Comment on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaagxEh67EI&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1xTom5wBVTcWEjkqmynbp3fIuow2uvPZfF-uzWr99PXbP_-RLxfVfD9hM
Note the first interview took place from 10.30 pm in the evening of a nine year old girl who made serious allegations of abuse, yet she is not supported by any independent adult. This is a clear breach of established police rules for interviewing people let alone children. Why? Following the second interview shown on the 11th November, 2014, the children were removed from their mother (abducted?) by the police/social workers, on the pretext of protection, despite the fact that her mother had never been accused of cruelty. Incredibly the natural father who DID have documented cases of violence against his wife and children has subsequently been afforded full parental control. The second interview is also carried out without an independent adult supporter and the interviewing policeman (DC Martin) seems only interested in pressing the importance of not lying (the sub text of which is that she was) and in pursuing a theme of her step-father abusing her with her mother's support. He ignores her poignant prefix that "We were used to hurting". Any genuine interviewer would have picked up on this and asked what she meant but he ignores it completely, interested only in constructing an exagerated case against Abraham, also ignoring her statement that "He is kind." Throughout these interviews, the substantive claims are not pursued whereas the inferior ones (however undesireable they may appear) were. This was an obvious tactic adopted to lessen the importance of the one and increase the importance of the other, later used by the Judge to excuse a proper police investigation and to justify the decision to remove the children from their mother and locate them with their father whom they had accused of unspeakable acts. The tactic is so transparent to be chilling. Note also the dramatic change in body language (slumped in the chair) at the third interview (17.9.2014) when this child's psychological stability had been further assaulted by having been removed from her mother to a state of fostering limbo. Her brother exhibits similar changes in body language. Clearly both were under direct or indirect influence to retract their extensive, corroborative previous testimony which the police tried desperately to suppress, subsequently continued by the British Family and Criminal Courts. With the aid of the internet, literally millions have now seen the interviews and made their own minds up as to the truth of their original allegations, the seriousness of which is only exceeded by the extent of the concerted effort to rubbish them as 'hoax', that reaches to the very top of the British legal, political and information establishment. Only one conclusion can be drawn: that there has been an egregious 'cover-up', either to control the reputational damage to church and state or worse that elements of the British State with enormous power and influence were party to it!
One crucial detail regarding the extract of Ricky Dearman BBC interview: He says that he first learned of the issue when the Social Services contacted him with the news that the children had been removed from their mother. This would mean some time after the 11th November, 2014. However elsewhere in interviews with the children, it is revealed that he was in fact informed, presumably by the police or Social Services, of the serious allegations made against him and others almost immediately following the initial police interview on the 5th. So not only was he not arrested and his computers seized as a precautionary step, it appears he was pre-warned. Such an elementary investigatory error could not have been accidental, as this was a specialist team, not some probationary recruit. It should be noted that in large measure the IPPC has supported the mother's complaints in this regard for which no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police. So in this regard at least Mr Dearman in saying he was informed, by inference, only after the eleventh, is not telling the truth. What else about his alleged innocence is unreliable? And why would the BBC place itself in such an invidious and gullible position?
Meanwhile the (then) head of GCHQ gives a character reference for his old Catholic Priest friend who apparently likes to watch children being tortured? Contrast and compare the treatment of Sabine McNeill who worked to try and prevent such and then tell me what side the British Establisment and Government must be on despite all the meaningless words.
50 police officers arrested in child porn raids Fifty police officers across the UK have been arrested as part of a crackdown on suspected paedophiles who pay to access child pornography websites, detectives revealed today. The officers were among 1,300 people arrested on suspicion of accessing or downloading indecent images of children - some as young as five - from US-based Internet sites.
Thirty-five men were arrested in London this morning as part of the investigation - codenamed Operation Ore - following raids on 45 addresses across the capital.
Lynne Peachey Operation Ore was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. It was the United Kingdom's biggest ever computer crime investigation,[1] leading to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations[2] and an estimated 33[3] suicides.[4][5] Operation Ore identified and prosecuted some sex offenders, but the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations resulted in a large number of false arrests.[3]
Operation Ore followed the similar crackdown in the United States, called Operation Avalanche; in the US 100 people were charged from the 35,000 US access records available.[6] In total 390,000 individuals in over 60 countries were found to have accessed material in the combined investigations.
Google search for Judge Sally Cahill reveals the following articles:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.change.org/p/uk-government-david-cameron-mp-punish-judge-sally-cahill-who-said-raped-white-children-suffer-less-than-asians
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/suicide-verdict-on-judge-s-husband-1-2531855
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11871975/Child-molester-given-longer-sentence-as-victims-are-Asian.html
Suggested as replacement for Woolf : https://twitter.com/timesoneill/status/528231683364233216
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/church-england-failed-stop-former-7980567
Comment on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaagxEh67EI&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1xTom5wBVTcWEjkqmynbp3fIuow2uvPZfF-uzWr99PXbP_-RLxfVfD9hM
ReplyDeleteNote the first interview took place from 10.30 pm in the evening of a nine year old girl who made serious allegations of abuse, yet she is not supported by any independent adult. This is a clear breach of established police rules for interviewing people let alone children. Why? Following the second interview shown on the 11th November, 2014, the children were removed from their mother (abducted?) by the police/social workers, on the pretext of protection, despite the fact that her mother had never been accused of cruelty. Incredibly the natural father who DID have documented cases of violence against his wife and children has subsequently been afforded full parental control. The second interview is also carried out without an independent adult supporter and the interviewing policeman (DC Martin) seems only interested in pressing the importance of not lying (the sub text of which is that she was) and in pursuing a theme of her step-father abusing her with her mother's support. He ignores her poignant prefix that "We were used to hurting". Any genuine interviewer would have picked up on this and asked what she meant but he ignores it completely, interested only in constructing an exagerated case against Abraham, also ignoring her statement that "He is kind." Throughout these interviews, the substantive claims are not pursued whereas the inferior ones (however undesireable they may appear) were. This was an obvious tactic adopted to lessen the importance of the one and increase the importance of the other, later used by the Judge to excuse a proper police investigation and to justify the decision to remove the children from their mother and locate them with their father whom they had accused of unspeakable acts. The tactic is so transparent to be chilling. Note also the dramatic change in body language (slumped in the chair) at the third interview (17.9.2014) when this child's psychological stability had been further assaulted by having been removed from her mother to a state of fostering limbo. Her brother exhibits similar changes in body language. Clearly both were under direct or indirect influence to retract their extensive, corroborative previous testimony which the police tried desperately to suppress, subsequently continued by the British Family and Criminal Courts. With the aid of the internet, literally millions have now seen the interviews and made their own minds up as to the truth of their original allegations, the seriousness of which is only exceeded by the extent of the concerted effort to rubbish them as 'hoax', that reaches to the very top of the British legal, political and information establishment. Only one conclusion can be drawn: that there has been an egregious 'cover-up', either to control the reputational damage to church and state or worse that elements of the British State with enormous power and influence were party to it!
One crucial detail regarding the extract of Ricky Dearman BBC interview: He says that he first learned of the issue when the Social Services contacted him with the news that the children had been removed from their mother. This would mean some time after the 11th November, 2014. However elsewhere in interviews with the children, it is revealed that he was in fact informed, presumably by the police or Social Services, of the serious allegations made against him and others almost immediately following the initial police interview on the 5th. So not only was he not arrested and his computers seized as a precautionary step, it appears he was pre-warned. Such an elementary investigatory error could not have been accidental, as this was a specialist team, not some probationary recruit. It should be noted that in large measure the IPPC has supported the mother's complaints in this regard for which no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police. So in this regard at least Mr Dearman in saying he was informed, by inference, only after the eleventh, is not telling the truth. What else about his alleged innocence is unreliable? And why would the BBC place itself in such an invidious and gullible position?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the (then) head of GCHQ gives a character reference for his old Catholic Priest friend who apparently likes to watch children being tortured? Contrast and compare the treatment of Sabine McNeill who worked to try and prevent such and then tell me what side the British Establisment and Government must be on despite all the meaningless words.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gchq-spy-boss-allowed-resign-14044406?fbclid=IwAR1h8U5LWD2V6mSAIQtu2NiespubuMTG6d5Hg61b6yw_Sb9Az6MgNc1tVVg
Might there be a reason for police collusion?
ReplyDelete50 police officers arrested in child porn raids
Fifty police officers across the UK have been arrested as part of a crackdown on suspected paedophiles who pay to access child pornography websites, detectives revealed today.
The officers were among 1,300 people arrested on suspicion of accessing or downloading indecent images of children - some as young as five - from US-based Internet sites.
Thirty-five men were arrested in London this morning as part of the investigation - codenamed Operation Ore - following raids on 45 addresses across the capital.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-151784/50-police-officers-arrested-child-porn-raids.html
Lynne Peachey Operation Ore was a British police operation that commenced in 1999 following information received from US law enforcement, which was intended to prosecute thousands of users of a website reportedly featuring child pornography. It was the United Kingdom's biggest ever computer crime investigation,[1] leading to 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned and 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations[2] and an estimated 33[3] suicides.[4][5] Operation Ore identified and prosecuted some sex offenders, but the validity of the police procedures was later questioned, as errors in the investigations resulted in a large number of false arrests.[3]
Operation Ore followed the similar crackdown in the United States, called Operation Avalanche; in the US 100 people were charged from the 35,000 US access records available.[6] In total 390,000 individuals in over 60 countries were found to have accessed material in the combined investigations.