Saturday 30 November 2019

Latest London Bridge Attack

A Fishmonger's Hall Affair?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8b-i_o1SdM
A man and a woman were killed in a terror attack in London carried out by an Islamist extremist who had been jailed for an al-Qaida inspired bomb plot and was recently released on licence.


Image of victim, David Merritt (25) released by family and police.
London Bridge victim Jack Merritt
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/30/first-victim-london-bridge-terror-attack-named-11246004/?fbclid=IwAR3ldjJhnYQ7nQYZHnxNhpRaKc7hMpjfthNPi0GaNJkSpFjxYoMC7wu97ZI

Scotland Yard are investigating how 28-year-old Usman Khan was able to launch the attack in London Bridge on Friday, despite being known to the authorities and fitted with an electronic tag to monitor his movements. He was allowed out a year ago after serving time for his part in a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange.      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-police-shoot-stabbing-suspect-after-five-injured

BREAKING: One of the victims of the London Bridge terror attack has been named as Jack Merritt in media reports.

He was a course coordinator for the Learning Together programme, which was hosting a conference at Fishmongers’ Hall attended by Usman Khan.


Police have named the second victim of the London Bridge attack as former University of Cambridge student Saskia Jones.
The 23-year-old's family paid tribute to a "funny, kind, positive influence" in a statement released by the Metropolitan Police, confirming she and fellow Cambridge alumni 25-year-old Jack Merritt were fatally stabbed by convicted terrorist Usman Khan.

Second former Cambridge University student killed at London Bridge named


QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED


  • Why no video of the actual alleged fatal stabbings?
  • Where did they occur, who were the injured and what were the circumstances? Why has this element of the incident not been covered?
  • Why if the stabbings take place 1.8th mile away at the Fishmonger's Hall, was the suspect almost immediately ("Five minutes") apprehended by armed police and this after he had already been floored and disarmed by members of the public?
  • How can we be sure that the man shot on the bridge was the same man who carried out the fatal stabbing?
  • Why given the fact that the man was disarmed and held down on the ground, did the police choose to shoot him dead in cold blood, rather than arrest him?
  • Does the above indicate a changed police philosophy - as indicated some years ago by David Cameron - basically a policy of 'shoot to kill' on the back of suspicion?
  • If what has been reported about the dead suspect is correct, was he allowed out of gaol having served half his sentence without a risk assessment or referral to the Parole Board?
  • He was apparently wearing an electronic tag. Isn't it strange that in planning such a serious attack, he didn't first remove it or leave it at the scene?
  • Clearly the assailant had not made any plans to escape after the crime. Isn't this strange for an apparent professional terrorist with gaol time?
  • Who were the people on scene wearing identity tags? And what prompted their physical intervention?
  • Who was the man who removed the large knife?
  • Why, if that was the murder weapon, does it appear totally clean and un-blood stained?
  • Witnesses report a lot of gun fire yet the only ones with guns were the police. As this must have happened at the conclusion of the incident, why did police subsequently order people to run or hide in panic?
  • If the event was unexpected, how was it possible to muster so many police in addition to the dedicated fast response terrorist officers? Surely this must have required fore-knowledge and planning or are all those policemen hanging around somewhere kitted up with guns and high viz jackets just waiting for the call?
  • How can we be sure this was not just another fabricated case organised with the precise purpose of raising tensions prior to an election (note previous similar timing) and of 'neutralising' a terrorist target, whether he carried out the alleged stabbing or not?



Modern policing?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/uk/gallery/london-bridge-incident-1129-intl/index.html

This is the official narrative from https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/11/30/london-bridge-killer-freed-less-than-seven-years-into-16-year-te/?ncid=webmailUsman Khan, 28, killed a man and a woman in the knife rampage on Friday afternoon and injured three other people, who are being treated in hospital.

He was attending a conference on prisoner rehabilitation organised by University of Cambridge-associated Learning Together at Fishmongers' Hall and "threatened to blow up" the building just before 2pm.

Usman Khan

"Prisoners are usually released halfway through a determinate sentence but Khan had served less than seven years when he was freed on licence in December last year. The Parole Board said it had no involvement in his release and that Khan "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law), without ever being referred to the board""


Empty buses. Subliminal messaging?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/uk/gallery/london-bridge-incident-1129-intl/index.html



An one-sided discussion 29.11.2019


The Guardian reported: "A man and a woman were killed in a terror attack in London carried out by an Islamist extremist who had been jailed for an al-Qaida inspired bomb plot and was recently released on licence.

Scotland Yard are investigating how 28-year-old Usman Khan was able to launch the attack in London Bridge on Friday, despite being known to the authorities and fitted with an electronic tag to monitor his movements. He was allowed out a year ago after serving time for his part in a plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange.
The incident played out in extraordinary scenes that prompted praise for the bravery of members of the public and police. In graphic footage captured by bystanders, civilians are seen wrestling with a person lying on the ground at the northern end of the bridge, before being pulled to safety by armed police arriving at the scene.

The suspect, dressed in black, then appeared to try to rise, before firearms officers fired two shots. One man wearing a suit appeared to have removed a large knife from the suspect before the shots were fired, and was filmed running down the road away from the scene gesturing at others to get back.

Police confirmed the suspect died at the scene. It is believed that he was acting alone."

A:  7:13 PMWearing a fake suicide vest....done miss that bit out

7:15 PM  Another white lorry: "Cars and buses on the busy bridge were at a standstill, with a white lorry stopped diagonally across the lanes. Video footage showed police pointing guns at the lorry before moving to check its container."

A, 7:16 PMWhite vans and lorry's are bad news

7:18 PM Taking no chances. Controlling the narrative. And hiding in an attic is a new variant. "One woman from New York, who gave her name only as Aditi, said she had hidden in the attic of a cheese shop in nearby Borough market when she noticed people running from the bridge.

“We ran down a side street and noticed people running into Neal’s Yard Dairy,” she told the Guardian. “We were one of the last to get in before they locked the door. We were taken to the attic and the staff said they had been trained for such an incident. We were there for around 30 minutes before the police gave clearance to exit and move further away from the market. My partner and I are rattled but OK. We’re just glad to be safe.”

"Another woman called Jo from east London said she had been in the market when people started to panic and run. “I saw two people fall over. The police then told people to get inside, so we sheltered in Le Pain Quotidien. They locked the doors and moved people away from the glass. The police has just let us leave.”

"More than 20 witnesses were taken to be debriefed at the police-allocated building near the incident. Some of them looked shaken as they entered the building. More arrived in marked and unmarked police vehicles as the afternoon wore on, including restaurant and transport workers. None were willing to talk to reporters."

They certainly seem to appear at the right moment. I suppose shooting a de-armed man is now de rigour except the pretend suicide vest would proved nec. justification.

A, 7:22 PM Haha Tim unfortunately such things do happen

7:23 PM Sure do. And particularly just before elections strangely.

A, 7:31 PM So it may be extremest making a point saying current government can't protect you and wanting the people the vote for the weak labour government

7:44 PM Don't think that one plays. Violence always benefits the Conservatives (except when it doesn't) lol "Several People Wounded in Stabbing in The Hague, Dutch Police Say" As always Haaretz is on the ball.  TIMING!

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/several-people-wounded-in-stabbing-in-the-hague-dutch-police-say-1.8198577?utm_source=Push_Notification&utm_medium=web_push&utm_campaign=General

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/11/29/three-injured-in-hague-stabbing/

Nov 29, 2019 9:37 PM they are two hours ahead of course It could be just to get Prince Andrew off the front page or to distract from more Israeli bombing of Gaza (just taken place apparently)

Adam, 7:53 PM It's all over now and nobody will ever remember

7:54 PM aol is full of 'running people' images (as per the script)

People fleeing from the scene
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50604781




https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/uk/gallery/london-bridge-incident-1129-intl/index.html

A, 7:56 PM Not my type. No shoes?

7:56 PMha ha who he?

A, 7:57 PMYou must realise these attacks happen and are genuine sometimes Tim

"A bystander holding a knife after police surrounded a person at the scene (from the twitter feed of @HLOBlog)"

A, 8:06 PM You assume conspiracy with an hour's research 🤭

8:13 PM Well with so many previous suspicious events I'm just very very wary of the OFFICIAL narrative. Who is the official MI5 looking type who is walking away with the knife? Doesn't he know that's tampering with evidence, or perhaps he does? And note it appears completely free of any blood staining. It's also clear that the man has been overpowered by the public before armed police arrive. Why not then arrest the man? Why shoot him dead? And where have the members of public gone? Another pic shows bystanders all wearing tabs round their necks. Who were they and what event were they attending?

Image may contain: one or more people, people standing, people walking and outdoor


Image may contain: 1 person, standing, walking and outdoor

https://www.facebook.com/chrisdjpursuit.murrey/videos/10220882676125236/

A, 8:15 PM How can you call it official when it happened 5 hours ago?

an almost identical one stopped traffic in the Lee Rigby stabbing. How many stabbing have there been in London without a white lorry helping out?You are the expert now. You can sort it all out. I've retired. lol

A, 8:31 PM White lorry's and vans are the most common in the UK and Europe out of all colours for a reason

8:38 PM true. White articulated s are too. Plain one notice. Stopping traffic in similar incidents. Then there is the one with 39 dead bodies. If i was a policeman i wud want to know who was driving those lorries and where. Incidentally my Rigby article appears to have disappeared from the blog and in answer to your earlier question, within three hours at most, this was declared to be a "terrorist event" by the authorities.

A, 8:46 PM Haha you wish it had you wish you were a target of truth! Maybe London drivers are too aware of incidents so they decided to block traffic going into a conflict zone Citizen protection

8:46 PM maybe you are right A,

8:47 A: Maybe I'm not but it is another theory

8:56 PM No you could be quite right. It cannot be ruled out for sure. But neither can more dubious ones. Where are the injured? Where are the para medics? "Lots of gun shots" "People in restaurants ordered to lie on the floor" The only ones with guns and shooting were the police! <!-- TAG START -->
<div class="vdb_player vdb_5688f66de4b040e17d9912265688f5c1e4b0f2c97f395156" vdb_params="m.refbcid=566fd3cdff690c1970b2ccbd&m.refpid=5d1dbcfb10ca0475df0d2106">
<script type="text/javascript" src="//delivery.vidible.tv/jsonp/pid=5688f66de4b040e17d991226/vid=5de16c19d21f1a1883d222a9/5688f5c1e4b0f2c97f395156.js"></script>
</div>
<!-- TAG END { date: 11/29/19 } -->

Not sure if that works And all this for a man on the ground who had been disarmed and overpowered even before police arrive???  This is 10% terror and 90% theatre.



A, 9:01 PM What about the fake suicide vest?

9:06 PM Yea good question. Who saw it? When was it detected? When all the people were on top of him? It appears police shot him from close range multiple times, so how did they decide he had one? Can the claim be relied upon? All very suspicious.Two killed and three injured (besides the shot man) it has been claimed

A, 9:09 PM If you watch the video I got the impression police arrived after the suspect had been overcome by citizens then the police saw the vest and were aggressive towards citizens and made them leave then bang

9:10 PM BBC: "Videos on social media appear to show passers-by holding down a man at London Bridge. Another man in a suit could be seen running from him, having apparently retrieved a large knife. Footage then shows an officer arriving, seeming to indicate to the group to move, and firing a shot."

Image result for john de menezes
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+de+menezes&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&sxsrf=ACYBGNSbvHWkzxRrP2bzfbX3Yb-8cBxXjA:1575125418114&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=6PcXiks3gXE0OM%253A%252CZS7A7uqJtLD6-M%252C%252Fm%252F071py6&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTQ7aYXcPoYP--mHODuU1vGv3THQA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2z5e4l5LmAhXJesAKHWZsAF0Q_B0wCnoECAsQAw#imgrc=6PcXiks3gXE0OM:


So the witness statement that she heard lots of shots. Who and where were they fired? The killings were at Fishmongers Hall. How far is that from london bridge? M/s Dick (who supervised the totally unjustified John de Menezes) shooting issued the standard statement: ""We must emerge stronger still from this tragedy. In doing that we will ensure that the few who seek to divide us will never, ever succeed."

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said attackers wear fake suicide vests for a couple of reasons: To add to public panic and in some cases to ensure police shoot them dead. To some attackers, martyrdom is preferable to capture, trial and spending many years in prison, our correspondent added.

A, 9:18 PM Shooting people is bad vote for Corbyn

9:18 PM See all the assumptions being made there before anything firm is known about the individual in question. Was the man shot on the bridge the same as the person killing people at fishmongers hall? Could be.Adam,

9:19 PM Vote labour

Wheres fishmongers hall?Adam,

Map of the scene
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50604781

9:26 PMNo idea9:26 PM214 m away apparently - I imagine no more than a ten minute walk. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fishmongers'+Hall,+London/@51.507954,-0.0961639,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4876035154705331:0x3c5eb685335874f!8m2!3d51.5094364!4d-0.0876559

10:35 PM If this was a terrorist incident it is a very very half hearted one. It will be interesting to hear the precise details of the stabbing site some distance from where he was challenged and shot dead. Notice how no one challenges the notion that a man should be shot dead rather than arrested. This is a subtle side effect of these events and a stated intentional one. It is brutalising our societal norms that the police should be an arresting force not a killing machine. All you have to do is label the event a 'terrorist' one, and the police have carte blanch to shoot on sight without any due process. Who can tell if this dead man was guilty of the stabbings or not?

Adam, 10:43 PM Slow down before you write again I can't keep up

10:44 PM BBC just reported that the dead man was a convicted terrorist who had been released from gaol on condition his movements would be monitored!!!! Now if that's not into patsy territory i don't know what is.

A, 10:44 PM Your like a Jew in a gold mine Haha there we go They are always in the "watch list"

10:47 PM "release a terrorist on condition...." What the hell is that about? What a load of bollocks. "Do this little job for us and you'll be free", more like, except they didnt explain he wud have to be shot dead to qualify!

11:06 PM  Friday usually chosen for these events to max evening and weekend coverage

A, 11:09 PM Facts will come out in days and weeks not in hours

11:22 PM That alleged criminal Hilary Clinton happens to be on Graham Norton i see. Good timing

A, 11:23 PMIs she??? Are you sure?

11:23 PM That's what radio times says with her daughter

A, 11:26 PM Plugging what?

11:26 PMbook i think A,

11:27 PM Very strange guest for Graham Norton

11:27 PMon How to be successful woman? Perhaps she had to be in London to coordinated the 'terrorist attack' or something similar? (There are precedents: Bush in Dallas for JFK assassination; Ehud Olmert in New York for 9/11; Netanyahu in London for 7/7 etc.)

A, 11:32 PM Yeah maybe!! Hilldog isn't what she seems

11:35 PM It would be hard to find a woman more deeply embroiled in ....

A, 11:39 PM Well that's not true History has many females that have a.far higher personal body count than Hilldog

11:44 PM Alive on the planet i should have said



https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/uk/gallery/london-bridge-incident-1129-intl/index.html



People stand outside the London Bridge Station after it was closed.
Alberto Pezzali/AP







One of the people killed in yesterday’s knife attack at London Bridge has been identified as a University of Cambridge worker. The death of Jack Merritt, 25, from Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, was confirmed on Twitter by his father David. The assailant, who was wearing a fake suicide-vest, had ‘threatened to blow up’ the building and was thought to have started ‘lashing out’ in a downstairs room. He was reportedly grabbed by conference-goers and bundled out of the front door and ended up on the bridge, where he was tackled by members of the public and shot dead by police.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/30/first-victim-london-bridge-terror-attack-named-11246004/?fbclid=IwAR3ldjJhnYQ7nQYZHnxNhpRaKc7hMpjfthNPi0GaNJkSpFjxYoMC7wu97ZI?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

I do have one rather obvious question around this account of  such a tragic event. If the accused attacked people inside the building, causing serious injury and subsequent death to both a man and woman, why was he was not over-powered and detained there and then, instead of being 'bundled out of the building', where he might cause even more mayhem? In fact it appears he didn't hurt anyone in the busy street - or did he?


Graduation with proud parents?
London Bridge victim Jack Merritt



Outside his Cambridge digs?
London Bridge victim Jack Merritt

Some rather coincidental associations with 'HARVEY' and 'RO'.



Romantic image with girlfriend on holiday?
London Bridge victim Jack Merritt


COMMENT:

All part of a picture that has been created surreptitiously so that no one has objected to this huge change in police philosophy and tactics. Note these events are always scripted to include "protection of values" and "love the perpatrators" etc. This is undoubtedly intentional to distract from the huge policy change. Of course once you extablish the principle in the public mind that the 'bad men' deserve it, you can extend it to other 'bad men' until it becomes the norm. This is what is called the the 'thin end of the wedge' or "the start of the slippery slope". The justifications for arbitrary arrest and/or summary execution grows ever wider and saves millions in legal fees and gaol time. But of course that is a different sort of society to the one we aspire to and ushers in tyranny by the back door. More than anything these events are exercises in mass psychology and the destination is not a pleasant one.



Christopher Bollyn shared a post.
Admin1 hr

Israeli "Intel" SITE Blames Islamic State (ISIS) for London Attack
The recent knife attack on London Bridge is being blamed on Islamic State according to information provided by the Israeli Rita Katz who runs the Maryland-based information/propaganda website called SITE Intelligence Group. Katz provides her information to the media and government intelligence agencies. Although ISIS supposedly has a global network, no other agency appears to be able to obtain or provide the information that the Israeli SITE Intelligence does. The unique information Katz is privy to serves to "interpret" jihadist terror events for the global media. Her information is used to steer and validate the fraudulent War on Terror. The War on Terror, it should be noted, is a creation of Israeli military intelligence that has been foisted on the United States and Western nations. The fact that Katz is an Israeli is never mentioned in the news reports that provide her reports.
Here is a report from November 30, 2019, RT.com based on information provided by Katz:
"Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) has reportedly claimed responsibility for the stabbing attack on London Bridge. The claim comes even as the terrorist group’s propaganda is being wiped off messaging apps.
"The terrorist organization laid claim to the knife rampage on Saturday, according to SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that tracks extremist groups’ online presence. While IS has been known to claim responsibility for ‘lone-wolf’ terrorist attacks worldwide, SITE Director Rita Katz noted that the attack “bore IS-inspired hallmarks,” and suggested on Friday that the group’s claim may be delayed.
"There is, however, no evidence to support the claim from what the UK police have so far shared with the public.
"The claim was broadcast through the group’s Amaq News Agency, a propaganda outlet that disseminates its message through apps like Telegram."
Source: "ISIS claims responsibility for London Bridge attack – just as terrorists are being wiped off Telegram en masse"
https://www.rt.com/…/474757-isis-claims-london-bridge-atta…/


Contrast the media treatment of the murder of this 14 year old London boy and the genuine shocked reation of the mother and close relatives: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gang-behind-jayden-moodie-murder-are-londons-most-feared/ar-AAK4fE2?ocid=spartandhp



Wednesday 27 November 2019

Queen Elizabeth And Prince Charles Force Prince Andrew To Cancel Engagem...





The Prince Andrew Interview here:

Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News

1,072,702 views
Nov 17, 2019



There is little doubt the interview Prince Andrew gave  to Emily Maitlis and the BBC was a public relations disaster. Had this been an ordinary member of the public, it might be understandable. However it obviously wasn't. Prince Andrew has had sixty years experience of the media. He is a prominent member of arguably the most famous family in the world that relies on its image to maintain its popularity and position. It has learnt over nearly seventy years of the Queen's reign, and previously, how to manage scandal to limit the damage that it unavoidably causes. The abdication of the Queen's uncle and the collapse of the marriages of the Queen's sister and three of her four children, besides the trauma of the death of Princess Diana must have taught the Palace something. Many more were effectively buried. 

So Andrew interviewed in Buckingham Palace must have had the permission of the Queen and had access to the best legal and PR advice available to anyone in the land, so how was such disaster allowed to take place? One is forced to conclude that either the Palace demonstrated an unbelievable level of incompetence or that for some rather devious reason, too obscure to comprehend, it wanted the portrayal that it got. 

And what was Prince Andrew's part in it? Presumably he wanted to do it in the way that he did. Did he not seek to know the questions that he would be asked and rehearse with others his answers and how they could be construed? On such a potentially damaging issue as under age sex and the sex trafficking of children for the wealthy and political elite, did the Palace officials demand sight of both questions and answers beforehand? 

These must be the questions Prince Charles, and future King, must now be posing to those in charge of Prince Andrew's retinue, if not to Andrew himself. It has reported that Amanda Thirsk (shown below) his 'right hand woman' has already been sacked over the 
affair but also helpfully been given a job elsewhere. The British 'Sun' reported she was "part of of Duke’s bizarre all-female inner circle dubbed ‘Andy’s Angels’". Another is ex-David Cameron staffer, Laura Hutchings.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10411378/prince-andrew-amanda-thirsk-aides-andys-angels/

We must wonder now, if not before, if they were all fallen ones? One might have expected women advisors to be more sensitive to the subject matter, the alleged victims and incipient reputational dangers to the Prince himself. In practice they proved only their ineptness and naivety.



The Duke of York pictured with 'angel' Amanda Thirsk at the Chelsea Flower ShowCredit: Press Association
 The Duke of York pictured with 'angel' Amanda Thirsk at the Chelsea Flower Show


Emily Maitlis has subsequently suggested that the reason the Prince came over as he did was because he had not been coached and wished to come over as natural as possible. She has said he seemed "candid and authentic" but dodged the question as to whether she thought him "truthful". It seems her opinion of him has not been replicated by the media commentators or general public opinion. Without making any judgements of the Prince it is undoubtedly true that an inveterate liar is 'authentic' if and when he lies. 'Candid' in the circumstances is surely something of a weasel word? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxuifGLiRjQ

They say that the majority of any message is conveyed by non-verbal clues - what is called 'body language'. Even a practised performer such as Prince Andrew would likely feel somewhat uncomfortable, despite the familiar surroundings and deferential attitude of the interviewer. Nevertheless there is something rather shifty about his manner. He certainly evidences no convincing regret - other than staying at Epstein's house for four days in 2010 after the latter had been convicted of a sex charge - and no empathy for those who have claimed they were trafficked or abused, or indeed for the general issue of sex with under aged individuals.

But there were more obvious and serious flaws in his testimony. 

(Continued)

But besides these general reservations, there is the more important one of numerous examples of embedded inconsistencies in his memory of events and his justification for them. He attempt to reconcile his distance from Jeffrey Epstein, with his close friendship with him. His memory completely fails in relation to important alleged events, whilst being clear and certain regarding contemporaneous trivial ones. He suggests explanations that are patently not credible. He fails to provide any substantive evidence to rebut the claims. 

The defences he does put up to the allegations, for example the absence of sweating; that he never allowed photographs of him with women; that he always wore a tie when he was out; that a photograph had been doctored; that he was never at Ghislaine Maxwell's house; that he didn't know where the bar was at the London nightclub, are so patently flimsy or have been disproved by other photographs, that it destroys all reliance on his assertion that the claimed intimate relationship, "Never happened". There is of course the added inherent problem that if as he claims he has "No recollection" of the lady in question, he can also in the same breath be so sure "It never happened". The two assertions must be contradictory and mutually exclusive.



He says right at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear he met Epstein through his friend Ghislaine  Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell the newspaper proprietor and alleged Israeli spy, who died in mysterious circumstances off his yacht in 1991. Maxwell was an acknowledged fraudster, stealing millions from his employees pension fund to shore up his business empire and enrich himself, the proceeds of which benefited his daughter. Prince Andrew does not dwell on how this relationship started or the propriety of it given Robert Maxwell's reputation.

Notwithstanding this, it is clear that Prince Andrew attempts to use Ghislaine to distance himself from Epstein and his involvement with him. In fact he attempts to pass the focus of attention for his actions onto her, which some might regard as inherent cowardice. Again there is logical incoherence in his argument. On the one hand that Epstein wasn't a close friend, yet he required a personal trip to the United States to tell him they couldn't be. 

"I met back in 1999 .... think to some extent it would be a stretch to
say, as it were, we were close friends - we were friends because of other people. I didn't have much time with him. I suppose I saw him once or twice a year. If he wasn't there he would say, why don't you come and use my houses, and I said thank you very much indeed. But it would be a considerable stretch to say he was a very, very close friend."

"I have never been a party animal and going to Jeffrey's was never about partying. It was the girlfriend (Ghislaine) who was the key element in this."

"Ever since I visited him in 2010 I have questioned myself, was it the right thing to do? I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted it was inappropriate for us to be seen together. I took the judgement call that because this was serious, doing it over the telephone was the chicken's way of doing it. I had to go and see him and talk to him. By mutual agreement during that walk in the park we decided we would part company and from that day I never had any contact with him from that day forward."

In other words his stated position is that despite knowing this prominent person since 1999 through an even older friend who he had "met at university" - though of course he did not attend university, going straight to Dartmouth from Gordonstoun - and staying at his various houses two or three times a year, he had no idea of Epstein's penchant for young females. This also would appear to require a "considerable stretch". Someone else has been quoted as saying "You couldn't be around Jeffrey for long before you were aware he liked young girls."

Of course another intriguing imponderable, is why it took so long for the images of Andrew and Jeffrey walking together in the park, and the video of the former waving goodbye to Katherine Keating (bit of a stretch to claim they were also 'close friends'?) from Epstein's apartment, to emerge in the public domain. And why now? Also perhaps more importantly, who or what unrevealed agency obtained them, released them and for what purpose - other than to implicate a member of the British Royal Family, presumably to cause him and it, grave reputational damage?


A psychological analysis of Prince Andrew's interview here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA

1999 - 2006 by his own admission, he met Epstein up to twenty-one times. In addition on an undeclared number of occasions he stayed at his properties when Epstein wasn't there. Yet he says to call him a close friend "was a bit of a stretch". Yet after knowing of his conviction, in 2010, he had to fly all the way to New York to meet and break off personally what was not a close friendship, staying in Epstein's town house for four days, walking in the park with him, and being filmed waving a smiling goodbye to the attractive daughter of the ex-Prime Minister of Australia! Leaving aside his acknowledged close relationship to Ghislaine Maxwell since university days, also Epstein's girlfriend, confidant and procurer of yound females for sex, this can hardly be regarded as a convincing line of argument.


A different slant on the story....



Prince Andrew's interview didn't go well, but that doesn't mean he's guilty. Let's take a good look at his accuser. My first thought is : what kind of scumbag is she that she was having sex for money at that young age, and what sort of failed family does she come from where she was free to move around with no parental involvement or care.
She claims she's a victim, but I think she knew what she was doing and was out to get as much as she could.
And, let's face it, that's what she's doing right now, chasing the money and doesn't care how she does it or who gets hurt.
Virginia Giuffre
She was paid $160,000 by a British tabloid for a story they published of her allegations of sex with famous men, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Al Gore.... Need I continue? As one of the defence lawyers put it, it's as if this woman went through a list of famous people and just copied and pasted names.
She has a book proposal out to publishers and she's trying to get a lucrative book deal. If she succeeds she would stand to get enough money so she'd never have to work her ass again. So the stakes are very high and she stands to gain a huge bonanza just to tell this story.
She claims she was a "victim" but she spent most of three years inside of Epstein’s circle, showing up whenever Epstein called. She was free to leave at any time but didn't.
She never reported anyone until now. And she's never needed any form of medical treatment or psychological counselling which one would expect a real victim of abuse to have needed.
There is no corroboration for her story and no witnesses who can confirm any of the details.
Giuffre's allegations have only been place in her head, and the public record via her own documents and depositions in her own case where she herself is being sued for defamation, and through her book proposal.
Her claims were struck off in a Florida court in 2015 after the judge described them as “immaterial and impertinent” to the case against Epstein.
The photo of her with Prince Andrew appears to be fake.
The light on their faces doesn't match.
Prince Andrew’s friends say the hands in the photo aren’t “chubby” enough.
The photo shows Andrew and Giuffre around the same height, when in reality the prince is about nine inches taller than Giuffre.
Her employment records prove – and she now concedes – that she didn’t meet Epstein until a year after she turned 16.
This means she was above the age of consent at the time she claimed to have had sex with Epstein’s friends. A consenting adult. No crime committed.
Someone else she's accused, Alan Dershowitz:
"In one email, a well-known journalist urged her to include my name because of my fame, writing that although there is "no proof " that Dershowitz had sex with you, he is a '"good name for your pitch.'" Giuffre then included me, but as someone who she met and did not have sex with."
All of the men whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein and Giuffre, including Dershowitz and Andrew, have denied her claims. Nothing she has said about either man has yet been proven in any court, civil or criminal.
Special appeal:
She's asked me to pass her details on to anyone who is willing to pay for her story. She says she's "flexible on details" and, given a bit of money, finds it easy to remember the names of other rich and famous men who abused her.
As always, she says, she's "willing to share other things too, as long as you have money", she's your girl.



Monday 25 November 2019

Harvested alive -10 years investigation of Force Organ Harvesting

Ford v. Ferrari 1966

Image result for le mans 1966 images

Carroll Shelby In His Own Words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKYoxGv_llI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0ejRFOvaFxHhge_Ri3QhOefog3CEk9A_lcYbaPsw0vKsP19Iz7UD1G9vA


Carroll Shelby - The Lost Interview | Ford v Ferrari | Le Mans | GT40 | Complete Life History



14.6K subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Hear the story of Caroll Shelby from man himself. Shelby talks about his life at speed, the Cobra, the Daytona the Shelby Mustang and of course Fords win at Le Mons. Featuring appearances from Shelby American Automobile Club Co-Founder Rick Kopec, Jay Leno and Automotive legends Innes Ireland, Phil Hill, Stirling Moss, and Dan Gurney. Narrated by Bill Stephens.


Kenneth Henry Miles (1 November 1918 – 17 August 1966) was an English sports car racing engineer and driver best known for his motorsport career in the US and with American teams on the international scene. He is an inductee to the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America.