BBC Radio, 15th July 2014 :Dr Liz Davies and David Tombs.

Very important, but too short interview with Liz Davies, a lady who KNOWS the truth. Listen to the shock when she said children were murdered and mentions Jason Swift.

theneedleblog

A very interesting interview with David Tombs is followed by an extraordinary interview with Dr Liz Davies in which she reveals a great deal more than you might of been aware of before.

This is a ‘must listen’ interview.

View original post

BBC Radio, 15th July 2014 :Dr Liz Davies and David Tombs.

Coincidences

Throughout the Westminster Paedophile Ring scandal, there have been curious coincidences.

Like why Capital Gay were always so pro-Spartacus, ran their ads, yet knew nothing of their paedophilia.

Like why the owner of Gay News and his mate, who later was given thanks in a book that supported Paedophilia, setup a limited company called Coltsfoot at the same time that Spartacus purchased Coltsfoot productions.

Then there has been the odd fact that the Fernbridge seem to have found little evidence to go on, even when people like me can produce substantial evidence to form the basis of arrests just from looking online. Not a coincidence, but worth mentioning, just in case you believe the Police do not have their hands politically tied.

 

So Would You Be Surprised At Another Funny Little Coincidence?

It turns out that Leon Brittan’s PPS in 1984, was actually a guy called Tim Smith (thanks to @BobbyFriedman on Twitter for pointing that out, and calling him).

Tim Smith was:

“Conservative MP for Beaconsfield from 1982 until this year, when he was forced to stand down amid allegations of bribe-taking. Worked for Leon Brittan at the Home Office from 1983-85 and was a Northern Ireland minister from January to October 1994, but resigned when the cash for questions affair broke.”

Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton were the people accused in the cash for questions scandal.

Neil Hamilton’s name appears on the Mary Moss documents.  He was one of the people who for some bizarre reason sunk money into the loss-making business of Harvey Proctor, who also appears on the Mary Moss documents.

So many coincidences. 

 

Coincidences

Could Sir Leon Brittan Clear Something Up For Us?

Today, Sir Leon Brittan has stated:

“This was the normal procedure for handling material presented to the home secretary. I do not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens or by anyone else.”

 

Yet, according to the Guardian (funny some people claim the Gaurdian isn’t covering the CSA stories):

“The Home Office commissioned an independent review last year into what information it received about organised child sex abuse between 1979 and 1999.

The review found information had been dealt with properly.

It disclosed that material received from Dickens in November 1983 and January 1984 had not been retained.

However, a letter was sent from Brittan to Dickens on 20 March 1984 explaining what had been done in relation to the files.

According to an extract in the review report, the home secretary wrote: “You drew my attention to a number of allegations concerning paedophilia when you called here on 23 November and in subsequent letters.

I am now able to tell you that, in general terms, the view of the director of public prosecutions is that two of the letters you forwarded could form the basis for inquiries by the police and they are now being passed to the appropriate authorities.“”

 

Does that not directly contradict Sir Leon’s statement released today? It suggests there were TWO lots of information supplied by Dickens, not just one “dossier” and two lots of contact to present that information, not one.  It also clearly shows that there was a documented follow-up from Leon Brittan.

It was also acknowledged by Leon Brittan that there had been “subsequent letters”.

Far from “not being contacted further” it appears Leon brittan actively suggested that the content warranted criminal investigation, and that he had an ongoing written and verbal conversation lasting several months with Mr Dickens.

 

Could Sir Leon Brittan Clear Something Up For Us?

Leon Brittan – Who Was His PPS in 1984?

UPDATE: Robin Harris it turns out was his advisor, not his PPS.  His PPS was  Sir Brian Cubbon who was permanent secretary to the home office.

Leon Brittan today released a statement about his knowledge of the evidence submitted to him by Geoffrey Dickens MP in 1984:

 

As I recall, he came to my room at the Home Office with a substantial bundle of papers. As is normal practice, my Private Secretary would have been present at the meeting.

I told Mr Dickens that I would ensure that the papers were looked at carefully by the Home Office and acted on as necessary.

Following the meeting, I asked my officials to look carefully at the material contained in the papers provided and report back to me if they considered that any action needed to be taken by the Home Office.

In addition I asked my officials to consider a referral to another Government Department, such as the Attorney General’s Department, if that was appropriate.

This was the normal procedure for handling material presented to the Home Secretary. I do not recall being contacted further about these matters by Home Office officials or by Mr Dickens or by anyone else.”

In 1984 it appears his PPS was a chap called Robin Harris, who went on to write a book about his apparent heroine Margaret Thatcher.  Mr Harris was a close confidant of Thatcher for years.  He was also David Cameron’s first boss. Mr Harris was apparently unaware that Sir Peter Morrison was a paedophile and unaware of the allegations surrounding Margarets own father, which were themselves covered-up.

Harris had this to say on Morrison:

As a contest with Heseltine was declared, another fatal mistake was made by Thatcher’s team — giving the day-to-day running of her campaign to her Parliamentary aide Peter Morrison.

Conservative MPs constitute the most elusive and mendacious electorate imaginable. To learn their opinions requires reserves of guile. To influence them requires unremitting effort. Peter Morrison had neither.

He had, anyway, been a strange choice as her parliamentary private secretary. The job typically requires someone personally loyal, in touch with parliamentary opinion, a natural gossip who can, when necessary, control his tongue: in vulgar terms, a ‘nark’.

Morrison — whom she had appointed because she felt sorry for him when he proved not to be up to a ministerial career — was indeed loyal and he also quite liked to gossip, at least over a drink. But that was the problem. He not only drank, he was an alcoholic. By lunchtime he was drunk on vodka and tonic.

Even sober he was intellectually incapable, often woozy, sometimes asleep. Perhaps to compensate, he had developed an insistently jovial manner and had convinced himself that any problem could be solved by cheering people up.

From his optimism stemmed complacency, which added to his general inadequacy. He had no judgement, though he prided himself on having it, and so he was constantly surprised by events. And it was on this man that Mrs Thatcher had to rely in her darkest hour.”

So Mr Harris knew Morrison’s character very well it appears. But obviously he didn’t know he liked young boys.

It appears everyone knows everyone but nobody ever knows anything….

If you Google “Leon Brittan Robin harris” you get this:

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

—————————-

SOURCE:

“When Brittan became Chief Secretary  to the  Treasury, Robin  Harris  was already a special adviser  in  the  Treasury  and  he  gradually  gravitated  towards  Brittan.  On becoming Home Secretary in  1983 Brittan  took  Harris  with  him  and  thought the  aide/confidant role was  important.”

Link

Leon Brittan – Who Was His PPS in 1984?

Who Has Been Cleaning Up For Sir Leon Brittan?

Search Google:

 

“Leon Brittan Jason Swift”

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

 

“Leon Brittan Pie”

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page.

 

“Leon Brittan rumours”

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page.

 

“Leon Brittan Jimmy Savile”

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe

 

“Leon Brittan Cyril Smith”

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 4 result(s) from this page.

 

“Leon Brittan scandal”

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page.

 

 

 

 

Who Has Been Cleaning Up For Sir Leon Brittan?

Paedophile Graham Ovenden Gets A Suspended Jail Term

Just in case you were in any doubt that paedophiles in this country are protected, today gives further evidence of the fact.

Graham Ovenden, guilty on SEVEN counts relating to indecency against children today received a 12 month sentence suspended for two years.

So, if you are a potential paedophile, you are now safe in the knowledge that you can attack children, photograph them indecently over several decades and as long as your mates and buyers include Lord McAlpine and the Tate, then you will get away with it.

Just have a look at Paedophile Ovenden’s tastes on Google image search and remember who purchased one of his collections of child nudes in provocative poses.  Then you will understand why the establishment allowed him to get off pretty much scott-free.

Here is one piece of paedophile Ovenden’s “art”, loved by Lord McAlpine, freely available on the net.

ANY RIGHT MINDED PERSON SHOULD FEEL PHYSICALLY SICK LOOKING AT THIS IMAGE TAKEN BY A CONVICTED PAEDOPHILE.

Gloves are off.

 

——————————————

UPDATE.

Just in case you still don’t think Ovenden is protected. The same judge gave another paedophile 21 years:

“Budleigh Salterton paedophile Tommy Dance was today jailed for 21-and-a-half -years for a string of rape and sexual offences against underage girls.”

Ovenden and the rest of the elite child destroyers are laughing at us.

 

Paedophile Graham Ovenden Gets A Suspended Jail Term

Capital Gay Magazine: Innocents In A Vile Game?

After the Elm guest house raid in June 1982, one publication leapt to the defence of the Kasirs.  Capital Gay, the UK’s leading gay news magazine at the time, was vociferous in its defence of the couple. So much so that throughout its coverage it referred to them as “Harry and Carol”, which of course would appeal more to the UK public’s sense of persecution of their own than using their real christian names “Haroon and Carole”.

In it’s wide-eyed innocence and righteous defence of the gay-bashed hotel owners Capital Gay, and it’s owners Michael Mason and Graham McKerrow, seem to have ignored some glaring warning signs of what was actually happening there.

.

They’re Spartacus.

As early as the early 1970’s it was well known that Spartacus and its owner John D Stamford were not pulling in the same direction as the rest of the gay right movement.  McKerrow and Mason knew Stamford from the days when they were all in the Gay Liberation Front together in the early 1970’s. Stamford was well-known for his tendencies even then, including openly conversing with a famous American gay rights activist about paedophilia (200 pages of it actually, containing lots of not so lovely names, places and details I will be returning to very soon).

As the below news cutting shows, it was, by 1980, no secret to anyone that Spartacus was a paedophile organisation.

spartacusguide

So we can all agree, I hope – by the time of the Elm guest house raid it was a pretty well known fact that Stamford and Spartacus were not about gay rights but were all about helping men have sex with children.

By 1984 even Capital Gay was reporting on Stamfords evil empire, although oddly they seemed to be unable to use the “P” word:

cg17284

It seems pretty clear that the people at Capital Gay knew prior to the Elm guest house raid that Spartacus were bad news.  If you think Paedophilia is bad news of course.

.

An Arm Around The Shoulder.

Capital Gay were there for the Kasirs.  The magazine was their P.R. rock during the difficult time of the raid, charging and removal of their male child to the care system of the capital. This piece shows just how cosy it had all become:

cg121182

Among the suitably heroic gushings we see this:

“Choked with emotion she told our reporter: I wish I could go to more meetings that people should know – that people should know that there is a little ten year old boy and – I can’t cope Graham, I can’t cope…”

That extract show that it was Graham McKerrow who was the man on the spot and probably the man who wrote all the pieces (available to view on Muruns site) relating to the trial and conviction of the Kasirs in 1983.

At no point in any of the coverage by Capital Gay was there any questioning of what had actually happened at the guest house. No mention of anything other than the fact it was a gay friendly hotel.  It was never thought odd that the Kasirs had supplied expensive video equipment on the premises, or that the small guest house was well stocked with bondage equipment and had it’s own young masseuse and sauna facilities.  No, it was just a nice place for a gay person to enjoy a good nights sleep.

.

Slaughter Of The Innocence.

There is one tiny problem with all of this and with Capital Gay’s stance during the time of the Kasir’s trial.  The tiny problem is this advert:

untitled13

The above advert appeared in  Capital Gay prior to the raid in 1982.  So unless the people who wrote for Capital Gay never looked at their own publication, there is little possibility that they had not been aware of a link between Spartactus and Elm guest house.

If that wasn’t enough of a clue for McKerrow and Mason, surely they saw the sign on the door:

elmguard22

Taking it as hugely unlikely that they could have missed such a blatant association, did they not see huge red lights flashing over the whole SIXTY cop raid on the hotel and subsequent events?

When the mainstream press started publishing stories about boys as young a ten being used for sex there, trafficked from care homes, about links to a peado ring at the palace, to MP’s who already had rumours swirling around their names, why did Capital Gay steadfastly stick with the innocent patsies line?

.

Doesn’t it all seem a little odd?

Capital Gay Magazine: Innocents In A Vile Game?