Thursday, 31 January 2013


 Fearing that social media may actually have some teeth BBC Sport Presenter  and Crown Court Judge Niclas Parry  has responded to the letter written by the Catherine Scott.  Catherine   disgusted   with Parrys remarks to a  teenage rape victim of Rape  that she had "let herself down" started a petition to get Parry to apologise.


The fact that the Court have decided to reply to Catherine is amazing in itself normally they ignore people who are not  part of their little clique of solicitors or barristers.   However we are quickly elucidated when we read his reply he decided to lie explaining in legalese how he actually said and meant the exact opposite of what he said and meant.

Judges who lie and obfuscate  like this   should be quickly relieved of their posts.


Catherine gives an update on her blog.

"Update on the petition asking Judge Niclas Parry to retract his victim-blaming comments

As you may or may not be aware, last month I started a petition in response to this news story. In the petition, I asked Judge Niclas Parry to retract and apologise for his comments to a rape victim that she had 'let herself down badly'. Here's the text of the email I sent to Judge Parry, drawing his attention to the petition:
"I am writing to ask you to publicly apologise for, and retract your comments to the rape victim of Anthony Parry that she 'let herself down badly' (reported December 14 2012, BBC News). To focus on the behaviour of the victim whilst sentencing a guilty rapist sends out the message that rape is partially the victim's fault. This is particularly concerning in light of the recent Home Office report which found that rape conviction rates remain pitifully low, and that many victims are afraid to report rape because they fear them will be blamed.

Disbelieving or victim-blaming attitues from members of the criminal justice system have regularly been cited as a factor in discouraging rape victims from coming forward, so it is particularly disappointing that an influential figure such as yourself felt the need to imply that women are to blame for being raped if they have been drinking. This will only contribute to a culture where victims remain afraid to come forward and rapists continue to go unpunished.

Your words also go directly against one of the main premises of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, as described in the Stern Report 2010 - namely that "sex without consent is always rape and all other factors about a person making a complaint of rape are irrelevant to that central fact". (The Stern Review 2010, Page 14)

Apologise for and retract your victim-blaming comments to this woman, and instead use your power as a member of the judiciary to send out an unequivocal message that rape is always 100% the rapist's fault.
Sincerely etc"
After having to chase Mold Crown Court twice to obtain a response from Judge Parry, I received the following reply on Jan 29 from the court Listing Manager Jane Williams.
"His Honour Judge Parry would wish to thank you for your message and for the very valid points that you raise regarding the trying of cases such as these.

He would also wish to explain why this is a case where the need for any apology would not arise but to explain also that that is only due to the circumstances of the particular case in question.

The reference to the Complainant was in face specifically made by His Honour because the Complainant herself had stated that she somehow feared that her behaviour might be seen as contributory and to emphasise to her and everyone else that, in fact, in his Honour's view, quite the contrary was true and that in fact the Complainant's condition was actually an aggravating feature which the Judge considered made the offence even worse and so merited a higher sentence.

For your information only, and hopefully to assist further, the Judge was in fact sent a letter from the Complainant's family thanking him personally for the manner in which he had dealt with the Complainant who had felt supported by him, and because of that, more able to pursue her complaint. The Judge was also thanked for what was considered by them to be an appropriate sentence.

Regards etc
I responded the same day:
"Thank you for replying on behalf of His Honour Judge Parry.

I am somewhat confused by His Honour's explanation for the comments he made. I do not understand how, by saying the Complainant had 'let herself down badly', His Honour was reassuring the Complainant that her behaviour was not a contributing factor to being raped. He is quoted as saying (to the accused Anthony Parry) 'She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs but she also had the misfortune of meeting you.' His Honour's use of the word 'also' implies that it was both the fact the Complainant had been drinking, and the fact she met Anthony Parry, which led to her being raped. When of course it was only the latter, and to publicly imply otherwise does all rape victims a massive disservice.

If I have misunderstood or missed out a vital part of the court transcript I would appreciate clarification, but nowhere in Judge Parry's remarks can I find the implication he is reassuring the victim that her behaviour was not partly to blame - in fact, I find the complete opposite.
 While I appreciate that the Complainant may have found Judge Parry supportive and thanked him for the way he dealt with the case, this does not detract from the fact he made a public statement which focused on the victim's (legally irrelevant) behaviour, implied that the woman had failed herself in some way, and potentially deterred future rape victims from coming forward.

Therefore, I would appreciate further clarification on why His Honour does not think his comments merit an apology."
On 30th Jan I received this reply:
"His Honour has received your reply. He has provided the explanation and you will appreciate that he would not normally engage in correspondence regarding individual cases. He has done so on this occasion in an attempt to assist in the understanding of the administration of justice. You will no doubt ensure that all with whom you say you shared your views will be afforded the curtesy of being provided with the full picture.

The only additional assistance His Honour feels he can offer relates you your comment that a complainant's behaviour is legally irrelevant. In fact it is His Honour's view that this is not correct, it can be highly legally relevant because it can amount to an aggravating feature in a case which can increase a sentence as was the case in this particular example
I replied:
"Thank you for your response. I will certainly be sharing His Honour's views with the 600+ people who signed the petition. However, I remain unconvinced by his explanation. Nowhere in his comments does His Honour say that the victim's drunkenness was an aggravating factor in him deciding to pass a higher sentence. If that were the case, he might have said something along the lines of, 'The victim had drunk alcohol and took drugs. I consider Anthony Parry's decision to take advantage of her state an aggravating factor therefore I am passing a higher sentence'. Instead he said '[The victim] let herself down badly. She drank far too much alcohol and took drugs. However, she also had the misfortune of meeting you', which I read as a pejorative and irrelevant reference to the victim's behaviour.
Unless His Honour can clarify how his comments were intended to support, rather than criticise, the victim, I will be continuing with the petition."
So far, I haven't had a response but I can't say I'm optimistic about what it will contain if I do get one. As far as I can see, Judge Parry is basically trying to say his comments meant the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean, and also trying to use the fact that the victim thanked him for his support as evidence that he is not a victim-blamer. I'm not buying it.
However, I'm not sure how to press forward with this in a constructive way. I can keep gathering signatures, but if the response will merely be the same kind of stonewalling, is this the best way of addressing this issue, or should I try another tack?

Monday, 28 January 2013


 Leon Brittan  first named in the North Wales Child Abuse Scandal has come up again in the Elm Guest House Scandal.  He was well known to be a paedophile interested in boys it is alleged.   But was protected by the Establishment and the Police and still has not been arrested or questioned about the allegations.

Decades later the victims are waiting for justice from  Cameron's Government will it happen?

I can confirm that documents seized under warrant by members of the Operation Fairbank police investigation team (now Operation Fernbridge) as evidence in the Elm Guest House paedophile scandal (1979-1982) allege that the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, later Home Secretary,and current Trade advisor to this Coalition Government, Leon Brittan was a regular visitor to the guest house where the abuse of young boys trafficked in from local care homes took place.

As such Leon Brittan is implicated in the Operation Fernbridge paedophile investigation.
Leon Brittan left British politics suddenly in 1989 to become a European Commissioner after receiving a Knighthood.. He became Baron Brittan of Spennithorne in 2000.

As Home Secretary, with oversight of the police and the judiciary, he took a slow, ‘step by step’ approach to requests that the then legal organisation, The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), should be outlawed. He was presented with lists of known perpetrators and members of PIE. It is unclear at this stage what action, if any, he took.  source

In 1984 Geoffrey Dickens MP handed over a 50-page dossier detailing VIP child abuse  to Leon Brittan then Home Secretary and nothing happened except the dossier dissapeared.

Although most people have now forgotten the event, two and a half years ago David Cameron – unable to find anyone who’d take the job as Trade Minister – appointed Leon Brittan as a consultant to do the job ‘full time for £500 a day’ – or roughly £170,000 per annum. The former Thatcher aide worked in the role from September 2010 until February 2011, taking time off from his Vice-Chairmanship of UBS investment bank to do it.

This is not, however, the only direct link Mr Brittan has with the Coalition. He was also Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s first political boss in Europe, and on LBC recently David Mellor mentioned that Brittan had promoted Clegg: “He [Clegg] got the job because Clegg’s father was a very close friend of Leon Brittan” said the former toe-sucking Conservative Minister. It is not clear whether Clegg promoted Brittan’s cause for the 2010-11 consultancy job, but the LibDem leader admits himself that Mr Brittan first introduced him to Paddy Ashdown.

Embedded image permalink

Brittan first became a controversial figure during the Westland Helicopters affair in 1986. He resigned when he was shown to have leaked a letter critical of the minister at the centre of the scandal, Michael Heseltine. Heseltine stormed out of Cabinet, but was later said by some to have felt ‘framed’ by events during and after the events of that time. Sources told The Slog late last year that Heseltine’s appearance in the ‘little black book’ of American paedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein was “a plant designed to discredit him”, but to my knowledge nobody has ever accused specific individuals of the frame-up. (The Daily Mail rang Heseltine at the time, who told them he had “no memory of even meeting Epstein”.)  read more

Sunday, 27 January 2013

Jimmy Savile Helped by Failing British Legal System to Escape Justice

How my father may have helped Jimmy Savile escape justice

The son of George Carman QC recalls how his father helped paedophiles escape justice

George Carman QC 

George Carman QC. Photograph: Eamonn Mccabe

For years the Duncroft girls have been trying to get justice. The Police would do nothing about Jimmy Savile because he had them in his pocket, the Press did try to help but  the British Injustice System worked against them. Read what the son of Lord Carman QC had to say:- 
Roy Greenslade's blog last Wednesday reported that Paul Connew, when editor of the Sunday Mirror in 1994, did have "credible and convincing" evidence from two women who claimed that Jimmy Savile had been guilty of abusing them at a children's home. Though "totally and utterly convinced" they were telling the truth, the paper's lawyers, after a careful assessment, decided it wasn't strong enough to risk publication. The risk was libel and the substantial costs and damages that the newspaper could face should they lose a subsequent high court case from the litigious Savile. To the in-house lawyers at Mirror Group, the risk seemed too great. Connew went further in talking about his guilt relating to this on Newsnight last Thursday. But there is perhaps another angle to the story.

In 1992, my father, George Carman QC, had been retained by Savile's lawyers over a different matter, which never reached court. By 1994, the name Carman, and what he could do in cross-examination, put such fear into the minds of litigants, lawyers and editors that libel cases were settled and, in some circumstances, perhaps stories were not published. Savile may have been one of those. As an indication of Carman's universal demand, and the respect he instilled, one has to look no further than the Guardian itself. In 1995, the editor, Alan Rusbridger, when faced with a libel action from Jonathan Aitken said: "We'd better get Carman – before Aitken gets him." They did and Aitken lost.

My father's relationship with Mirror Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sunday Mirror, is worth examining. Up to a week before his death in December 1991, he had been advising Robert Maxwell about a libel case against the BBC relating to a Panorama exposé. Ensconced with him for many hours in his chambers, and on the top floor of the old Mirror Group building, the two men discussed revenge on the Beeb. It never happened: the case went with Maxwell to the grave. Six weeks later, Robert's son, Kevin, was hauled before Parliament's social security committee to discuss the missing millions from the Mirror Group pension fund. He said nothing, leaving my father to deliver a two-hour televised homily on his behalf, concerning his client's right to silence.

Carman went on to act successfully for Mirror Group in several libel cases, saving them a substantial sum in costs and damages. But in October 1993, he changed sides, as lawyers sometimes do, under what is called the cab rank principle: first come, first served. He was retained by Elton John in a libel case against the Sunday Mirror over false allegations that he suffered from a bizarre eating disorder that caused him to spit out the food he was eating. In court, Carman went for the jugular, demanding punitive damages from the jury for publishing an untrue story, inviting them "to wipe the smile off the faces of the board of directors of Mirror Group Newspapers".

The jury did exactly that, awarding £75,000 for the libel and £275,000 in punitive damages. It added to the £1m in damages which Elton had got from the Sun five years earlier over allegations concerning his private life. Colin Myler, then editor of the Sunday Mirror, and later the last ever editor of the News of the World, labelled the damages "excessive", adding: "When you consider that a person who loses an eye receives in the region of £20,000 compensation, it helps to put this case into perspective."
Connew was appointed as Myler's successor in 1994. The Savile story landed in his lap shortly afterwards. For the in-house lawyers at Mirror Group, the prospect of a Carman cross-examination of the two women, who would be their key witnesses, may have influenced their thinking. If he had achieved £350,000 for Elton, how astronomic might the damages have been had Savile won, when the libel was potentially much greater? Perhaps the risk of publishing the story was considered too great because of George Carman.

They also might have had another Carman performance in mind: his successful defence of the late Peter Adamson, better known as Len Fairclough in Coronation Street. In 1983, Adamson was tried for indecently assaulting two eight-year-old girls in a public swimming pool, in Haslingden. Following complaints of previous incidents, the assaults had been witnessed by two police officers watching through a porthole, which gave an underwater view of the pool. In cross-examining the officers and the girls, my father destroyed the case. Adamson walked free. The following year, he told a Sun reporter: "I am totally guilty of everything the police said." When the Sun reported the story, no further action was taken. Adamson died in 2002.

Like Savile, he never paid for his crimes.   souce

What are the wider implications of this sorry tale?  It means that the UK does not have a functioning justice system.  The best liar wins in Court.  Poor people have no chance at all. Criminals go free and the innocent are convicted.  This all leads to Justice Denied.

Friday, 25 January 2013


 600 people have already signed the petition asking Judge Niclas Parry to apologise to the  teenage rape victim  he blamed for being raped,  He said  she had "let herself down badly"   Please sign. 
Niclas Parry as a solicitor represented paedophiles in the North Wales Child Abuse inquiry.  The validity of the Inquiry   is  now being reviewed in the Macur Review by a High Court Judge.    Judge Parry  also jailed  child abuse investigator Andrea Davison for 3 years although  he said "no-one had lost any money"  and no-one had been harmed.

Judge Niclas Parry's friend and fellow BBC Football broadcaster Stuart Hall  who was charged  this week by police with the rape of a 22-year-old in 1976  and 14 counts of indecent assault  against girls as young as 9 years old.    And yes Judge Niclas Parry  doubles up as a BBC Radio presenter.

Nic Parry on the Sgorio set


Judge Niclas Parry, Caenarfon Crown Court
I am writing to ask you to publicly apologise for, and retract your comments to the rape victim of Anthony Parry that she 'let herself down badly' (reported December 14 2012, BBC News). To focus on the behaviour of the victim whilst sentencing a guilty rapist sends out the message that rape is partially the victim's fault. This is particularly concerning in light of the recent Home Office report which found that rape conviction rates remain pitifully low, and that many victims are afraid to report rape because they fear them will be blamed.

Disbelieving or victim-blaming attitudes from members of the criminal justice system have regularly been cited as a factor in discouraging rape victims from coming forward, so it is particularly disappointing that an influential figure such as yourself felt the need to imply that women are to blame for being raped if they have been drinking. This will only contribute to a culture where victims remain afraid to come forward and rapists continue to go unpunished.

Your words also go directly against one of the main premises of the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, as described in the Stern Report 2010 - namely that "sex without consent is always rape and all other factors about a person making a complaint of rape are irrelevant to that central fact". (The Stern Review 2010, Page 14)

Apologise for and retract your victim-blaming comments to this woman, and instead use your power as a member of the judiciary to send out an unequivocal message that rape is always 100% the rapist's fault.


Operation Pallial or as insiders call it  Operation  Cloak  which is what Pallial actually means.

 Cloaks terms of refereance  can be found here

Operation Cloak is designed to  prevent  the truth about the elite Paedophile Ring  from surfacing  and make sure  the Cover-up the North Wales Police started  almost 30 years ago is Cloaked.

 In fact if you want to contact  the Serious Organised Crime Agency SOCA who run Operation Cloak  an investigation into  the North Wales Police  and you want to give  evidence against the North Wales Police you can do so by e-mailing  is  more generally  known as the North Wales Police but do not let that worry you!

Alestair C

Basically the Government and the Police are taking the proverbial and letting you know it by the name.

see a definition of Pallial  at Pallial

I expect Operation Cloak  is running hand in hand with Operation Yew Tree 
Jimmy Savile a satanist?

Yew Trees are very, very  slow growing and are mainly found in Graveyards where  all the skeletens are buried  and where it is claimed Satanic Ritual Abuse takes place involving  cloaked (paliall)  figures

So what are they trying to say?

read more a surviors pain

Thursday, 24 January 2013


The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan Clark

Max Clifford was recently arrested by Operation Yewtree Police 
Nicholas Myra 21st Century Wire    wrote on  Nov 13, 2012 You’d better believe that Max Clifford has a lot of skeletons in his filing cabinet. If you have enough money, you too can have your skeletons filed away in these rather seedy archives. In the leaked video that has since gone viral, allegedly filmed before last year, the camera man managed to loosen up Clifford enough to spill a large can of beans. In the video, the legendary PR Guru to the stars and elites let slip that he had successfully hid away the sins of one Tory MP, and ‘diarist’, Alan Clark.

Read More and see the Video of Max Clifford talking about   all the secrets

Alan Clark’s noted adulterous affair with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African judge, and her two daughters Josephine and Alison, for their tale of the seduction of all three by Clark (to whom he referred collectively as “the coven”) made the Harkesses ‘a lot of money’ according to Clifford.  The affair became public knowledge in 1992 after Clark left the House of Commons, and later took its place between the covers of a few best selling seedy novels. Both sides had profited from the affair, but according the Clifford in the video below, it seemed that MP Alan Clark had to bury a rather inconvenient detail which would have landed him in a criminal court. Here are two excerpts from the video which was released by super blog site Guido Fawkes:  

“He enjoyed it that whole thing, Alan Clark loved the whole thing…  they(the Harkesses) made a lot of money out of it, he used them, so they wanted to make money out of it, and had a … so they did, he(Alan Clark) enjoyed it and sold a lot of books.” “The only slightly serious side of it was that he(Alan Clark) actually interfered with those girls from the age of 14…”

He seems to be referring to the crime of paedophilia there… If this was indeed the case, then Clark would have also profited from it. Fancy that. Watch the video here: [youtube=] The next line is the real killer though, and one which we should all stop, pause, and consider properly – particularly during the current paedophile upheaval which the BBC and the current government are so anxious to draw a line under.

Following the fake duel between the BBC’s Newsnight and much maligned Lord McAlpine, the establishment was hoping that no more high-ranking figures or MP’s would be fingered for paedophilia or child abuse. This much is certain – the elite power brokers want their public nightmare to end with Savile.  Casually referring to the volumes of dirt he has tucked away for a rainy day, Max Clifford ignominiously boasts here: “I’ve got all the evidence, I’m the one who’s hidden it from the world, I know where everything is…” If this video is genuine and what it appears to be, then Clifford could eventually become a key figure at the centre of this issue. The Independenthad published a story on this incident entitled, Publicist Max Clifford Denies Covering Up Conservative MP Alan Clark’s Underage Sex Scandal, but then quickly removed it from their website. This is not surprising because Max still wields incredible power on Fleet Street. The full text of their article can be found here, explaining:
“The former government minister Alan Clark had sex with children, according to the publicity agent Max Clifford. In a secretly filmed, three-minute interview posted on the internet last night, the publicist said that the Tory MP and diarist had “interfered” with two 14-year-old girls. But he added, during a discussion of his success in suppressing scandals, that the story had never come out. Last night Mr Clifford, who was unaware his comments were being recorded, strenuously denied that he had told the girls’ family to stay quiet about the allegations.”

Max: Keeps ugly secrets safe.
Max Clifford keeps things tidy for the elite, and the dirt he collects keeps him safe from reprisals. It’s a high stakes game, and he is undoubtedly one of the best ever to play it. He knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. Sure, it would be career suicide for his PR business, but if he chose to, he could certainly help towards gaining justice for many sexually abused children. In the end, that’s up to Max Clifford, but because of the nature of his work and the confidentiality which is the currency of his profession – any disclosure on crimes in high places is unlikely to happen. One might ask here, where does Clifford stand morally, or legally for that matter, if he is holding back information about known paedophiles, particularly those in government? Does he have the same sort of protection from disclosure as say, a doctor, or Catholic priest? He has not committing any offense as such, but it’s worth asking here, does he have a duty to report a child abuse case? Critics might charge here, and rightly so, that Clifford is somehow putting his own wealth above the safety of children.

 If it’s a paedophile in government, then it could be viewed as a national security issue because that public official could be blackmailed by a foreign interest. It would be interesting to know if Sir Jimmy Savile was a past client of Clifford’s, or of another firm.

 An intriguing question now is: how many more MPs, celebrities and various oligarchs (these are the only people who can afford to retain the services of a high flyer like Max Clifford) have had their sins washed away by Clifford, or other PR firms like his? Since the Savile scandal broke, guess who have been getting flooded with phone calls from ‘frightened’ celebrities who are afraid of being implicated, for unknown offenses and associations with Savile, including – paedophilia. A recent article describes the phenomenon:
Dozens of big name stars from the 1960s and 70s have contacted Max Clifford “frightened to death” they will become implicated in the widening Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal, the PR guru has claimed. He said the stars, some of whom are still big names today, were worried because at their peak they had lived a hedonistic lifestyle where young girls threw themselves at them but they “never asked for anybody’s birth certificate”.
Most celebrities and TV people will use the ‘rock n roll’ get out clause, claiming that children were “throwing themselves at me”, and this tends to work in Britain where morals are now subject to the laws of relativity. But after Savile, the rock star excuse doesn’t hold as much credence. They are all genuinely scared, feeling guilty, because they know they got away with it back them because the system covered for them, but that system is crumbling – that’s why they’re calling Max – to preserve their media value. More girth for Max Clifford’s expanding filing cabinet? More girth in fees too.

This couldn’t come at a worse time, as Max Clifford has recently been appointed as the PR Ambassador to the BBC charity, Children In Need. Is a man who makes his living running cover for the rich and powerful the right man to steer a children’s charity? You cannot ignore the spooky echoes of old Esther Rantzen and pal Jimmy Savile and their Child Line panto. Without a doubt, there is a lot to speculate on – is this yet another example where the activities of paedophiles in high places strangely link with these “children’s charities” in Britain? This comment below is from the forum at Mumsnet:


 read more


Cash for Boys Ian Greer and Ken Clarke

Whitewash - Ian Greer  

Scallywag Magazine article circa 1995 revisited. Dolphin Square Pimlico  Carbon Copy of  Elm Guest House  'Spot the Ball'

Silver-hared pansy Ian Greer, the former architect of modern-day Tory sleaze, had a marvellous opportunity to "tell all" when, (recently unemployed over the still raging Al Fayad -Neil Hamilton "cash for questions" scandal), he decided to pen his memoirs. It should have been a salacious confession in which he could easily have driven the last set of nails firmly into the Conservative Party coffin. They had, after all, deserted him quite dreadfully at his time of need. Instead it was a bland, almost pathetic excuse for his sleaze activity without mentioning his clandestine sexual- political manipulations.

In this dubious self-aggrandising tome he takes Private Eye to task for not having the guts to call him a faggot. They referred, he said, to the fact that he had a live-in male 'companion', but did not go the "whole hog" and call him gay.

He refrained from saying that over a two-year period Scallywag had done so on many occasions. Although he has not ever come "out" in print, at least he is a not a hypocrite, like so many Tory gays. He was blatantly, almost gloriously, a raging poofta who wore make-up and regularly hosted notorious gay parties in which he dressed up in exotic silk clothes, sometimes of Eastern origin. 

Not only that, he ran the world's most successful "boys for questions" agency to first woo and then exploit many of the hundred or so homosexuals on the Tory benches. (Source: Matthew Parris, himself a former Conservative MP, now a celebrated Times parliamentary columnist who has "come out" and has said in print that there were at least 100 gays in the parliamentary Tory party).

Greer's now scandalous Christmas parties were virtually all-male shindigs to which many of the gay MPs were invited to dance with a whole bevy of handpicked rent boys. But during the rest of the year he would also regularly throw wild and very exclusive gay parties for MPs, either at his elegant Pimlico flat, or at a suit his company hired permanently in Dolphin Square. 

This only came to light when Scallywag and others obtained affidavits from young men who had been recruited from children's homes in North Wales - a sordid, ghastly, paedophile network which, after years of wild rumour and several successful prosecutions, is only just being fully investigated in a year-long judicial probe. 

If the inquiries are allowed to go the whole way, then the path will lead directly to Pimlico where, we alleged, Lord McAlpine among many others, was a regular visitor. 
Apart from his live-in lover, the two of them enjoy the company of a queer butler and two highly active poodles.

Naturally, it is not known how many times Greer Associates exploited the situation when his guests got back to Parliament. The scam was that he charged his clients exorbitant fees to pay MP's but pocketed the money himself and paid out only the modest fees for rent boys.

When it was realised that a scorned Greer was about to publish his memoirs, many an MP had a few sleepless nights.
 As we now know, they could have slept sweetly.

The other "boys for questions" sleaze artist, by coincidence also in residence at another Pimlico flat, was Derek Laud, then standing for parliament against Bernie Grant in North London. (See Portillo files). Laud, who ran the highly successful but deeply controversial Ludgate Communications, also has a live-in lover - but no butler. He prefers instead the affections of his chauffeur. And, of course, the regular friendship of the Defence Minister.

Laud was forced to pull out of the election when he was found guilty of drunken driving while on a clandestine trip to New England. He thought he had got off lightly when he was sentenced to 80 hours community service. But now the passengers in the other car are suing him for nine and a half million dollars and he has gone into hiding. Are his friends helping him?

Laud was a regular visitor to the Portillo household, especially to the private party to celebrate the return of Portillo and friends from Barbados. Michael Brown was one of the revellers in the West Indies and is an "outed" gay. He is also one of the three MPs being officially investigated by the cash-for-questions scandal inquiry into Neil Hamilton (the other is Tim Smith, another listed Portillo partygoer).

Other constant visitors to both men's male dens of iniquity were the many gay incumbents of Tory Central Office at Smith Square. They constitute a sort of glorious old schoolboys network. This naturally included Scallywag's most devoted fan, the ebullient Julian Lewis, now in parliament for the New Forest

And  20 years later no-one has been arrested.

The Independant reports that

"What makes the Rocks Lane story so tantalising for the media is the list of alleged attendees at the parties. One source suggested that Anthony Blunt, former keeper of the Queen's pictures and an exposed Soviet mole, used to go the parties, but then Blunt's notoriety made him a magnet for any number of fanciful theories. Those who knew him say the idea is absurd, and that his sexual tastes were far more conventional. Others have spoken of two High Court judges and a Foreign Office official attending. Chris Fay, a social worker who worked for a small charity, the National Association for Young People in Care (Naypic), has alleged that a terrified Kasir had shown him about 20 photographs of middle-aged men with young boys, taken at what he said were kings and queens fancy-dress parties, attended by a number of powerful and well-known people. One, Mr Fay alleged, featured a well-known public figure wearing nothing but a French maid's apron alongside a young boy nude apart from a tiara.   READ MORE


Ken Clarke  MP  and Ian Greer  and  the sexual abuse of  Ben Fellows

 read more

The blog admin apologises for  any offence caused to anyone in our beloved  Gay community because of  the Scallywag Article  it was the lanquage of the day.


Yes  Stuart Hall BBC  Football Sport Presenter  and Broadcaster  to face charges of  Rape and Paedophilia.

VETERAN BBC  television and radio broadcaster Stuart Hall was charged by police with the rape of a 22-year-old in 1976  and 14 counts of indecent assault  against girls as young as 9 years old.

Hall  lives in Cheshire  in  Prestbury Road, Wilmslow.  Cheshire borders North Wales and  sports many well know Paedophiles who hitherto have escaped Justice.  For example Sir Peter Morrison MP for Chester  who  abused children from  North Wales Children's homes and Approved Schools.

The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10  girls aged between nine and 16 years old.

 Stuart  Hall was awarded the OBE in the New Year Honours list of 2012.  Sir Jimmy Savile, Sir Peter Morrison, Stuart Hall OBE etc why are all these paedophiles honoured?

A police spokesman said he was bailed to appear before Preston magistrates court on February 7.

Will Stuart Hall's fellow BBC Football  presenter Judge Niclas Parry hear his case  I wonder?


Stuart Hall court case
Stuart Hall has been accused of a number of sexual offences dating back to 1967. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA
Stuart Hall, the veteran BBC broadcaster, has been charged with rape and 14 counts of indecent assault in relation to alleged offences over the course of three decades, Lancashire Police said last night.
The force said that he was arrested on Tuesday morning after attending a police station by appointment and has been bailed to appear in court in Preston on 7 February.
The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16. The rape is alleged to have been committed in 1976 against a 22-year-old woman.
One of the BBC's longest-serving commentators, he made his name nationally as a presenter of It's a Knockout in the 1970s and 1980s, and its European equivalent Jeux sans Frontières. Hall, who received an OBE in the last New Year honours list, has also worked on a number of programmes from his base in the north-west, including Look North.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013


Whitewash - Alistair McAlpine

The media has lauded Lord McAlpine's recent memoirs, something about being Thatcher's bagman, as being "controversial, biting, and very revealing". It was, according to various breathless accounts in the newspapers, "sweeping through parliament like wildfire". It fact, it is merely bitchy and it completely whitewashes the real truth about Tory finances when he was their fundraiser - and Thatcher's favourite Boy Scout. It is bitchy because McAlpine is a bitch.

It is only remarkable in what it does not reveal. One minute he is pouring scorn on Michael Heseltine, then claiming him as a friend. He refers to the fact that his wife nursed Heseltine at their opulent Venice home when Michael had his heart attack. What he does not reveal is that at the time of his demise, Heseltine was on the job with his titled long-time mistress who had to be hustled onto the next plane as Mrs Heseltine rushed from London. They must have passed mid-air. According to other pundits, Heseltine had gone out there to find out where the "missing millions" had gone from Tory party funds. Apparently they had one "hell of a row."

He bitchily has a go at Major for asking him to approach the dubious Greek shipping tycoon, John Latsis, who immediately signed a banking order for half a million pounds. He fails to mention that Thatcher had already stung the maverick millionaire for similar sums. And that he had fixed it.
A book like this had a golden opportunity to explain the "Missing Millions" once and for all. According to a wide- ranging investigation by Business Age, recently re- launched, the magazine alleged that at least £150 million were completely unaccounted for during the Thatcher years.

This is an allegation, which is widely accepted throughout parliament and led directly to the Nolan Report which heavily recommend that all parties should reveal the identities of their sponsors and the amount of their donations. Despite this wise suggestion, applauded by John Major himself, Tory Party finances are still a "bag of worms" (Guardian).
During her long and boring tenure in office, Margaret Thatcher, and her family, became very rich indeed. McAlpine himself lost millions (At least £120m) in an abortive scheme in Australia to build a sort of rich man's Disneyland.

All McAlpine had to do to sort out the widespread rumours was use this opportunity to explain exactly where the money went to.

Major, by the way, immediately announced that he never took part in any fund raising and let the CCO work entirely autonomously. This is claptrap. The Prime Minister, any Tory Prime Minister, is the de facto "chairman" of the CCO. It is entirely his tool. It is accountable to no one else, not even accountants, for they are not required under present law to present their accounts for any kind of proper perusal.

On charges that he is a paedophile there is not a word, except a mention by Lynn Barber in the Observer Review in which she had asked him why he had not sued us. He refused to comment, except to say that if she repeated the allegation, he would sue the Observer.

He dismisses, in the book and in subsequent interviews, the cabinet meeting in which Margaret Thatcher and the rest of her government considered the consequences to the Tory party if senior police investigations into the paedophile activities resulted in a prosecution. Thatcher herself decided he would have to go, and if he went quietly, they would say no more about the matter unless there was an arrest. It was that close.

When he slid away, breathlessly relieved at the close shave, to go abroad in voluntary exile for "tax reasons," the Tories were £10 m in debt. Yet he claimed he had raised £150 m for them. It literally doesn't add up.

Update:  McAlpine has written and co-written a number of books. He has also written for periodicals.

Tuesday, 22 January 2013


Baby escapes, entire family arrested
There has been a disturbing twist to the story I reported here last year of a couple who fled to France to prevent their expected child being seized at birth by social workers. This was threatened because the mother had already had her five older children taken into care after her ex-husband, now out of her life, had been imprisoned for abusing one of them. Although one judge authorised the social workers to travel to France to bring the new baby back to England, another judge in the High Court made legal history by ruling that this had been illegal and that the social workers must return the child to its overjoyed parents in France.
This was quite a reverse for the social workers, but for the family all seemed well until, at five o’clock one morning last week, the children’s semi-invalid maternal grandmother was woken by a loud banging at her door. She was arrested, held in a police cell for nine hours, then questioned for two more on what she regarded as bizarre allegations that she had sexually abused her five older grandchildren – even though they have been in foster care for three years.
She was not charged, but told that she could go home on police bail once several other people had also been questioned. Later, she found that those who had faced similar allegations included her husband (from whom she is separated); their other daughter and her husband – in a state of shock after seeing their two children taken into care that morning; and a friend of the daughter who lives in France, whose six children had also been taken.
When the grandmother, who has been a qualified Victim Support worker, returned home she found that her house had been raided by the police, who had removed 39 items, including her laptop and books on social care. The others’ homes had been similarly searched, with scores of items taken, including mobiles and computers.  READ ARTICLE hing-for-Britain-to-fear.html

Children stolen by the State Read More

The Police, the Crown Persecution Service, the Courts and Social Services  have unlimited funds to persecute innocent  children and their families.  Why?    If  you do not  protest   it could  sadly be your child next

Sunday, 20 January 2013


Julian Assange Supporters Post 'Live Art Mail' Webcam In Box To Ecuadorian Embassy  and capture Photos of Julian Assange


Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding juliancardboard
Since June 19th of last year, political activist and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Although Ecuador has granted him political asylum, if he steps foot outside the embassy, he could be arrested, extradited to the United States, and tried for his role in leaking sensitive US diplomatic cables.
For most photographers, shooting a portrait of Assange while he’s in hiding isn’t the easiest thing to do. However, art collective !Mediengruppe Bitnik recently came up with a clever way of doing so: they sent him an Internet-connected camera that’s baked into a cardboard parcel.

Here’s what the outside and inside of the parcel camera look like:
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 6
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 7
The box, which was shipped to Assange via Royal Mail, is equipped with a pinhole “lens” and contains a camera that automatically snaps a photograph every 10 seconds. The image is then automatically posted to the web on a website titled “DELIVERY FOR MR. ASSANGE” (archived version available here if the main page ever goes down).
The camera arrived in Assange’s hands sometime in the past day. Here are some of the first photographs captured and published by the cam:
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 5
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 4
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 3
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 2
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 1
In addition to some basic greetings, Assange also used the camera to make various (and often political political) statements:
Parcel Camera Captures Photos of Julian Assanges Life in Hiding julianassange 8
During the live “performance,” updates on the images were published occasionally to the art collective’s Twitter account.
The project appears to have ended already, but the images are archived on the project’s website. It’d be interesting to see this same concept used to capture images of other difficult-to-access subjects.


Huffington Post UK  |  By Posted:   |  Updated: 17/01/2013 16:17 GMT
A group of  Assange supporters  sent Wikileaks founder Julian Assange a package containing a camera with a live webcam, and watched online for more than 14 hours hoping to catch a glimpse of his face.
The Bitnik art-hacker group sent the good-natured package to Assange via the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has been living since June.
It contains a cell phone, a camera, a GPS chip and a battery, and has a hole through which the camera can take photos of the surroundings.
It was posted on Wednesday, and by Thursday afternoon had apparently made it inside the embassy building.
The group said the parcel was:
"A REAL_WORLD_PING, a SYSTEM_TEST, inserted into a highly tense diplomatic crisis."
The intention was that Assange would open the package, take a photo of himself, and then send the camera on to somebody else. In all it transmitted 9,000 images back to a website which broadcast them live.
Unfortunately, as of press time the camera had picked up no sign of Assange, and 50% of the pictures were totally black.
Regardless, Assange's supporters watched the live webcam page for hours waiting for a sign that it had been received.
On the group's Twitter page it provided regular updates - recording one image of a delivery sign in sheet but little else.