criminalise the homeless.”

    …

  • Crackdown on squatters ‘will put people on streets’

     New squatting laws have sparked fears of a rise in homelessness across Manchester.

    From today, squatting in a residential building becomes illegal – meaning anyone doing it could be jailed or fined.

    Ministers say the move will protect homeowners – and ‘slam shut the door on squatters’.

    But campaigners have told the M.E.N. most squatters are genuinely homeless and will now be left on the streets.

    They argue it is better to use an empty house rather than let it fall into disrepair.

    Currently squatting is initially treated as a civil matter, meaning homeowners must go to court to prove trespass first.

    In future, police will be able to arrest squatters on the spot. They will then face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

    But one 38-year-old man, who has lived in squats all over the city for more than 20 years, said: “Everybody doing it is homeless. They don’t live in a flat or anything – they just get their head down wherever they can. We’re going to get more people on the streets, definitely, but at the end of the day people are not going to stop doing it.”

    …

    [edit: Uk prime minister David Cameron is also altering his cabinet today. Small changes are expected.]
Continue ReadingUK politics news review