David Shurter – A Remarkable Man

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information.

Happy Birthday to David Shurter who celebrates his 50th on 6 December 2016. He was born on 6.12.1966, brought up to be an antichrist and others took their vows of allegiance to him.

David was subjected to mind control “mk ultra” techniques as well as satanic ritual abuse in his childhood. He was brought up in Omaha, Nebraska into a family of satanists and child abductors and amidst the Franklin child abuse network.

David knew abusers Alan Baer, Larry King, Peter Citron and Police Chief Robert Wadman. David’s handler was Colonel Michael Aquino who founded the Satanic Temple of Set and had been in psy ops in the military, MK Ultra, Presidio day care satanic abuse and is connected personally to the Bush family.

I recommend reading his book- David Shurter Rabbit Hole: A Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor’s Story [1] He has also generously put online an extended version of his book, available for free [2]

a552f1c0-b572-488a-9a06-52d4b084de01_zps062d3d51

This interview about his upbringing gives a flavour of life.  He has now turned his life around, and although it is still not without its problems, he has turned to the light and acts against the dark. A remarkable man.

David Shurter website is here [5] and 0ther videos on his You Tube channel are here [3a]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2012 David Shurter Rabbit Hole: A Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor’s Story on Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rabbit-Hole-Satanic-Ritual-Survivors/dp/0984893717/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480853405&sr=8-1&keywords=david+shurter

[2] 2012 David Shurter Rabbit Hole: A Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor’s Story – Online extended book http://davidshurter.com/?page_id=4461

[3] David Shurter you tube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRx10uYGACpQNLfY3SpzYXQ

[3a] David Shurter You Tube videos https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidShurter1/videos

[4] Documentary: David’s Story – The Childhood Ritual Abuse of David Shurter https://youtu.be/d9__tMLGZUc

[5] David Shurter website http://davidshurter.com/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, Books about Child Abuse, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Church abuse, Ritual abuse, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Every Victim Of Abuse Deserves An Apology by Zahra Awaiz-Bilal

I have reservations about posting lawyers information for several reasons. (I am not connected in any way with these individuals or solicitors)

However I think this is vital information, and if this is correct then there is no reason for more apologies not to be given. I think an apology is important and can be part of the healing process for victims and survivors. Previously I had thought an apology is not given for legal reasons, however this article makes it clear this is erroneous.

“The significance of an apology is, at present, overshadowed by an unfounded fear that it will be seen as an admission of guilt, that the individuals making the apology may incriminate themselves and this will lead to litigation.

But this is baseless. The Compensation Act 2006 states explicitly that an apology on its own will not amount to “an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty”

There is no legal requirement for an apology, and these solicitors are running a campaign that there should be one introduced into law

Every Victim Of Abuse Deserves An Apology by Zahra Awaiz-Bilal [1]

The Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands Police has apologised to the victims of serial paedophile Allan Richards this month, for letting them down by failing to investigate the allegations against him earlier. This failure allowed Richards’ crimes to go undetected for a number of years and led to the abuse of many others, which could have been prevented.

Victims of abuse are victims of some of the most heinous crimes committed in our society.

Where a wrong of the magnitude of Richards’ crimes is committed, there is no question that an apology must be the first step towards acknowledging that wrong and demonstrating respect for the victims. In fact, to not apologise in those circumstances would be objectively insulting.

One of the first social and moral lessons we learn as children, is the importance of apologising; whether it is for being mean to our siblings or misbehaving in front of guests, we are told to say sorry. And as we grow older, we realise further the importance of apologising in righting wrongs. Yet, the value of an apology as a remedy in law continues to be undermined.

Victims of abuse will have often experienced a violation of their dignity and betrayal of trust, which can have a huge impact on their emotional and psychological well-being. An apology can play an invaluable role in their healing process by addressing the very personal nature of the harm suffered, restoring the victims’ dignity by validating their experience and confirming that they did not do anything wrong.

Many victims of abuse carry a burden their whole life, thinking that they are to blame in some way for what happened. An apology has the power to shift that burden and blame from the victim to the wrongdoer.

But, the law has failed to recognise this.

There is currently no legal requirement for an apology to be offered to victims of abuse. The significance of an apology is, at present, overshadowed by an unfounded fear that it will be seen as an admission of guilt, that the individuals making the apology may incriminate themselves and this will lead to litigation.

But this is baseless. The Compensation Act 2006 states explicitly that an apology on its own will not amount to “an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty”. So why don’t more defendants apologise in the knowledge they can fall back on the Act? Ironically, it is in response to being antagonised by a lack of recognition that most victims resort to litigation.

Time after time, we are also told that those who were in charge when the abuse occurred are no longer around and so the institution concerned has nothing to apologise for. This is irrelevant; a certain level of responsibility will always lie with the most senior representative of the offending institution, irrespective of whether he or she is personally implicated in what happened – as their role requires them to acknowledge the wrongs of the institution’s predecessors.

Without any legal footing, whether an apology is given rests very much on the “goodwill” of the wrongdoer and if a request for an apology is denied, there is not much the victim can do to overcome this refusal. This can exacerbate victims’ feelings of powerlessness, which reminds them of their experiences and emotions during the period of abuse itself.

Every victim of abuse deserves an apology. And this is why the law must change.

Bolt Burdon Kemp’s “Apologise Now” campaign is seeking to do just that.

We are not looking to tear up the existing framework and create a new legal remedy, because an apology is already available to victims of defamation and discrimination – the law clearly recognises the importance of an apology in some cases to restore the damage to the victims’ reputation and the hurt caused to their dignity. Why then should this right be denied to victims of abuse?

Help us change the law, by tweeting @BoltBurdonKemp #ApologiseNow

Zahra Awaiz-Bilal is an associate solicitor with Bolt Burdon Kemp in London, specialising in compensation claims for survivors of abuse

Follow Zahra Awaiz-Bilal on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ZAwaizBilal

Apologise Now [2] 

WE UNDERSTAND

that for most of our clients, a claim for childhood abuse is more than just a claim for compensation. It is about seeking closure, through recognition and acknowledgement of the wrong done.

WE KNOW

that our clients are driven more by the need to heal than by financial recompense because they will often have experienced a violation of their dignity and betrayal of trust, which leads to complex emotional and psychological injuries.

WE ALL RECOGNISE

the value of an apology; there is a general societal expectation that the wrongdoer should, at the very least, apologise to those who are harmed by his actions and a failure to apologise in those circumstances is objectively insulting.

WE BELIEVE

that victims of child abuse deserve an apology for the heinous crimes committed against them because an apology is a moral act which demonstrates respect for the victims.

WE DEPLORE

the fact that there is currently no legal requirement for a defendant to offer an apology in abuse claims. Whether an apology is given rests very much on the “goodwill” of the defendant and if a request for an apology is denied, there is not much we can do to overcome that refusal.

WE SUBMIT

that an apology is an integral part of abuse claims because of the invaluable role it can play in the healing process, by addressing the very personal nature of the harm suffered by the victims and affirming that they did not do anything wrong.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2016 Nov 7 Huffington Post Zahra Awaiz-Bilal Every Victim Of Abuse Deserves An Apology http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/zahra-awaizbilal/abuse-victim-apology-law_b_12746494.html?

[2] Bolton Burden Kemp webpage Apologise Now http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/child-abuse/apologise-now/

[3] Bolt Burdon Kemp – Apologise for Abuse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xb0cfgz1Ng

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Court, Justice System, Other bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

FBI Caves in. Clinton child abuse links

Comey, FBI Chief backed down despite the evidence of Clinton child abuse. They have apparently reviewed 650,000 emails in 9 days and found nothing!!

comeylettercwmwx9ruaaa78nx

There is clearly still a power struggle in the FBI. It looks as though Clinton has the Department of Justice in her pocket and has won this battle with the FBI for now, and this round in the battle of coup and countercoup. It will be interesting what New York Police Department will do who also have copies of the email, and what influence Rudy Giuliani has.

It may be that the election will be fixed for Hilary Clinton and who knows what will happen then. It will be interesting to see what more details of Clintons child abuse and satanism are revealed.

Here is some more evidence of the child abuse  http://pastebin.com/36Q0yKSM

The Clinton investigation is now connected to a massive child trafficking and pedophile sex ring operating within Washington, D.C. Over the next few days, and this November 5th, we will be referencing evidence and exposing the Clinton foundations for multiple incidences of child trafficking and sex scandals.
———————————————————————————————————–
Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for involvement in an elite Washington pedophile ring, according to veteran State Department official Steve Pieczenik. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12zVlaZyX3Q
Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, his relationship with Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and other famous names, and their connection to a high-level sex scandal is exposed by Conchita and Cristina Sarnoff. http://bit.ly/2eH3ELq
Anthony Weiner Talking to FBI about underage Sex Island (Lolita)
The FBI wants to know everything about the Lolita Island that Jeffrey Epstein owns. Lucky for them Anthony Weiner knows a lot about the Underage sex Island that Bill Clinton would visit and Weiner is ready to Talk. http://bit.ly/2f4u9xv
Hillary has a LONG history of interest in Ms. Silsby. Wikileak emails dating back till at least 2001 have been found in her archives discussing Laura’s NGO. Laura had claimed she planned to build an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, but authorities in the country said she never submitted an application for this purpose. They instead located to Haiti.
Sources:
One of the first things Hillary did when she took over the scene in Haiti was to get Laura off the hook:
The attorney who represented Laura Silsby – A man who was himself convicted as a sex trafficker:
WikiLeaks: Pricing how much it costs to transport children:
Again, this was the same group that got busted by Haitian Authorities trying to Traffic kids.
They’re in the Clinton Emails;
Pitch for funding or some shit, super sketchy.
This looks like Mills & co are drafting statements following extradition.
Bins
Jorge Puello (real name – JORGE TORRES ORELLANA) is their lawyer who also was charged in el salvador for child sex trafficking.
“The children were sent to the SOS Children’s Village orphanage in Croix-des-Bouquets, a suburb of Port-au-Prince, and it became clear that most (if not all) of them were not orphans.[12] NLCR missionaries maintained that they were told that the children were orphaned. In turn, people in Calebasse and SOS Children’s Villages accused the missionaries of lying about their intentions.[9][12] ,Although the children’s relatives were told that they would be able to visit them and eventually take them back, the NLCR’s mission statement clearly outlined plans for adoption.” http://bit.ly/2eoZ57E
“So, how was Hillary Clinton part of this, and where’s the child sex trafficking? Mostly in the fevered imaginations of the excitable internet detectives of r/The_Donald, who decided that since Clinton discussed the case in emails with Huma Abedin and other aides, she was going out of her way to help the child abductors escape justice. This leaves out one tiny detail: as secretary of State, Clinton’s job was to help American citizens arrested in other countries. Huma emailed her articles about the case, and from there, Reddit decided that can only mean they’re all child traffickers trading children all over the world for sex slaves, and probably hitching rides on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex plane, too.”
Wikileaks 28 ‘The DOJ-FBI–Huma Special’ is out and the TREASON of Hillary Clinton has never been more evident or quantifiable, and now the 650,000 emails on Huma and Anthony Weiner’s computer allegedly implicate Bill and Hillary in what is being described as a pedophile ring, and the CNN-CIA mockingbird media is IGNORING all of it. If Hillary Clinton is “elected” OR “selected” and placed in the White House as the felon she clearly is, we will be facing a Constitutional crisis like never before seen.
Fwd: “HILLARY SHOULD TAKE LIE DETECTOR TEST” SAYS ALLEGED CLINTON SEX ASSAULT VICTIM – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/16444
CONVICTED CHILD ABDUCTOR WAS CAUGHT STEALING CHILDREN IN HAITI WITH THE CLINTONS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TTOEclD5BA&feature=youtu.be
WEINERGATE: ‘The Whole Thing Was A Setup…For The Good of The Country!’ – http://bit.ly/2frW73d
FBI Insider Leaks All: Clinton Foundation Exposed! Involves Entire US Government! – http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-foundation-exposed-involves-entire-us-government
NYPD Has Pedophile Evidence On Clintons – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7h4AD9cKb0&t=1s
Wikileaks BOMBSHELL – Hillary Clinton Linked to Satanic Pedophile Cult – http://bit.ly/2ebbD76
Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring
NYPD Source: Weiner Laptop Has Enough Evidence “to Put Hillary … Away for Life”
BREAKING: FBI Confirms Evidence Of HUGE Underground Clinton Sex Network
New Clinton emails found during Anthony Weiner sexting probe
NYPD Reveals CHILD-SEX RING in Hillary Clinton Campaign & DNC involving Members of Congress + Fed. Judges; Evidence of Bribery, Money-Laundering, Depraved-Indifference Murder
Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring – FBI Insider
Hillary pedophile ring exposed on Weiner’s laptop PC – http://bit.ly/2ebcox5
“It’s time to start questioning everything you have been told in the past by MSM” – FBI NYPD INSIDERS LEAK – http://bit.ly/2fClNxT
Wikileaks Bombshell Reveals Clinton Email “Where They Are Literally Pricing How Much It Costs to Transport Children” – http://bit.ly/2esWyMK
Washington Post Hides Article About Podesta’s Nude Children Photo Collection – http://www.infowars.com/washington-post-hides-article-about-podestas-nude-children-photo-collection/
NYPD INSIDER REVEALS HILLARY’S TRIPS TO PEDO ISLAND – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42NIVBxr_GU
“I’m dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii…” https://t.co/BNulNKBi4u
JOHN PODESTA LAUGHS AT DEATH – http://imgur.com/a/osSxT
HILLARY GETS CRANKY WITHOUT HER DAILY DOSE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST HER SUBORDINATES – https://t.co/5V9lxahIxF
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES CLINTON’S SATANIC NETWORK- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1f1kmgLopg
OCCULT EXPERT BREAKS DOWN CLINTON SATANISM – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UYYZA4DxDw
“SPIRIT COOKING”: CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PRACTICES BIZARRE OCCULT RITUAL – http://www.infowars.com/spirit-cooking-clinton-campaign-chairman-invited-to-bizarre-satanic-performance/
FLASHBACK: OCCULTIC HILLARY SUMMONS THE DEAD, REFUSES TO SPEAK TO CHRIST – http://www.infowars.com/flashback-occultic-hillary-summons-the-dead-refuses-to-speak-to-christ/
HILLARY ‘REGULARLY’ ATTENDED WITCH’S CHURCH, CLINTON INSIDER CLAIMS – http://www.infowars.com/hillary-regularly-attended-witchs-church-clinton-insider-claims/
BOMBSHELL: HILLARY CLINTON’S SATANIC NETWORK EXPOSED – http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-hillary-clintons-satanic-network-exposed/
Hubris and Humiliation: Six Most Shocking Moments from Documentary Revisiting Anthony Weiner’s Sex Scandal – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/45024
“PIZZA PARTY” – http://imgur.com/a/DPQN6
Insiders Threaten To Expose “Alleged” Pedophile Sex Ring – http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/10/insiders-reveal-sex-ring/
FLASHBACK: HILLARY LABELED ‘HIGH PRIEST,’ ‘GODDESS OF OCCULT’ IN GUCCIFER LETTER – http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hillary-labeled-high-priest-goddess-of-occult-in-guccifer-letter/
HILLARY TIED TO BIZARRE OCCULT “SPIRIT COOKING” RITUAL – http://www.infowars.com/hillary-tied-to-bizarre-occult-spirit-cooking-ritual/
SEX MAGIC ON THE MENU AT “SPIRIT COOKING” PARTY ATTENDED BY JOHN PODESTA – http://www.infowars.com/sex-magic-on-the-menu-at-spirit-cooking-party-attended-by-john-podesta/
“HOTDOG STAND” – http://imgur.com/a/AM1yh
$ 40,000 IN EXCHANGE FOR “PIZZA” – http://imgur.com/a/I845c
WHY HILLARY IS DISQULIFIED FOR PRESIDENT – PEDO SCANDAL http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/why-hillary-is-disqualified-for-president/
“Have her beat the _____ out of a punch doll” – http://imgur.com/a/tKKMo
CLINTON AND ABEDIN BROKE CYBER-SECURITY PROTOCOL HABITUALLY – http://pastebin.com/vP7s3Ryd
New revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
Money laundering, Child exploitation, Sex crimes with minors (children), Perjury, Pay to play through Clinton Foundation, Obstruction of justice, Other felony crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAe3UeddUI&feature=youtu.be
PAST CONNECTIONS: Former 12-Year-Old Rape Victim: “Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell” http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234515/former-12-year-old-rape-victim-hillary-clinton-daniel-greenfield
Spirit Cooking:
Podesta – Spirit Cooking Dinner:
“Chairman Cash”: John Podesta Paid $7,000/Month By Foundation Run by Banker With Ties To Financial Crisis
Code words:
Dennis Hastert:
Jimmy Savile:
Elijah Wood:

 

RAW Paste Data

 The Clinton investigation is now connected to a massive child trafficking and pedophile sex ring operating within Washington, D.C. Over the next few days, and this November 5th, we will be referencing evidence and exposing the Clinton foundations for multiple incidences of child trafficking and sex scandals.

———————————————————————————————————–

Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for involvement in an elite Washington pedophile ring, according to veteran State Department official Steve Pieczenik. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12zVlaZyX3Q

Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, his relationship with Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and other famous names, and their connection to a high-level sex scandal is exposed by Conchita and Cristina Sarnoff. http://bit.ly/2eH3ELq

Anthony Weiner Talking to FBI about underage Sex Island (Lolita)
The FBI wants to know everything about the Lolita Island that Jeffrey Epstein owns. Lucky for them Anthony Weiner knows a lot about the Underage sex Island that Bill Clinton would visit and Weiner is ready to Talk. http://bit.ly/2f4u9xv

Hillary has a LONG history of interest in Ms. Silsby. Wikileak emails dating back till at least 2001 have been found in her archives discussing Laura’s NGO. Laura had claimed she planned to build an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, but authorities in the country said she never submitted an application for this purpose. They instead located to Haiti.

Sources:
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10BUENOSAIRES166_a.html
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3465
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2772

Missionary Stumbles on Road to Haiti – http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703357104575045794048725562

One of the first things Hillary did when she took over the scene in Haiti was to get Laura off the hook:
http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/King.pdf

The attorney who represented Laura Silsby – A man who was himself convicted as a sex trafficker:
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/32/323249_-os-haiti-us-legal-adviser-to-u-s-haiti-missionaries.html

WikiLeaks: Pricing how much it costs to transport children:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3741

Again, this was the same group that got busted by Haitian Authorities trying to Traffic kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Children%27s_Refuge_case

They’re in the Clinton Emails;
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3741

Pitch for funding or some shit, super sketchy.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3465

This looks like Mills & co are drafting statements following extradition.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2772

Thread 1 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95769324
Thread 2 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95782324
Thread 3 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95796372
Thread 4 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95808374
Thread 5 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95817651/
Thread 6 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95825686/
Thread 7 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95833293/
Thread 8 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95839861
Thread 9 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95846156
Thread 10 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95850357
Thread 11 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95855578
Thread 12 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95866378
Thread 13 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95878120
Thread 14 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95886661
Thread 15 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95897258
Thread 16 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95909631
Thread 17 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95924261
Thread 18 – http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/95943361

Bins
http://pastebin.com/raw/tBMC2U6W
http://pastebin.com/raw/Ags0WuW
http://pastebin.com/Jn2LfXg4
http://pastebin.com/RPTLE0W8

Jorge Puello (real name – JORGE TORRES ORELLANA) is their lawyer who also was charged in el salvador for child sex trafficking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/world/americas/08haiti.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/americas/12haiti.html?scp=1&sq=dominican%20el%20salvador%20puello%20&st=cse

“The children were sent to the SOS Children’s Village orphanage in Croix-des-Bouquets, a suburb of Port-au-Prince, and it became clear that most (if not all) of them were not orphans.[12] NLCR missionaries maintained that they were told that the children were orphaned. In turn, people in Calebasse and SOS Children’s Villages accused the missionaries of lying about their intentions.[9][12] ,Although the children’s relatives were told that they would be able to visit them and eventually take them back, the NLCR’s mission statement clearly outlined plans for adoption.” http://bit.ly/2eoZ57E

“So, how was Hillary Clinton part of this, and where’s the child sex trafficking? Mostly in the fevered imaginations of the excitable internet detectives of r/The_Donald, who decided that since Clinton discussed the case in emails with Huma Abedin and other aides, she was going out of her way to help the child abductors escape justice. This leaves out one tiny detail: as secretary of State, Clinton’s job was to help American citizens arrested in other countries. Huma emailed her articles about the case, and from there, Reddit decided that can only mean they’re all child traffickers trading children all over the world for sex slaves, and probably hitching rides on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex plane, too.”

Wikileaks 28 ‘The DOJ-FBI–Huma Special’ is out and the TREASON of Hillary Clinton has never been more evident or quantifiable, and now the 650,000 emails on Huma and Anthony Weiner’s computer allegedly implicate Bill and Hillary in what is being described as a pedophile ring, and the CNN-CIA mockingbird media is IGNORING all of it. If Hillary Clinton is “elected” OR “selected” and placed in the White House as the felon she clearly is, we will be facing a Constitutional crisis like never before seen.

http://bit.ly/2fnXjrV

KEYWORDS – https://twitter.com/LatestAnonNews/status/794898918660341761/photo/1

Fwd: “HILLARY SHOULD TAKE LIE DETECTOR TEST” SAYS ALLEGED CLINTON SEX ASSAULT VICTIM – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/16444

CONVICTED CHILD ABDUCTOR WAS CAUGHT STEALING CHILDREN IN HAITI WITH THE CLINTONS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TTOEclD5BA&feature=youtu.be

WEINERGATE: ‘The Whole Thing Was A Setup…For The Good of The Country!’ – http://bit.ly/2frW73d

FBI Insider Leaks All: Clinton Foundation Exposed! Involves Entire US Government! – http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-foundation-exposed-involves-entire-us-government

NYPD Has Pedophile Evidence On Clintons – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7h4AD9cKb0&t=1s

Wikileaks BOMBSHELL – Hillary Clinton Linked to Satanic Pedophile Cult – http://bit.ly/2ebbD76

Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring

Oh God, This Is Pure Horror: Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring!

http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/oh-god-pure-horror-clinton-emails-linked-political-pedophile-sex-ring/embed/

NYPD Source: Weiner Laptop Has Enough Evidence “to Put Hillary … Away for Life”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/24549-nypd-source-weiner-laptop-has-enough-evidence-to-put-hillary-away-for-life

BREAKING: FBI Confirms Evidence Of HUGE Underground Clinton Sex Network

New Clinton emails found during Anthony Weiner sexting probe
http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/new-clinton-emails-found-during-anthony-weiner-sexting-probe/

NYPD Reveals CHILD-SEX RING in Hillary Clinton Campaign & DNC involving Members of Congress + Fed. Judges; Evidence of Bribery, Money-Laundering, Depraved-Indifference Murder

Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring – FBI Insider

Hillary pedophile ring exposed on Weiner’s laptop PC – http://bit.ly/2ebcox5

WHO IS JORGE PUELLO? – http://www.dailybastardette.com/who-is-jorge-puello-pt-2-jumping-down-the-rabbit-hole/

“It’s time to start questioning everything you have been told in the past by MSM” – FBI NYPD INSIDERS LEAK – http://bit.ly/2fClNxT

Wikileaks Bombshell Reveals Clinton Email “Where They Are Literally Pricing How Much It Costs to Transport Children” – http://bit.ly/2esWyMK

Washington Post Hides Article About Podesta’s Nude Children Photo Collection – http://www.infowars.com/washington-post-hides-article-about-podestas-nude-children-photo-collection/

NYPD INSIDER REVEALS HILLARY’S TRIPS TO PEDO ISLAND – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42NIVBxr_GU

“I’m dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii…” https://t.co/BNulNKBi4u

JOHN PODESTA LAUGHS AT DEATH – http://imgur.com/a/osSxT

HILLARY GETS CRANKY WITHOUT HER DAILY DOSE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST HER SUBORDINATES – https://t.co/5V9lxahIxF

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES CLINTON’S SATANIC NETWORK- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1f1kmgLopg

OCCULT EXPERT BREAKS DOWN CLINTON SATANISM – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UYYZA4DxDw

“SPIRIT COOKING”: CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PRACTICES BIZARRE OCCULT RITUAL – http://www.infowars.com/spirit-cooking-clinton-campaign-chairman-invited-to-bizarre-satanic-performance/

Wikileaks: First Clinton Campaign Email About Anthony Weiner Appears – http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/wikileaks-first-clinton-campaign-email-anthony-weiner-appears/

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

FLASHBACK: OCCULTIC HILLARY SUMMONS THE DEAD, REFUSES TO SPEAK TO CHRIST – http://www.infowars.com/flashback-occultic-hillary-summons-the-dead-refuses-to-speak-to-christ/

“SPIRIT COOKING” – http://imgur.com/a/tST1T , http://imgur.com/a/uQXsF

HILLARY ‘REGULARLY’ ATTENDED WITCH’S CHURCH, CLINTON INSIDER CLAIMS – http://www.infowars.com/hillary-regularly-attended-witchs-church-clinton-insider-claims/

BOMBSHELL: HILLARY CLINTON’S SATANIC NETWORK EXPOSED – http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-hillary-clintons-satanic-network-exposed/
http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2016/11/breaking-nypd-reveals-child-sex-ring-in-hillary-clinton-campaign-dnc-involving-members-of-congress-fed-judges-evidence-of-bribery-money-laundering-depraved-indifference-murder-and-more-2511913.html

“WALNUT PASTA SAUCE” – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43113

“WALNUT PASTE SAUCE” 2 – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30145

Hubris and Humiliation: Six Most Shocking Moments from Documentary Revisiting Anthony Weiner’s Sex Scandal – https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/45024

“PIZZA PARTY” – http://imgur.com/a/DPQN6

Insiders Threaten To Expose “Alleged” Pedophile Sex Ring – http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/10/insiders-reveal-sex-ring/

FLASHBACK: HILLARY LABELED ‘HIGH PRIEST,’ ‘GODDESS OF OCCULT’ IN GUCCIFER LETTER – http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hillary-labeled-high-priest-goddess-of-occult-in-guccifer-letter/

HILLARY TIED TO BIZARRE OCCULT “SPIRIT COOKING” RITUAL – http://www.infowars.com/hillary-tied-to-bizarre-occult-spirit-cooking-ritual/

SEX MAGIC ON THE MENU AT “SPIRIT COOKING” PARTY ATTENDED BY JOHN PODESTA – http://www.infowars.com/sex-magic-on-the-menu-at-spirit-cooking-party-attended-by-john-podesta/

“HOTDOG STAND” – http://imgur.com/a/AM1yh

$ 40,000 IN EXCHANGE FOR “PIZZA” – http://imgur.com/a/I845c

WHY HILLARY IS DISQULIFIED FOR PRESIDENT – PEDO SCANDAL http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/why-hillary-is-disqualified-for-president/

CLINTONS INVOLVED IN SEX SLAVERY, CHILD SEX CRIMES, CHILD EXPLOITATION – http://www.inquisitr.com/3672706/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-nypd-source-says-clintons-involved-in-sex-slavery-child-sex-crimes-child-exploitation-and-more/

“Have her beat the _____ out of a punch doll” – http://imgur.com/a/tKKMo

CLINTON AND ABEDIN BROKE CYBER-SECURITY PROTOCOL HABITUALLY – http://pastebin.com/vP7s3Ryd

New revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

Money laundering, Child exploitation, Sex crimes with minors (children), Perjury, Pay to play through Clinton Foundation, Obstruction of justice, Other felony crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAe3UeddUI&feature=youtu.be

PAST CONNECTIONS: Former 12-Year-Old Rape Victim: “Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell” http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/234515/former-12-year-old-rape-victim-hillary-clinton-daniel-greenfield

Spirit Cooking:

Podesta – Spirit Cooking Dinner:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893
“Chairman Cash”: John Podesta Paid $7,000/Month By Foundation Run by Banker With Ties To Financial Crisis
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/chairman-cash-john-podesta-paid-7000month-foundation-run-banker-ties-financial-crisi
Code words:

Dennis Hastert:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/07/report-four-have-accused-hastert-sexual-abuse.html
Jimmy Savile:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/
Elijah Wood:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/elijah-wood-claims-hollywood-is-in-the-grip-of-massive-pedophilia-epidemic.html

Save

Save

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, MI5 MI6 Security Services, Ritual abuse, US of America Child Abuse, VIP CSA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

USA, Coups, Counter Coups and Child Sexual AbU$e

As the United States nears an election in 3 days, the lid is being blown off crimes surrounding presidential candidate Hilary Clinton and amongst them, her connections to child sexual abuse.

Information is coming so thick and fast it is difficult to keep up. The information may be so bizarre to some who have not followed the sordid details of organised child sexual abuse, that they suffer from cognitive disonance and cannot believe it.

Some background is also required.

Much of information being released, is being published by Julian Assange and Wikileaks on the Wikileaks website [14] and via twitter @wikileaks. He is releasing about 50,000 emails to and from John Podesta who is Hilary Clintons campaign Chairman and was Bill Clintons Chief of Staff when President. He has also released about 30,000 of Hilary Clintons emails when she was Secretary of State.

These emails have been given to Wikileaks not by the Russians as the Clinton campaign tried claiming but by individuals in the intelligence services. Some of the more important emails have been certified as genuine by Google.

The other information is leaking from FBI/Security Services and perhaps NYPD from perhaps 650,000 Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiners computer. It was what was found in these emails that prompted FBI Chief, Comer to announce to the reopening of the investigation into Hilary Clinton emails, a few days ago. This investigation which was earlier controversially shut just days after Bill Clinton made an unscheduled meet up with Lorretta Lynch, Attorney-General and the suspicion is that he threatened her.

The emails on Weiners computer should all have been turned over to the investigating authorities who were looking into whether Hilary Clinton had broken the law using a private server for classified emails. These emails were apparently found under the title “life insurance” which many take to be referring to the many dozens that have died under suspicious circumstances when they have crossed the Clintons, who many regard as a crime family.

Anthony Weiner, was a congressman who resigned after a sexting scandal. After a further two scandals, one with a 15 year old, he is the now estranged husband of Huma Abedin. Before her recent demise from Clintons campaign, caused by the finding of the emails Huma was perhaps the top Hilary Clinton aide, as well as rumoured lesbian lover of Clinton (her marriage is a marriage of ambition to power). Apparently Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner are assisting the FBI with their enquiries in order to minimise the fall out for themselves, so a lot more is due to be exposed about Hilary Clinton.

Some of the emails on Weiners computer appear to have been withheld from the investigation but some appear to show Hilary’s involvement in child abuse, hence the reopening of the FBI investigation.

So far not a particularly healthy state of affairs, but it gets much worse. The emails expose a “pay for play” scandal ie money for access to Clinton, – $1 million dollars for 5 minutes access in Qatar, $12M for Morocco for Hilary to attend a function.

The emails also expose that the funders of ISIL/ISIS, the Saudi and Qatar governments are the funders of the Clinton Foundation. ISIS was effectively created by people funding her foundation and who she is friendly with. The state department under her watch was selling arms to governments including the biggest arms deal ever $80 billion to Saudi. Total arms exports doubled under her tenure. [57]

Also exposed is that Citybank and Wall Street essentially chose most of Obama’s cabinet.  Clinton was the driving figure in illegally overthrowing Gaddaffi in Libya causing 40,000 deaths as well as the migrant crisis in Europe, which Gadaffi predicted.[57]

Steve Pieczenik, served as a foreign policy advisor to several administrations. His website is here [18] and wikipedia entry is here [19]. He announced on his You Tube channel that Hillary and Bill Clinton “effected a silent civilian coup through corruption and co-option. However, people in the intelligence community formally initiated a counter-coup through supplying information to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in order to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president of the United States, while also convicting and indicting Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch, and all others who were complicit in the cover-up of the massive corruption that occurred under the Clinton Foundation.” [19]

As Clintons appeared to circumvent due process by controlling the Department of Justice, this countercoup appears to have been launched, the face of which is Pieczenik.

This video 4min 11s is  general about the silent “coup” and “countercoup”

Child Abuse

This first short video 2 min 44s gives some details on Hilary Clinton and child abuse

Lolita Express

Emails allegedly show proof that Hillary and Bill both took Jeffrey Epstein’s plane, otherwise known as the ‘Lolita Express,’ to his island (aka sex slave island) where potentially sex with minors occurred. 2016 Nov 4 TruthKings SOURCES: Hillary Clinton’s Child Sex Ring Scandal Near Breaking [48]

Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein’s guest on at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.

See also [53] 2016 Nov Independent Journal Review Report: Bill Clinton Wasn’t Only One to Go to ‘Sex Slave Island,’ Hillary Went with Him–‘Six Times’

Child Trafficking

Research is ongoing by people who read the published emails, especially on Reddit Reddit Wikileaks Central Station [61]

They appear to show connections to child trafficking in Haiti eg I believe I have connected a convicted child abductor who was caught stealing children in Haiti with the Clintons [21]

This is their post—

cww4stmvqaanmf5

One campaigner puts this forward for more research on child trafficking  @BleuEgretBennu #35561 Christina, farmer 1 kid in africa #23336 Christina in Spain more kids. #17565 another reference 2 cattle [59]

Satanism and Spirit Cooking

One of the more disturbing revelations is the satanic nature of Hilary’s close circle and friends. This has taken by many to be “weird” and a subject of mirth. To the many victims involved in ritual abuse it is horrific and deadly serious.

John Podesta and Marina Abramovich use satanistic magical rituals called “spirit cooking”.  This appears to be essentially summoning spirits by mixing bodily fluids – sperm, breast milk and blood and self harming. This may also have a child abuse element as depicted in the mixture being put over the small figure in the corner in the video.

It is a reasonable assumption that the private “spirit cooking” rituals are more horrific than the public display. Clinton Foundation gave $10,000 to Abramovic

cwchmu5uuaa88yn

cwcj8bbvqaai9gcMarina Abramovic Spirit Cooking video [20]

For more  search for #SpiritCooking

Other Possible Child Abuse

Children appear to be provided for entertainment in the swimming pool.

Other people point to strange language which appear codes used in the emails and specualate as to the meanings    Internet Is On Fire With Speculation That Podesta Emails Contain Code for Child Sex [50]

cwxdslouuaafpsu

Another thread on the  “pizzas” [60] Reddit “Pizza” https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5azc9k/someone_tell_me_im_wrong_this_invite_to_a_pizza/

John Podesta’s brother, Tony Podesta was often copied into the same emails. Tony, a lobbyist for the Podesta Group which he set up has photos of naked teenage girls hanging on the wall in his bedroom.

cwddlqixuaappeq

Tony Podesta also is good friends with Hastert [HT@snowfaked], who himself has major history of child sexual abuse.

cwgtljsxcaadclwOn Hastert see my post United States also Governed by Criminals and Child Torturers [9], which indicates how widespread child sexual abuse is in the political classes and how it is kept hidden and used for blackmail by the Security Services.

Elite child sexual abuse and luciferianism / satanism are not news to child sexual abuse campaigners but it is now getting more widely known. It does, however, still come as a stark reminder when faced with the evidence of oft asserted truths.

Hilary Clinton has had previous accusations of being a lesbian and abusing mind control slaves, notably from Cathy O’Brien [8] which included vaginal mutilation, and if I recall correctly Brice Taylor. Brices book Thanks for the Memories is well worth a read and can still be read here [22]

She has also had previous accusations of child trafficking “Hillary Clinton allegedly uses SOS Children’s Villages to raise children for the pedophile sexual entrapment and extortion of prospective leaders such as Rhodes Scholar and former POTUS man-in-the-middle, Bill Clinton” [42]

There are many previous accusations of Hilary’s satanic behaviour including notably from hacker Guccifer who accused her of being a “High Priest, Goddess of Occult” [52]

Presidents and past “elites” have previously have also been accused of child sexual abuse and use of mind control slaves notably George H Bush Senior [8]. The Clinton crime family is just part of the Khazarian mafia that have taken over the US in the past few decades and indded much of the world.  “The message for the Khazarian mafia is trick or treat surrender or die” [44] Fulford website [45]  George Bush paedophile ring [28]

As well as mind controlled slaves for presidential use, for sex and carrying messages there is widespread mind control in the music industry and Hollywood. Hilarys latest 3 celebrity endorsements were Jay Z, Beyonce and Katy Perry.  [38] 2015 Dec 18 Cathy Fox Blog From Fiona Barnett to Miley Cyrus[37] 2016 Jan 5 Cathy Fox Blog MK Ultra Mind Control in Australia, [36] 2016 Jan 9 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control and MK Ultra in Canada,  [35] 2016 July 12 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control Research and Resource – Australia

David Shurter is worth listening to on ritual and child sexual absue. Brought up to be a Luciferian High Priest, he is an ex insider and knows what happens. He starts around 53 mins [39] Soundcloud – Ground Zero Media Sex and the Citadel  (23mins approx re presidential candidates, Franklin Scandal Interview with David Shurter 53 mins Scalia murder, Aquino handler of Shurter)

Following are some related articles, after which the article continues..

Email revelations

[32] 2016 Nov 4 Inquisitr Latest WikiLeaks’ Clinton Emails Include Child Trafficking, Anthony Weiner Info: Will Trump Win As A Result?

[33] 2016 Nov 3 Infowars BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD BLOWS WHISTLE ON NEW HILLARY EMAILS: MONEY LAUNDERING, SEX CRIMES WITH CHILDREN, CHILD EXPLOITATION, PAY TO PLAY, PERJURY

[40] 2016 Nov Conservative Outfitters WikiLeaks: John Podesta’s Satanic Dinner (WARNING: Graphic Content)

[47] 2016 Nov 3 Danger and Play Podesta Spirit Cooking Emails Reveal Clinton’s Inner Circle as Sex Cult with Connections to Human Trafficking

[50] 2016 Nov 3 We are Change Internet Is On Fire With Speculation That Podesta Emails Contain Code for Child Sex

[51] 2016 Nov 4 We are Change Spirit Cooking: The Most Disturbing Podesta Email Yet? (Warning: Graphic Content)

[53] 2016 Nov Independent Journal Review Report: Bill Clinton Wasn’t Only One to Go to ‘Sex Slave Island,’ Hillary Went with Him–‘Six Times’

[54] 2016 Nov 5 The International Reporter It Just Got WAY BIGGER: Wikileaks Bombshell Reveals Clinton Email “Where They Are Literally Pricing How Much It Costs to Transport Children”

[55] 2016 Nov 4 MatrixBob PAY ATTENTION: These are the kind of things the FBI is finding. “Spirit cooking”. It’s getting dark

[60] Reddit “Pizza”

[61] Reddit Wikileaks Central Station

United States Child Abuse

[28] 2015 Jan 14 Cathy Fox Blog George Bush Pedophile Sex Ring and Blackmail of Congress 

[15] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo

[12] 2015 May 10 Cathy Fox Blog Houston Mass Murder and Sexual Abuse 1973

[8] 2015 Apr 7 Cathy Fox Blog Trance Formation of America Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips

[9] 2015 Oct 24 Cathy Fox Blog United States also Governed by Criminals and Child Torturers

[17] 2016 Aug 24 VeteransToday VT Exclusive: Largest Pedophile Ring in History, 70,000 Members, Heads of State, the Rats Scramble

[30] 2015 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Power Pedophilia and the US Government

[25a] Riel Politik NARCO-POLITIK: A Few Brave Mexican Journalists Have Been Reporting the Convergence Between Drug Cartels, Leading Industrialists, & their Giant US/UK “Too Big to Fail” Banking Partners

[29] 2015 Apr 2 Cathy Fox Blog US Trafficking of Children for Sex – Boys for Sale

Child Slavery and Trafficking 

[13] 2015 Apr 27 Cathy Fox Blog End It – Slavery and Trafficking

[26] 2015 Jul 21 Cathy Fox Blog Slavery Today – Tim Tate

[27] 2016 Feb 18 Cathy Fox Blog Map of 95,000 Downloaders Worldwide of Child Abuse Material

[42] 2013 May 28 Eyre International London’s false flag even more pathetic than the Boston Bombing – Part 3

Ritual abuse

[65] 2015 Nov 30 Cathy Fox Blog My Story Fiona Barnett Hang on for the Ride

[52] 2016 Nov 4 Infowars FLASHBACK: HILLARY LABELED ‘HIGH PRIEST,’ ‘GODDESS OF OCCULT’ IN GUCCIFER LETTER

[10] 2015 Dec 18 Cathy Fox Blog From Fiona Barnett to Miley Cyrus

[11] 2015 Dec 13 Cathy Fox Blog Fiona Barnett Australian Child Abuse Network

[35] 2016 July 12 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control Research and Resource – Australia

[36] 2016 Jan 9 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control and MK Ultra in Canada

[37] 2016 Jan 5 Cathy Fox Blog MK Ultra Mind Control in Australia

[22] Archive Brice Taylor Thanks for the Memories

General Geo Politics

[44] 2016 Nov 3 Kauilapele FULL ARTICLE Benjamin Fulford 10-31-16… “The message for the Khazarian mafia is trick or treat surrender or die”

[45] Benjamin Fulford website

John Pilger interviews Assange about the revelations from the Clinton and Podesta emails

[57]  2016 Nov 5 Published RT  Pilger interviews Assange

This “countercoup” should not be seen in binary terms as “whitehats” vs evil. The political situation is much more complex than that.

Trump has mixed in elite circles for many years. He has symbols of the elite [34] Donald Trump’s 66th Floor Penthouse Exposes His Idol ‘Sun God’ Apollo, Son of Zeus. He has also visited  Epstein house on sex slave island, and is accused of child sexual abuse (now withdrawn) and rape. He appears to be a narcissist, a racist and misogynist. Despite his image of being anti establishment he may well be part of the establishment by threats or mind control or he may be killed by the powers way above the President of the US – the bankers, the Council of 300 and others.

Assange has a strange past coming from a cult [63] and may himself have been the subject of mind control [63] [62]

Steve Pieczenik is a psychiatrist, experienced in pyschological warfare and has connections to many intelligence agencies. The countercoup may be partisan right wing and this could be part of a Gladio type plot to help bring chaos and hence the New World Order.

[56] 2016 Nov 4 Deus Nexus Countering Hillary’s Coup With a Counter Coup – or Not? is worth a read.

This will have repercussions around the word geopolitically. Tony Blair is in Epsteins book, Cherie Blair asked Hilary to meet her contacts. [HT@PeaceOnEarth222] They may or may not be innocent.

Prince Andrew must be getting worried that Epstein is once more under the spotlight, as he was a friend of his [4a] The FBI apparently have video [1] Feb 1 2015 Cathy Fox Blog Aangirfan FBI have Prince Andrew child abuse video and more news from Aangirfan

This longer video 34 min interview by Alex Jones gives more information from Steve Pieczenik. Alex Jones is also known for his limitations. As with all this information presented, read and watch and make up your own mind.

[7] 2016 Nov 2 Alex Jones You Tube Intel Officer Steve Pieczenik Talks Hillary Coup

cwdsyruxuae25mc

Enter a caption

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] Feb 1 2015 Cathy Fox Blog Aangirfan FBI have Prince Andrew child abuse video and more news from Aangirfan http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/prince-andrew-missing-boy-cia-mossad-mi6.html

[2] 2015 Apr 7 Cathy Fox Blog Access Denied. For reasons of national security. Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips. https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/access-denied-for-reasons-of-national-security-cathy-obrien-and-mark-phillips/

[3] 2015 Apr 2 Cathy fox Blog US Trafficking of Children for Sex – Boys for Sale https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/us-trafficking-of-children-for-sex-boys-for-sale/

[4] 2015 Jan 7 Cathy Fox Blog Read the US court statement which names Prince Andrew in sex allegations https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/read-the-us-court-statement-which-names-prince-andrew-in-sex-allegations/

[4a] 2015 Jan 7 Prides Purge Read the US court statement which names Prince Andrew in sex allegations https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/read-the-us-court-statement-which-names-prince-andrew-in-sex-allegations/

[5] 2015 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Power, Pedophilia and the US Government- Veterans Today https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/power-pedophilia-and-the-us-government/

[6] 2016 Nov 1 Steve Pieczenik You Tube The Clinton Pedophilia Connection https://youtu.be/12zVlaZyX3Q

[7] 2016 Nov 2 Alex Jones You Tube Intel Officer Steve Pieczenik Talks Hillary Coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zic64WhR14k

[8] 2015 Apr 7 Cathy Fox Blog Trance Formation of America Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/trance-formation-of-america-cathy-obrien-and-mark-phillips/

[9] 2015 Oct 24 Cathy Fox Blog United States also Governed by Criminals and Child Torturers https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/united-states-also-governed-by-criminals-and-child-abusers/

[10] 2015 Dec 18 Cathy Fox Blog From Fiona Barnett to Miley Cyrus https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/from-fiona-barnett-to-miley-cyrus/

[11] 2015 Dec 13 Cathy Fox Blog Fiona Barnett Australian Child Abuse Network https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/fiona-rae-barnett/

[12] 2015 May 10 Cathy Fox Blog Houston Mass Murder and Sexual Abuse 1973 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/houston/

[13] 2015 Apr 27 Cathy Fox Blog End It – Slavery and Trafficking https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/end-it-slavery-and-trafficking/

[14] Wikileaks website https://wikileaks.org/ @wikileaks

[15] 2015 Mar 25 Cathy Fox Blog Secrets of the CIA’s Global Sex Slave Industry by Dr. Sue Arrigo https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/secrets-of-the-cias-global-sex-slave-industry-by-dr-sue-arrigo-june-15-2007/

[16] 2015 Oct 24 Cathy Fox Blog United States also Governed by Criminals and Child Torturers https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/united-states-also-governed-by-criminals-and-child-abusers/

[17] 2016 Aug 24 VeteransToday VT Exclusive: Largest Pedophile Ring in History, 70,000 Members, Heads of State, the Rats Scramble http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/08/24/vt-exclusive-largest-pedophile-ring-in-history-70000-members-heads-of-state-the-rats-scramble/

[18] Steve Pieczenik website http://www.stevepieczenik.com/

[19] Wikipedia Steve Pieczenik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

[20] Marina Abramovic Spirit Cooking video https://t.co/2RWQspzUTL 

[21] Reddit BREAKING: I believe I have connected a convicted child abductor who was caught stealing children in Haiti with the Clintons https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5aupnh/breaking_i_believe_i_have_connected_a_convicted/

[22] Archive Brice Taylor Thanks for the Memories https://archive.org/stream/BriceTaylorThanksForTheMemoriesLARGEFONT_201603/Brice Taylor – Thanks for the memories LARGE FONT_djvu.txt

[23]

[24] 1999 Mar 1 Amazon Brice Taylor Thanks for the Memories: The Truth Has Set Me Free! the Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’Smind-Controlled Slave Paperback – 1 Mar 1999 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thanks-Memories-Truth-Memoirs-KissingerSmind-Controlled/dp/0966891627/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478271023&sr=8-1&keywords=brice+taylor

[25] 2016 Mar 24 Cathy Fox Blog NARCO-POLITIK: Child abusers, drug cartels and the Mexican Government https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/narco-politik-a-few-brave-mexican-journalists-have-been-reporting-the-convergence-between-drug-cartels-leading-industrialists-their-giant-usuk-too-big-to-fail-banking-partn/

[25a] Riel Politik NARCO-POLITIK: A Few Brave Mexican Journalists Have Been Reporting the Convergence Between Drug Cartels, Leading Industrialists, & their Giant US/UK “Too Big to Fail” Banking Partners https://rielpolitik.com/2016/03/23/narco-politik-a-handful-of-brave-mexican-journalists-have-been-reporting-the-convergence-between-drug-cartels-leading-mexican-industrialists-and-their-giant-u-s-uk-too-big-to-fail/

[26] 2015 Jul 21 Cathy Fox Blog Slavery Today – Tim Tate https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/slavery-tim-tate/

[27] 2016 Feb 18 Cathy Fox Blog Map of 95,000 Downloaders Worldwide of Child Abuse Material https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/map-of-95000-downloaders-worldwide-of-child-abuse-material/

[28] 2015 Jan 14 Cathy Fox Blog George Bush Pedophile Sex Ring and Blackmail of Congress  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/george-bush-pedophile-sex-ring-and-blackmail-of-congress/

[29] 2015 Apr 2 Cathy Fox Blog US Trafficking of Children for Sex – Boys for Sale https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/us-trafficking-of-children-for-sex-boys-for-sale/

[30] 2015 Feb 8 Cathy Fox Blog Power Pedophilia and the US Government https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/power-pedophilia-and-the-us-government/

[31] 2016 Nov Aangirfan Time to Emigrate http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/time-to-emigrate.html

[32] 2016 Nov 4 Inquisitr Latest WikiLeaks’ Clinton Emails Include Child Trafficking, Anthony Weiner Info: Will Trump Win As A Result? http://www.inquisitr.com/3676883/latest-wikileaks-clinton-emails-include-child-trafficking-anthony-weiner-info-will-trump-win-as-a-result/

[33] 2016 Nov 3 Infowars BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD BLOWS WHISTLE ON NEW HILLARY EMAILS: MONEY LAUNDERING, SEX CRIMES WITH CHILDREN, CHILD EXPLOITATION, PAY TO PLAY, PERJURY http://www.infowars.com/breaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/

[34] You Tube Donald Trump’s 66th Floor Penthouse Exposes His Idol ‘Sun God’ Apollo, Son of Zeus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pCsVKt9gqY

[35] 2016 July 12 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control Research and Resource – Australia https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/australian-mind-control-research-and-resource-steve-mcmurray/

[36] 2016 Jan 9 Cathy Fox Blog Mind Control and MK Ultra in Canada https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/mind-control-and-mk-ultra-in-canada/

[37] 2016 Jan 5 Cathy Fox Blog MK Ultra Mind Control in Australia https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/mk-ultra-mind-control-in-australia/

[38] 2015 Dec 18 Cathy Fox Blog From Fiona Barnett to Miley Cyrus https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/from-fiona-barnett-to-miley-cyrus/

[39] Soundcloud – Ground Zero Media Sex and the Citadel  https://soundcloud.com/groundzeromedia/a2016-11-3 23mins pres candidates, Franklin Scandal Interview with David Shurter 53 mins Scalia murder, Aquino handler of Shurter,

[40] Conservative Outfitters WikiLeaks: John Podesta’s Satanic Dinner (WARNING: Graphic Content) https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/wikileaks-john-podestas-satanic-dinner-warning-graphic-content

[41] 2015 Sept 19 Cathy Fox Blog Hunting Children in Kent https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/hunting-children-in-kent/

[42] 2013 May 28 Eyre International London’s false flag even more pathetic than the Boston Bombing – Part 3 https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/behind-every-man-is-a-women-unbelievable-evil-satanic-manipulation-of-world-politicians/

[43] 2016 Nov 1 Steve Pieczenik You Tube The Hillary Clinton Takeover of the United States https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM

[44] 2016 Nov 3 Kauilpele FULL ARTICLE Benjamin Fulford 10-31-16… “The message for the Khazarian mafia is trick or treat surrender or die” https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/full-article-benjamin-fulford-10-31-16-the-message-for-the-khazarian-mafia-is-trick-or-treat-surrender-or-die/

[45] Benjamin Fulford website https://benjaminfulford.net/

[46] https://twitter.com/_Makada_/status/794680225732800514 re Cathy O’brien vid ab

[47] 2016 Nov 3 Danger and Play Podesta Spirit Cooking Emails Reveal Clinton’s Inner Circle as Sex Cult with Connections to Human Trafficking http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/03/podesta-emails-reveal-clintons-inner-circle-as-sex-cult-with-connections-to-human-trafficking/

[48] 2016 Nov 4 TruthKings SOURCES: Hillary Clinton’s Child Sex Ring Scandal Near Breaking  https://truthkings.com/sources-hillary-clintons-child-sex-ring-scandal-near-breaking/#

[49] We are Change Hillary Clinton Admits To Act Questioning Her Sanity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRwhrOXaaSM&feature=youtu.be

[50] 2016 Nov 3 We are Change Internet Is On Fire With Speculation That Podesta Emails Contain Code for Child Sex http://wearechange.org/internet-fire-speculation-podesta-emails-contain-code-child-sex/

[51] 2016 Nov 4 We are Change Spirit Cooking: The Most Disturbing Podesta Email Yet? (Warning: Graphic Content) http://wearechange.org/spirit-cooking-disturbing-podesta-email-yet-warning-graphic-content/

[52] 2016 Nov 4 Infowars FLASHBACK: HILLARY LABELED ‘HIGH PRIEST,’ ‘GODDESS OF OCCULT’ IN GUCCIFER LETTER http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hillary-labeled-high-priest-goddess-of-occult-in-guccifer-letter/

[53] 2016 Nov Independent Journal Review Report: Bill Clinton Wasn’t Only One to Go to ‘Sex Slave Island,’ Hillary Went with Him–‘Six Times’ http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/728945-report-bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-one-to-go-to-sex-island-hillary-went-with-him-six-times/ Hillary went with him 6 times to child slave island

[54] 2016 Nov 5 The International Reporter It Just Got WAY BIGGER: Wikileaks Bombshell Reveals Clinton Email “Where They Are Literally Pricing How Much It Costs to Transport Children” https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/11/05/it-just-got-way-bigger-wikileaks-bombshell-reveals-clinton-email-where-they-are-literally-pricing-how-much-it-costs-to-transport-children/

[55] 2016 Nov 4 MatrixBob PAY ATTENTION: These are the kind of things the FBI is finding. “Spirit cooking”. It’s getting dark. https://matrixbob.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/pay-attention-these-are-the-kind-of-things-the-fbi-is-finding-spirit-cooking-its-getting-dark/

[56] 2016 Nov 4 Deus Nexus Countering Hillary’s Coup With a Counter Coup – or Not? https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/countering-hillarys-coup-with-a-counter-coup-or-not/

[57]  2016 Nov 5 Published RT You Tube Pilger interviews Assange https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4

[58] Wikileaks email re Hastert / podesta https://t.co/JH6BRocsWK

[59] @BleuEgretBennu #35561 Christina, farmer 1 kid in africa #23336 Christina in Spain more kids. #17565 another reference 2 cattle

[60] Reddit Pizza https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5azc9k/someone_tell_me_im_wrong_this_invite_to_a_pizza/

[61] Reddit Wikileaks Central Station https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a3x7l/wikileaks_central_station_on_rthe_donald/?st=iuvzknrm&sh=dfa1af1d

[62] 2016 Spidercat Julian Assange and the CIA  https://spidercatweb.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/julian-assange-the-cia/

[63] 2016 Spidercat Meet the Family https://spidercatweb.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/meet-the-family/

[64] Globalresearch Hillarys Surprising Ties to Tony Blair http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillarys-surprising-ties-to-tony-blair/5480244

[65] 2015 Nov 30 Cathy Fox Blog My Story Fiona Barnett Hang on for the Ride https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/my-story-fiona-barnett-hang-on-for-the-ride/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, Americas, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, MI5 MI6 Security Services, Royalty and Child Abuse, US of America Child Abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Debate and Vote on Keith Vaz’s add to Justice Committee

The House of Commons approved a motion to put Keith Vaz on the Justice Committee by 203 to 7. Hansard transcript is below and here [1] voters [2]. Reports from Telegraph [10] [11], Independent [7], Guido Fawkes has been the leader on Vaz recently [8], 2016 Sept 4 Order Order Bercow Knew Vaz Was Under Police Investigation [13] , David Henke [5] and Guardian [14] 

Conservatives whips apparently ordered their MPs to vote for Vaz [8].  This perhaps explains, the fact that in a bewildering display of support, the majority, 159 of 203 [8] [7], of those who voted for Keith Vaz [2], were Conservatives including 11 cabinet ministers including Amber Rudd the Home Secretary [15]. Two Conservatives voted both for and against in a bid to abstain [7]

vazNotable voters for Vaz were previously anti child abuse figures Tom Watson and the recently “independent” Simon Danczuk [2] .

This apparent show of confidence in the many times disgraced on multiple issues Vaz, is also despite a Leicestershire Police investigation into child sexual abuse allegations against Keith Vaz [13] [3] which speaker Bercow was adamant that Bridgen should not mention. Bercow incidentally is thought to be close friends with Keith Vaz.

Outside the self obsessed Westminster bubble, ordinary people are bemused and appalled that a man with so many questions about him and current investigations into him has the audacity to go for membership of a committee.

They are appalled that his party, the Labour Party, support him – No Jeremy Corbyn it is not a private matter; Corbyn already has questions to answer over child abuse in Islington, the apparent support of the Labour Party of Vaz, adds more questions.

They are appalled that the Conservatives were willing to overcome the normally kneejerk party politics and any legitimate concerns to support Vaz so overwhelmingly and be so supine as to bend to the will of their whips. Apparently the Telegraph believes this is so that setting a precedent of objecting to appointments is avoided, which could undermine the whole system [10]. Not mentioned is the huge backlog of child abuse to come out about the Conservatives.

This brings up questions about the party political system, how hierachical and how easily it can be manipulated by a few people, how unaccountable the Parties really are and of course not subject to FOI.

I wonder when IICSA is going to get round to investigating the political parties?

Vaz’s appointment to the Justice committee is a snub to child abuse campaigners as well as the rapidly diminishing number who seek to believe in the good intentions of this “parliamentary democracy”, in reality a corporate obsessed parliamentary monarchy with veneer of democracy and justice, and controlled behind the scenes by the bankers, deep state, secret services and societies.

It appears to some that it is the establishment protecting itself and ensures that Keith Vaz does not reveal for now any secrets that he may know about child abuse in Leicestershire, or the corridors of power and the powerful and particularly the abundance of child abuse revelations that should come out about the Conservatives.

It stinks.

As Bridgen told a less-than-packed House of Commons: “I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Leicester East joining the Justice Committee will do anything to enhance the reputation and perception of Parliament among the public: indeed, it will do the opposite.”

Even the establishment Telegraph headline is “Keith Vaz’s new job makes Parliament look like a cosy club that always looks after its own” [10] and appalling judgement of Conservative whips [15]

Quite so chaps, what ho. Mustn’t give the show away though must we.

System 1 Child Abuse Victims 0

or realistically more like

System and Child Abusers, Enablers and Gatekeepers, and the powerful  5,879

Survivors, Victims, Truth, Democracy, Ethics, Morals and the public  2

The obvious conflicts of interest apparently do not seem to concern the House of Commons, which appears to have no procedures for weeding out those under criminal investigations or with multiple conflicts of interest [4]

The Vaz vote of shame announcement by Vaz’s friend Bercow

I have put in an FOI request to the House of Commons to find out who nominated and seconded Vaz, as well as other items of information [12] FOI Request Keith Vaz nominators to the Justice Committee

House of Commons Hansard

Justice Committee

31 October 2016

Volume 616

9.02 pm
    • Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
      That Chris Elmore and Dr Rupa Huq be discharged from the Justice Committee and Kate Green and Keith Vaz be added.This motion is the decision of the Committee of Selection. It respects the wish of the Labour party in electing those Members to this Committee.
9.03 pm
    • I rise to object to the appointment of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) to the Justice Committee. I informed the right hon. Gentleman’s office this afternoon of my intention to do so.I am aware that this is not a conduct debate and will therefore try to limit my remarks to why I believe the right hon. Member for Leicester East is at this time unsuitable for a role on the Committee to which he has been nominated, and to matters already on the public record and in the public domain. I am sure that should I cross the line or if my remarks are out of order, you will be as quick as always to advise and correct me, Mr Speaker.I put on record that I have no objection to the appointment of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). In my view, it is unfortunate that her appointment has been linked with that of the other Member in question.Mr Speaker, since I have been in this House, and on almost a weekly basis—from memory, it is usually on a Wednesday around about noon—you have reminded us how important the public perception of the workings of the House and the behaviour of its Members are in fashioning the public’s opinion of Parliament and our whole democratic system. You were quoted only last week, following the hugely successful Nottinghamshire event, as saying:“There is a lot of evidence that people have a low opinion of politics and politicians”.I agree, Mr Speaker, and that is unfortunately true. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Leicester East joining the Justice Committee will do anything to enhance the reputation and perception of Parliament among the public; indeed, it will do the opposite.
    • If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s belief, I suggest he speaks in the debate on behalf of the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Representing a Committee of the House reflects on this House. As a Member of the House, I have right to object.

    • rose—
    • Order. I will come to the hon. Gentlemen —he will continue his speech in a moment. He himself anticipated the possibility that the Chair might take an interest if he were to cross the line between what was legitimate and orderly to say and what was not. Thus far, the hon. Gentleman has observed that distinction and, on that basis, I am content for him at this stage to continue.
    • It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should cite the tabloid press which has, from time to time, taken an unhealthy interest in his activities.

    • That got disproved, and he is not the one who is up for the Justice Committee.
    • Order. Mr McCartney, calm yourself. Be quiet, young man. We do not need to hear from you. You add nothing and you subtract from the proceedings. Mr Bridgen is perfectly capable of addressing these matters to the best of his ability and according to his own lights. He does not require a sedentary interjection from you.
  • Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Let me say clearly to the hon. Gentleman, and in terms that brook no contradiction, that he would be unwise to go into those matters. He has written to me and I have written back to him. I explained to him factually—factually—in a manner that cannot be disputed or gainsaid that it is not for the Speaker of this House to seek to persuade someone to step down as the Chair of a Committee because of suspicions that some people might have about him. That is not the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman were a more experienced Member, he would probably be aware of that fact. I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on those matters which it is proper and legitimate for him to raise, and not upon those which it is not.
  • Thank you. Mr Speaker, you have often said that this place must reflect the society for which we make the laws—I agree with you. I respectfully point out to the House that in any other sphere of activity, a candidate with so much hanging unresolved over him would be very unlikely to be considered for such an important office. If the right hon. Gentleman were in the Chamber today, I would ask him to stand down from his nomination, but he is not, so I ask the House to reject his appointment. Otherwise, we cannot blame the great British public for having a low opinion of its politicians and its politics; we can only blame ourselves.In conclusion, I will leave the House with this question. If the right hon. Member for Leicester East thought himself only last month not fit to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and given that the matters relating his resignation are, as I have explained, unresolved, what makes him think that he is a fit and proper person to be a member of the Justice Committee this month?
  • Before my hon. Friend draws his remarks to a conclusion, some correspondence has been referred to this evening. I wonder if he will say whether it is possible to publish that correspondence to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have an opportunity to consider all of the facts.
  • Order. That is nothing to do with the debate, as I have just been advised by the Clerk of the House. Don’t frown at me, Mr Berry. I know the facts and you’re about to learn them. That is nothing to do with the debate tonight—point one. Secondly, there is no uncertainty or dubiety whatsoever about the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and me. Indeed, I do not think there is any uncertainty at all about the advice that was proffered not just by me but by the Clerk of the House. Whether he wishes and is astute enough to take that advice is another matter.
  • Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend’s failed attempt to help in this debate.It is clear that the right hon. Member for Leicester East felt the need to resign last month from the Home Affairs Committee. I think it would be a huge mistake for this House now to place him on the Justice Committee when he has so many questions to answer. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote against his appointment this evening.Question put.

    Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

    • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
    • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
    • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
    • and Havoca [D].
    • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
    • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
    • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
    • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
    • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
    • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
    • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

 

[1] Hansard Motion on Vaz Appointment to Justice Committee https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-31/debates/0F9B8D86-F329-4109-A397-1D7815051C88/JusticeCommittee?highlight=bridgen#contribution-251415A7-B50F-4604-BDA8-B2D312939D1C

[2] Hansard Vote on Vaz Motion https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-31/division/6259D799-00C9-4801-BA93-3941DA2CD80D/JusticeCommittee?outputType=Names

[3] 2016 Sept 4 Cathy Fox Blog More Vaz Sleaze and Government Child Sex Abuse Cover ups https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/more-vaz-sex-sleaze-and-government-child-sex-abuse-cover-ups/

[4] 2016 Oct 25 Cathy Fox Blog Keith Vaz and MP Standards of Behaviour https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/keith-vaz-and-mp-standards-of-behaviour/

[5] 2016 Nov 1 David Hencke blog The Keith Vaz Westminster fan club: Why do they protect this man https://davidhencke.com/2016/11/01/the-keith-vaz-westminster-fan-club-why-do-they-protect-this-man/

[6] 2016 Oct 31 You Tube https://youtu.be/oWRjz435yHY

[7]  2016 Nov 1 Independent MPs back Keith Vaz appointment to Justice Select Committee http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-parliamentary-vote-keith-vaz-justice-select-committee-a7390341.html

[8] 2016 Nov 1 Guido Fawkes website Tory Whips saved Vaz http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/tory-whips-saved-vaz/

[9] 2016 OCt 31 BBC Keith Vaz joins Commons justice committee http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37829906

[10] 2016 Nov 1 Telegraph Keith Vaz’s new job makes Parliament look like a cosy club that always looks after its own http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/keith-vazs-new-job-makes-parliament-look-like-a-cosy-club-that-a/

[11] 2016 Nov 1 Telegraph Tory MPs defeat bid to stop Keith Vaz from being appointed to Justice Committee http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/tory-mps-defeat-bid-to-stop-keith-vaz-from-being-appointed-to-ju/

[12] What Do they Know FOI Request Keith Vaz nominators to the Justice Committee https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/keith_vaz_nominators_to_the_just

[13]  2016 Sept 4 Order Order Bercow Knew Vaz Was Under Police Investigation http://order-order.com/2016/09/04/244563/ Keith Vaz has been under police investigation for over year on suspicion of financial corruption and historic allegations of sex with minors. Speaker Bercow was informed of this and fellow MPs demanded – Andrew Bridgen in writing – that he step down from his position on the Home Affair Select Committee. The Speaker protected Vaz… It is widely known around Westminster that Vaz – who owes his career to Greville Janner – was the unidentified MP in this Sun front page from last year.

[14] 2016 Nov 2 Guardian Tories face questions over support of Keith Vaz committee appointment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/02/tories-questions-support-keith-vaz-justice-committee-appointment?CMP=share_btn_tw

[15] 2016 Nov 1 Telegraph Amber Rudd and 10 Cabinet members under fire for giving Keith Vaz scrutiny role on prisons policy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/amber-rudd-and-10-cabinet-members-under-fire-for-giving-keith-va/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Conservative Party, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, IICSA Goddard / Jay child sexual abuse Inquiry, Labour Party, Leicestershire, Police, Politicians, VIP CSA, VIPs MPs Lords etc, Westminster | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Derbyshire Child Abuse Cover up partners – Police, Council and CPS

The following article is noteworthy for several reasons

  • investigative research
  • forced drugging of child
  • child abuse by a woman
  • false allegations
  • child protection failures by Council and Police
  • cover up of failures by Council, Police and CPS
  • destruction of evidence by Council and Police
  • legal aid fraud uncovered related to domestic violence

Note also the comment on the original article that Sussex has similar problems

For child protection to work better it is essential that councils and police work together in partnership. However this partnership becomes dangerous when they also work together to cover up their mistakes and failures and corruption.

As yet there have been no criminal prosecutions or comeback on those perpetrators of illegal acts. If this does not happen, there are no consequences for covering up and it will happen again.

2016 Oct 31 Derbyshire Independent Child abuse – Police and council officers caught destroying evidence and falsifying records [1] 

Child abuse – Police and council officers caught destroying evidence and falsifying records

Senior social workers and police officers falsified and destroyed records after Kids for Cash UK exposed evidence of harm to a twelve-year-old Derby boy whose mother was found by a court to have made multiple false allegations of domestic violence.

An investigation by Kids for Cash UK has revealed that Derbyshire Constabulary police officers and senior social workers within Derby City Council’s Children’s Services department destroyed evidence and falsified official records to conceal severe psychological harm being caused to a child after its junior officers had been duped by false claims of domestic violence made by the child’s mother.

In a Derby court, the mother was found to have lied to social workers and police officers and had gained the support of friends by concocting false accounts of domestic violence that she spread, over a period of months, using Facebook messaging. The mother had previously used the false allegations to secretly obtain a court order to prevent the father’s access, allowing her to continue the psychological abuse of the child. When witnesses came forward for a court trial with information that the child was being sedated and psychologically abused, the mother organised friends to seek out the witnesses and conduct a prolonged campaign of witness intimidation against them. Police officers and social workers failed to share key evidence from independent witnesses and allowed the abuse to continue. When the failures came to light, senior social workers and police officers falsified official records and destroyed evidence.

Lawrence English, Senior District Crown Prosecutor said, “The Crown Prosecution Service made enquiries with the police to see whether [we] could replicate the [prosecution] file submitted by the police. It became apparent that not all of the material referred to by the reviewing lawyer is still held by the police.”

Despite claims from CPS that it was willing to review the file, the Derbyshire Independent has seen documentary evidence that confirms that CPS later refused to review a prosecution file reconstructed by Kids for Cash UK after it had recaptured the original evidence, as well copies of additional evidence that had been withheld and then later destroyed by police officers.

David Gale of Kids for Cash UK said, “Our investigations have confirmed that the mother subjected the child to a prolonged period of severe psychological abuse despite the authorities admitting to having received clear independent evidence pointing to the harm being caused. It is clear from the documentary evidence that we have gathered that senior officers within Derby City Council and Derbyshire Constabulary have failed in their statutory duty to ensure that they have procedures in place to secure evidence and to ensure that official records are not falsified by officers seeking to avoid blame. The latest evidence suggests that the police, Derby City Council Children’s Services, and the Crown Prosecution Service have colluded to prevent their failures from coming to light.”

Following Kids for Cash UK’s analysis of five years’ of raw statistical data, gained through Freedom of Information requests served on the Ministry of Justice, an epidemic of false claims relating to domestic violence in the East Midlands has been exposed. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that it recently launched a nationwide investigation into legal aid fraud related to false claims of domestic violence. That investigation is starting in Derbyshire.

Derbyshire Constabulary’s Chief Constable, Mick Creedon, declined to respond when we asked him to comment on this case.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

[1] 2016 Oct 31 Derbyshire Independent Child abuse – Police and council officers caught destroying evidence and falsifying records https://derbyshireindependent.co.uk/2016/10/31/child-abuse-police-and-council-officers-caught-destroying-evidence-and-falsifying-records/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in Child Abuse, Crown Prosecution Service, Derbyshire, Falsely accused, set up, framed, Forced Drug Use, Missing Information, Other bloggers, Police | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

John Handscomb 21 October 1994 Court of Appeal

This is an application by Mr John Handscomb for judicial review of a decision of the Stevenage Magistrates in which they declined to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court. Application was dismissed and therefore the committal proceedings against Handscomb could proceed.

Redaction

Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This particular post has not been redacted

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[1994] EWHC J1021-5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CO/2621/93


Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

Friday 21 October 1994

Before: Lord Justice Beldam and Mr Justice Buxton

Regina

v.

Stevenage Magistrates Court

Ex Parte John Handscomb

MISS SARAH PLASCHKES (instructed by Messrs Hilliers, Bedford) appeared on behalf of THE APPLICANT

MR JOHN McGUINESS (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Hertfordshire) appeared on behalf of THE RESPONDENTS


Computer Aided Transcription by John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London Telephone No: 071–404 7464 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court)

Friday 21 October 1994

LORD JUSTICE BELDAM: Before the court this afternoon is an application by Mr John Handscomb for judicial review of a decision of the Stevenage Magistrates on 1 November 1993, in which they declined to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court.

The facts of the case are that Mr Handscomb, from about 1975 onwards, was said by the complainant, a girl then 10 or 11 years old, to have been a house parent at a children’s home run by the Borough of Islington. The complaint she made against him was that over a period of one or two years, or perhaps even longer, he had indecently assaulted her whilst she was at the home and this amounted to a course of conduct of sexual abuse. On this complaint being made, he was interviewed and two offences were charged against him. The first was indecent assault between 21 August 1975 and 20 August 1976, when the complainant was 10 years old. The second was an offence of indecency with a child between 1 January 1976 and 31 December 1976, when she was under 14 years of age. It was made clear to the justices that if the justices committed for trial the case for the Crown would be that these were specimen charges to represent the course of conduct of which the complainant was complaining.

The complainant had gone to live at the children’s home when she was about 6 or 7 years of age. According to her, the applicant, Mr Handscomb, had come to the home later as a house parent. She said he was called ‘uncle’ by the young people there, and that he worked in four other children’s homes in or around Stevenage. She described how he used to drive a minibus there.

She gave a description of the first incident which occurred at the children’s home when she said that he indecently assaulted her by touching her private parts. She described how matters progressed from there, so that at weekends, when he was “sleeping over” at the children’s home, he would sometimes enter her bedroom and wake her up. More serious indecent assaults took place including incidents of masturbating, simulating sex and oral intercourse.

The complainant said that he had told her that he liked her and that if ever she told anyone, nobody would believe her. She began to believe that nobody would believe her. She thought it was her fault. She was not even sure if what was happening was right or wrong; nor did she know whether it was happening to any other young people. That was her explanation in her statement for not having made any complaint about this course of conduct at the time, or indeed for a substantial number of years afterwards.

Later she had a relationship with a partner by whom she had two sons. That relationship ended and in 1991 she met someone else. She says that at about that time she started to have nightmares about what had happened to her. She eventually told the young man who was then her partner.

It was not until 21 March 1993 that these serious allegations were put to the applicant. He was then 66 years of age. He was in a restaurant in Stevenage. He was seen and recognised by the complainant, who confronted him as the person who had indecently assaulted her all those years ago.

The matter came before the justices of Stevenage on 1 November 1993. Miss Plaschkes, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the court on the grounds of delay.

Before coming to the basis of her argument on delay, it is helpful to bear in mind the observations of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 [1992] 1 QB 630 , a case in which the delay was nowhere approaching the delay in this case, but which had been referred to the court for guidance on the question of abuse of process, and the extent to which delay in bringing proceedings might be regarded as an abuse of process. After reviewing several authorities which had dealt with questions of delay, Lord Lane CJ, at page 643, said:

“However, we remind ourselves of the principles outlined earlier in this judgment and the observation of Lord Morris in Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, 1304, that ‘generally speaking a prosecutor has as much right as a defendant to demand a verdict of a jury on an outstanding indictment, and where either demands a verdict a judge has no jurisdiction to stand in the way of it.’

Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would be only a short time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of Brennan J in Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) Crim LR 23 .

In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be the foundation for a stay.

In answer to the second question posed by the Attorney General, no stay should be imposed unless the defendant shows on the balance of probabilities that owing to the delay he will suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial can be held: in other words, that the continuance of the prosecution amounts to a misuse of the process of the court. In assessing whether there is likely to be prejudice and if so whether it can properly be described as serious, the following matters should be borne in mind: first, the power of the judge at common law and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to regulate the admissibility of evidence; secondly, the trial process itself, which should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury as part of the evidence for their consideration, together with the powers of the judge to give appropriate directions to the jury before they consider their verdict.”

Those last words are of particular importance in a case of this kind, in which it is well-known that complaints of sexual abuse frequently surface only after long delay. Often the complainant may be able to satisfy a jury that there is good reason for the delay, but it is essentially part of the process of the trial to put all the features before the jury, from which they can judge whether or not that is the case.

Be that as it may, in this case, after making submissions to the justices and after the justices had heard submissions in reply from the Crown Prosecution Service, after the legal representatives for both sides had referred them to a number of cases, including the Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 , to which I have just referred, the justices, according to an affidavit from the Chairman of the Bench, retired to consider the arguments. They came to the conclusion that they would not stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process because:

“We considered, having regard to the facts and the nature of the offence, that the delay in this case was not exceptional and that a fair trial was in our opinion possible, and the application was therefore not justified.”

They then adjourned the hearing on an application by the applicant that the committal proceedings should await the outcome of this application for judicial review.

It is submitted by Miss Plaschkes, on behalf of the applicant, that in their affidavit the justices betrayed a misunderstanding of the way in which they should treat abuse of the process. She says that the justices ought not to have considered whether the delay was exceptional. Before they considered whether a fair trial was possible, there was only one question for them: had the applicant been so prejudiced by the delay that it was no longer possible for him to receive a fair trial? She has emphasised before us several reasons why a fair trial was no longer possible. First, she points to the statement made by the complainant and the references, within the statement, to a number of witnesses whom she described as “potential witnesses”, for example, welfare officers who visited the home and others who were in charge there. She submits that had these proceedings been speedily brought, those witnesses might have been able to give significant evidence about the conduct of the complainant, whether she was distressed at any time, and what her demeanour was like. She says after this lapse of time nobody will be likely to remember either the girl’s demeanour or indeed, be able to support the applicant by giving evidence that he was a man whose behaviour with small children was exemplary and that they had never observed any kind of over-affectionate behaviour on his part.

Next, she submits that it is now quite impossible for the applicant to recall what the layout of this particular home was like at the time. He might, if this complaint had been made earlier, have been able to take photographs and if photographs had been available, they might have undermined the credibility of some of the complaints; for example, she says, it might have been possible to show from the photographs that some of the events could not have happened.

Further, she says that all the records, which might have been available if these offences had come to light at the time, have been destroyed and are no longer available. There might have been Social Service files, school reports or medical reports, and by looking at these records, it might have been possible to cast real doubt on the statements made by the complainant. None of those is available to the applicant.

She points to the allegations that some of the assaults took place at the weekends, and she submits that the applicant might have been able to show that he was elsewhere at the time, or that he was not at the home on the occasions when the complainant alleges the offences took place. She says that the applicant’s opportunity to establish that he was not there, at the appropriate time, would have been much better if this complaint had been made before so many years had gone by.

All these points Miss Plaschkes has made with considerable force. But the question is not whether we consider that there is an abuse of process here because of delay and that a fair trial can no longer be possible; the question for us is whether it was open to the justices to conclude that a fair trial was possible. In spite of Miss Plaschkes’ arguments, she has not convinced me that the justices approached this case wrongly, that they took into account any matter they ought not to have taken into account, or failed to take into account the matters she has urged upon us today. I am unpersuaded that they misdirected themselves in any way about the issue which they had to consider. Miss Plaschkes has to show that no reasonable Bench of Justices, faced with the complainant’s evidence, faced with the reasons for undoubtedly a very long delay, and applying the test laid down in the Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 (supra), could have come to the conclusion that a fair trial was still possible.

For my part, I consider that many of the matters which Miss Plaschkes has so forcefully made are just the kind of matters which Lord Lane had in mind at the end of the passage in his judgment to which I have referred when he said:

“[it] should be borne in mind, the trial process itself, should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury as part of the evidence for their consideration, together with the powers of the judge to give appropriate directions to the jury before they consider their verdict.”

Generally speaking, those considerations apply to this type of case. For those reasons I would dismiss this application.

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: I agree with my Lord’s view of this matter and with the order that he proposes.

I would venture to add only one thing. I regard it as a matter of considerable regret that the effect of these proceedings has been that in a matter where delay is already strongly complained of, the justices were seized of this case on 1 November 1993 and it is only now resolved that the matter should go forward. In the application and affidavit of the applicant, setting out the background and grounds of the matter, the only reference to the proceedings before the justices is one sentence: “On 1 November 1993 the justices gave no reasons for refusing my application; they simply stated that the case was not an abuse of process of their court.”

We now know from the affidavit, which was filed by the respondent after leave to move had been granted on the basis of the application, that full argument was addressed by both sides, including counsel instructed on behalf of the applicant, before the magistrates. We have been able to deduce from what has been said to us today that the magistrates were taken to, and had the advantage of seeing, all the witness statements in this case. I shall not comment further than to say it might have been more helpful if the single judge who had to consider this matter had been given more detail of what happened at the Magistrates’ Court. If that had been done in the application, which, in my judgment, it should have been, it is possible that these proceedings might have taken a different course.

Save for that point, which I add to what has been said by my Lord, I content myself by saying that I entirely agree with everything that has fallen from him.

MR McGUINESS: My Lord, the applicant is not legally aided. I therefore apply for costs. These proceedings have been in abeyance now for almost a year, pending this application.

LORD JUSTICE BELDAM: Miss Plaschkes, what do you say?

MISS PLASCHKES: My Lord, my application is that costs should remain where they lie. Mr Handscomb is not legally aided. He is a relatively old man of 67. Although the application has failed, I take on board my Lord’s remark a moment ago about the arguments. Nevertheless, leave was granted. I hope my Lords thought there was an arguable case to that extent. I would ask the court, in the court’s discretion, not further to burden Mr Handscomb with the costs of the Crown.

LORD JUSTICE BELDAM: We have listened to what you have said, but we think that costs should follow the event. We think that you should pay the costs of the respondent.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Court, Crown Prosecution Service, Islington, London | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Keith Vaz and MP Standards of Behaviour

Keith Vaz is reported to have been put forward for the Justice Committee and to be unopposed, Telegraph [7] Mirror [8] and Mail [3]

This is of course soon after his resignation from the Home Affairs Committee Chair. Many thought this was due to the fact that, what looked like conspiring to buy drugs and hiring male prostitutes was at least a powerful conflict of interest with his role. Some may have thought it poor moral and ethical behaviour or even having sinned against his god, his family and his office [4]

There is also an outstanding police investigation into that conduct; as well there is an investigation into child sexual abuse allegations against him, More Vaz Sleaze and Government Child Sex Abuse Cover ups [6]

Theresa May called for him to consider his position as an MP [4]. The Labour Party however, appear to be approving of Vaz as he reportedly is unopposed for his membership of the Justice Committee.

It appears as though Vaz is treating his resignation from the Home Affairs Commmittee Chair as a cynical short term strategic retreat before diving back into power.

If the powers that be, see fit to allow him to be a member of the Justice Committee then Vaz could be exploiting a loophole, the rules are not strict enough or not applied properly or overseen properely. Whichever way, something is rotten and the charade of a democracy that we live in is revealing itself to be rotten from the core.

To victims and survivors it is just business as usual from the power obsessed and abusers. Vaz wants to retain his power as that is the best way to remain out of jail, the stakes are just a bit higher.  The power crazed psychopaths that rule this country who turn a blind eye and a deaf ear, and enable abusive behaviour are themselves complicit.

I have not had time to check exactly where the problem arises nor study all the links I have provided, but I have provided them for people to check. I also post the FOI request which lists some behaviour that MPs should keep to. From that response these links are given:

The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members is available here [1c] or download in pdf form here [1d] 

This 2015 code and previous ones are also available here – House of Commons The Code and Conduct and Guide to Rules [1b]

This page is also worth checking out, as it has the Code of Conduct and Rules of the House [1a] where it also explains that the rules are under a second public consultation which finishes in November, and the links to that public consultation. So there is time to contribute to this consultation.

Relevant it seems are “paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct sets out the general rule on
dealing with conflicts of interest. Further guidance is contained in
chapter 2 of the Guide to the Rules [1d] . ”

“The arrangements for investigating potentially criminal allegations
against MPs are helpfully described in a protocol between the Chair of the
Standards Committee and the Metropolitan Police, which is published as the
Seventh Report of that Committee in 2013-14. You can find it via this
link:  [2]

You could

  • Contact Andrew Bridgen MP and support him in his efforts against Keith Vaz
  • Contact Keith Vaz and politely express your view
  • Contact the Labour Party and any Labour MP to tell him of your views and that a candidate from the Labour Party should oppose Vaz’s nomination totheJustice Committee
  • Take part in the second public consultation into the Code and Rules which finishes on 30th November [1a]
  • Contact your MP and tell him of the conflicts of interest and the disgace it brings onto Parliament

 In the FOI  VAZ, standards of behaviour, Home Affairs Select Committee, Security Committee  [5] I asked

As general points –
What are the standards of behaviour that an MP is bound by and expected to keep?
What are the normal guidelines / rules/ procedures for an MP continuing in a role such as head of a select committee or on a Security Strategy Joint Committee, when there is clear conflict of interest? eg the MP is being investigated by Police for child sexual abuse and his select committee duties cover accountability of the Police and overseeing IICSA, or the individual is a obvious blackmail risk on a security committee?
What are the guidelines/ rules/ procedures for declaring conflicts of interest on HASC and the Security Strategy Joint Committee and where are they published?
What vetting occurs of MPs and officials for the HASC and Security Strategy Joint Committee?

Specifically
When was it known by the speaker and officials of HASC, House of Commons and the Security Stragety Joint Committee that Police were investigating Keith Vaz over child sexual abuse allegations?
Please send me any representations by anyone in 2015 or 2016 regarding the fact that Keith Vaz should not continue as chair of HASC or the Security Strategy Joint Committee?

Is MI5 kept informed by the House of Commons, when police investigate an MP or on any other occasions? If so what type of occasions?

Response

1)  What are the standards of behaviour that a MP is bound by and expected
to keep?

This information is held by the House of Commons.

The Code of Conduct sets out the responsibilities that MPs have as Members
of the House and applies to MPs in all aspects of their public life. It
does not seek to regulate what MPs do in their purely private and personal
lives. It is supported by the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct
of Members. Details are available here:
[1]http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-o….

2)  What are the normal guidelines/rules/procedures for a MP continuing in
a role such as head of a select committee or on a Security Strategy Joint
Committee, when there is clear conflict of interest, e.g. the MP is being
investigated by the police for child sexual abuse and his select committee
duties cover accountability of the police and overseeing IICSA, or the
individual is an obvious blackmail risk on a security committee?

This information is not held by the House of Commons.

3)  What are the guidelines/rules/procedures for declaring conflicts of
interest on HASC and the Security Strategy Joint Committee and where are
they published?

This information is not held by the House of Commons. There are no
guidelines, rules or procedures relating to these matters specifically for
the Home Affairs Committee or the Security Strategy Joint Committee.

However, paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct sets out the general rule on
dealing with conflicts of interest. Further guidance is contained in
chapter 2 of the Guide to the Rules. The link to these documents is
supplied above in our answer to question 1.

4)  What vetting occurs of MPs and officials for the HASC and Security
Strategy Joint Committee?

This information is not held by the House of Commons. No vetting is
undertaken for Members or officials serving on Committees.

5)  When was it known by the speaker and officials of HASC, House of
Commons and the Security Strategy Joint Committee that Police were
investigating Keith Vaz over child sexual abuse allegations?

This information is not held by the House of Commons. The police are not
required to inform the House if they are conducting a criminal
investigation into a Member, unless that Member is subsequently arrested.

The arrangements for investigating potentially criminal allegations
against MPs are helpfully described in a protocol between the Chair of the
Standards Committee and the Metropolitan Police, which is published as the
Seventh Report of that Committee in 2013-14. You can find it via this
link:  [2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa….

6)  Please send me any representations by anyone in 2015 or 2016 regarding
the fact that Keith Vaz should not continue as chair of HASC or the
Security Strategy Joint Committee?

Some information is held by the House of Commons. The House holds
correspondence relevant to your request but this information is withheld
under the following sections of the FOIA: Section 34 (1) (parliamentary privilege)

Some of the information you requested is subject to parliamentary
privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 34(1) of the
FOIA. The exemption applies in order to avoid an infringement of the
privileges of the House of Commons. This is an absolute exemption and the
public interest test does not apply.

Section 40 (2) (personal data)

Some information is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the FOIA (the
exemption for personal data), as disclosure of this information to the
public generally, in the House’s view, would not be consistent with data
protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is an
absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

Section 41(1) (information provided in confidence)

Section 41(1) provides that information is exempt if it was obtained by a
public authority from any other person and that disclosure to the public
by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
actionable by that or any other person.

We consider that unauthorised disclosure of some of the information which
is held would amount to an actionable breach of confidence. Section 41 is
an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to the public interest
balancing test. However a court would be unlikely to uphold a claim for
breach of confidence if the public interest in disclosure outweighed the
public interest in maintaining the confidential status of that
information. Therefore, in practice, an assessment of the public interest
test will still take place.

We have therefore considered the public interest in favour of disclosing
or withholding this information. Where a duty of confidence exists, there
is a strong public interest in favour of maintaining that confidence. We
consider that it is most important for Members of Parliament to be able to
raise issues such as the personal circumstances of themselves or others or
the way in which the House conducts its proceedings with Mr Speaker and
for those issues to be explained and discussed in confidence. We therefore
consider that the public interest in favour of maintaining the confidence
outweighs the general interest in public scrutiny of information held by
the House of Commons.

7)  Is MI5 kept informed by the House of Commons, when police investigate
an MP or on any other occasions? If so what type of occasions?

The House neither confirms nor denies whether or not this information is
held. In refusing to confirm or deny this, the House relies on section 23
(5) of the FOIA which covers information relating to bodies dealing with
security matters, and specifically the Security Service (section 23 (3)
(a)). This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not
apply.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[1a] Code of Conduct and Rules of the House http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/code-of-conduct-and-rules-of-the-house/

[1b] House of Commons The Code and Conduct and Guide to Rules http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcode.htm

[1c] 2015 Apr 4 The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/107601.htm

[1d] 2015 Apr 4 The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmcode/1076/1076.pdf

[2] Committee on Standards – Seventh Report
The House of Commons Code of Conduct and the Criminal Law http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstandards/903/90302.htm

[3] 2016 Oct 25 Mail Online No wonder they call him Mr Vazeline! Weeks after being kicked off the Home Affairs committee Keith Vaz puts himself on the JUSTICE committee http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3867996/No-wonder-call-Mr-Vazeline-Weeks-kicked-Home-Affairs-committee-Keith-Vaz-puts-JUSTICE-committee.html

[4] Navhind Times Double Exposure http://epaper.navhindtimes.in/NewsDetail.aspx?storyid=13166&date=2016-09-25&pageid=1

[5] 2016 Sept 5 WhatDoTheyKnow FOI. VAZ, standards of behaviour, Home Affairs Select Committee, Security Committee https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vaz_standards_of_behaviour_home#incoming-876422

[6] 2016 Sept 4 Cathy Fox Blog More Vaz Sleaze and Government Child Sex Abuse Cover ups https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/more-vaz-sex-sleaze-and-government-child-sex-abuse-cover-ups/

[7] 2016 Oct 24 Telegraph Keith Vaz set to join the Justice select committee despite stepping down as Home Affairs chair http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/keith-vaz-set-to-join-the-justice-select-committee-despite-stepp/

[8] 25 oct 2016 Mirror Shameless Keith Vaz bags himself a place on Parliament’s Justice Committee http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shameless-keith-vaz-bags-himself-9119007

[9] Parliament UK Justice Committee http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/

[10]

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, MI5 MI6 Security Services, Police, VIP CSA, VIPs MPs Lords etc | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

THE FALL OF GORDON ANGLESEA

Great insight into the trial by Rebecca. Such a shame corporate media do not report it.

REBECCA

anglesea_head_dTWENTY FIVE years after he was first named as a sexual predator Gordon Anglesea has been brought to book.

On Friday a jury of five women and six men branded the retired police superintendent a child abuser.

They did what North Wales Police, the judiciary — and £20 million of public money had failed to do.

They unanimously convicted him of four counts of indecent assault against two boys in the 1980s.

Anglesea is remanded on bail until November 4.

Judge Geraint Walters told him “there can only be one sentence and that will be a prison sentence”.

The six-week trial was a raw, bad-tempered affair.

The jury were unhappy because they were in court for less than a third of the time.

rebecca_logo_04MINUTES AFTER Friday’s verdict Rebeccarevealed the existence of a new allegation against Anglesea — in 1997 he was accused of indecently assaulting a woman. Even though he lied to the police when…

View original post 7,973 more words

Posted in Child Abuse | 1 Comment

[GA3 of 3] Simon Regan v Thomas David Barton Taylor 9 Mar 2000 Supreme Court of Judicature

This is the third  of three applications or appeals in which Anglesea is mentioned.

This was an appeal by the claimant, Simon Regan, against the order of Gray J. of 29th April 1999, when the judge dismissed his action for libel against the defendant, Mr Taylor. This appeal was dismissed by 2 to 1.

In this appeal, are named the specific defendants against which Gordon Anglesea brought libel proceedings against ie H.T.V., the Observer, the Independent on Sunday and Private Eye.

Will any try to retrieve money from Gordon Anglesea?

I have been told that HTV had seen footage of abuse by Lord A McAlpine. If so who saw this footage, who has this footage and who took over HTV?

Also mentioned is an article “Criminal Libel Jail Threat for Regan” 6th June 1994, in the UK Press Gazette, if anyone has access to that.

It would be interesting to know if Mr Taylor is still around.

Redaction

Some reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.

Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

This particular post has not been redacted

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[2000] EWCA Civ J0309-7

Case No: 1999/0539/1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE


Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 9th March 2000

Lord Justice Henry

Simon Regan v Thomas David Barton Taylor


(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD Tel No: 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

David Price Esq (Solicitors Advocate)(instructed by David Price & Co for the Plaintiffs)

Andrew Caldecott Esq, QC and Rupert Elliot Esq (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker for the Defendant)

Judgment As Approved by the Court

LORD JUSTICE MAY:

Introduction

1. This is an appeal by the claimant, Simon Regan, against the order of Gray J. of 29th April 1999, when the judge dismissed his action for libel against the defendant, Mr Taylor. The date on which the order was made is significant, since the application to which the judge acceded was made on the first day of what would have been the hearing of the action before a jury. That was the first day upon which the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 came into force. The application was made under Part 24.2 of the CPR. This enables the court to give summary judgment against a claimant if it considers that the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim. It was accepted that the Civil Procedure Rules should apply to the application and to the future conduct of the action.

2. The judge said that it was plain that the hurdle to be surmounted by a party making an application under Part 24.2 of the CPR is substantially lower than was the hurdle on an application to strike out under the provisions of Order 18 rule 19 of the former Rules of the Supreme Court. Mr Regan’s advocate, Mr David Price, did not challenge this before this court. In addition, it was open to the judge to have regard to witness statements prepared for the trial and verified by a statement of truth. Nevertheless, as the judge correctly said, at least one of the issues would be for the decision of the jury at the trial and a degree of caution was appropriate before removing such an issue from the jury.

3. The judge held that the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege and that there was no case to go to the jury on the issue of malice. He gave limited permission to appeal. The judge’s decision on the issue of malice is not appealed. The appeal has proceeded only on his decision as to qualified privilege. As a consequence of the judge’s ruling, the pleaded defences of fair comment and justification have not been tried.

Narrative

4. Mr Regan was the editor of a magazine called Scallywag. Mr Taylor is a solicitor experienced in defamation practice. Between July 1993 and December 1994, Mr Taylor represented a retired police superintendent, Gordon Anglesea, who brought libel proceedings against H.T.V., the Observer, the Independent on Sunday and Private Eye arising from the publication by them of allegations that, while he was a serving police officer, he had committed grave sexual assaults on young boys in a children’s home in North Wales. Mr Anglesea ultimately succeeded in his libel action and recovered very substantial damages. Mr Taylor acted for him throughout these proceedings. He had given Mr Taylor a general authority to deal with the media in connection with his libel proceedings. In his witness statement in the present proceedings, Mr Taylor asserted that he considered that it was his duty to take all reasonable steps to protect Mr Anglesea’s legal interests, particularly his interest in having a fair trial of his libel actions. In the Spring of 1994, there was a distinct possibility of Mr Anglesea’s libel proceedings being tried in June 1994, although they were eventually tried in November 1994.

5. In its Issue Number 22 Scallywag published an article which repeated and extended allegations against Mr Anglesea of child sexual abuse which were the subject of his libel proceedings. The article also alleged that he was being prosecuted for raping a minor. This allegation was untrue. The published allegations against Mr Anglesea were extremely serious. It is contended on behalf of Mr Taylor that the attack by Scallywag on Mr Anglesea could hardly have been more serious because of its gravity, its timing and potential prejudice on the imminent libel trial; the soon to be admitted falsity of the allegation that Mr Anglesea was under prosecution for raping a minor; the potential effect on Mr Taylor’s client who was facing a trial which would place him under great stress; and the risk that the allegations would be picked up by other sections of the media.

6. On 8th April 1994, Mr Taylor received a telephone call from a journalist from Wales on Sunday. Mr Anglesea was on holiday at the time and was then unaware of the Scallywag article. The journalist referred to the article and asked whether Mr Anglesea was indeed being prosecuted for raping a minor. Mr Taylor denied this on behalf of Mr Anglesea. The journalist asked whether Mr Anglesea would take proceedings against Scallywag. Mr Taylor replied that this was doubtful because the magazine had no money. He added that “somebody ought to give some thought to locking these people up” and referred to the possibility of proceedings for criminal libel, saying that if “someone would pay me half my fee, I’ll have a go at it”.

7. On 25th May 1994, Mr Taylor received a call from a freelance journalist who was writing an article for Scallywag about libel reform and wanted to know Mr Taylor’s views. Mr Taylor refused to comment saying that he was advising a client on a criminal libel action against Scallywag.

8. On 31st May 1994, Mr Taylor received a call from a journalist on the UK Press Gazette asking for the name of the client on whose behalf the criminal libel proceedings were contemplated. Mr Taylor gave the journalist Mr Anglesea’s name. On 1st June 1994, Mr Taylor received a call from another U.K.P.G. journalist who raised again the allegation that

Mr Anglesea was under prosecution for raping a minor. On 6th June 1994, U.K.P.G. published an article headed “Criminal Libel Jail Threat for Regan”, which quoted Mr Taylor’s explanation why Mr Anglesea was bringing a criminal libel action as “There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they have consistently claimed they have no money. The court will decide whether the libel is such that it requires the imposition of a criminal penalty. It is extremely serious. The allegations are nothing short of scandalous.”

9. Mr Regan was quoted in response as saying that his lawyer was relishing the action and felt very confident.

10. On 13th June 1994, Mr Taylor received a telephone call from a journalist on the North Wales Pioneer. The journalist asked why Mr Anglesea had chosen a criminal libel action. Mr Taylor made various observations highly critical of Scallywag’s general journalistic and ethical standards. His words were substantially reproduced in an article in the North Wales Pioneer on 16th June 1994. This is the publication which is the subject of these proceedings. The words complained of are:

“There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they consistently claim they have no money. Criminal libel is the only remedy against this worthless organisation who simply seek publicity for themselves. They are not interested in accuracy, even less in fair reporting, and are a disgrace to the profession of journalism.”

11. The Statement of Claim pleads that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory of Mr Regan, which they obviously were.

The Issue

12. Mr Taylor’s amended defence pleads justification and fair comment, and also a defence of qualified privilege which is particularised at some length. The essence of the application to which the judge acceded was that there was no real prospect of Mr Regan rebutting the defence of qualified privilege. Mr Caldecott QC on behalf of Mr Taylor relied on two separate kinds of qualified privilege: firstly, that which attaches to a reply made by a defendant to an attack on him; secondly, that which attaches to a response to an enquiry made of the defendant where the enquirer has a legitimate interest in making the enquiry. The judge held in favour of Mr Taylor on the first of these grounds, which was sufficient for the order which he made dismissing Mr Regan’s claim. The judge held that the second ground of privilege was not so clearly established that it could be said that there was no reasonable prospect of it being rejected at trial. Mr Regan’s Notice of Appeal asks this court to set the judgment aside. To achieve this, it would be sufficient to establish that Mr Regan did have a real prospect of defeating the defence against attack kind of qualified privilege. The Notice of Appeal also asks this court in effect to hold that the defence of qualified privilege in each of its forms has no real prospect of success. That issue was not before the judge and, if it were necessary to do so, I would say that it is not open to Mr Regan to ask this court to make an original order which the judge was not asked to consider and which he did not rule upon.

13. With the exception of the one point that this appeal raises, the relevant law relating to the defence of qualified privilege in defamation proceedings is uncontentious and may be briefly stated. The defence of qualified privilege is based on public policy. It is usually analysed in terms of duty and interest. It arises on an occasion where the person who makes the communication has an interest or a duty to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it —see Adams v. Ward [1917] AC 309 .at 334. A species of qualified privilege arises where a person whose character or conduct has been attacked is entitled to answer that attack. Defamatory statements which he may make about the person who attacked him will be privileged, provided that they are published in good faith and are fairly relevant to the accusations made. The person replying to an attack is not required to be diffident in protecting himself and is allowed a considerable degree of latitude —see generally Gatley on Libel , 9th Edition, paragraph 14.49. “There is an analogy between the criminal law of self-defence and a man’s right to defend himself against written or verbal attacks. In both cases he is entitled, if he can, to defend himself effectively, and he only loses the protection of the law if he goes beyond defence and proceeds to offence.” —Lord Oaksey in Turner v. M.G.M. Pictures [1950] 1 All ER 449 at 470–471. Mr Price accepts that Mr Anglesea had been attacked by Scallywag and that the publication in the North Wales Pioneer would have been privileged if the words had been spoken to the journalist by Mr Anglesea himself. The issue is whether privilege extends to publication by Mr Taylor as Mr Anglesea’s solicitor.

14. With one qualification, Mr Price accepts that publication by an agent acting on behalf of his principal, will attract equivalent privilege to that which the principal would have had. In the present case, it is accepted that Mr Taylor had a general authority to deal with the media in connection with Mr Anglesea’s libel proceedings. It is also accepted that Mr Taylor had instructions from Mr Anglesea to consider initiating criminal libel proceedings against Mr Regan. Mr Price’s written submissions went somewhat further in accepting that Mr Taylor had instructions actually to initiate the criminal libel proceedings. I think that that extended concession was properly made, since Mr Taylor’s witness statement dated 24th December 1998, which was verified by a statement of truth, confirmed in paragraph 15 that he had instructions from Mr Anglesea that he would bring an action for criminal libel against Scallywag in due course. There was no real prospect of Mr Regan rebutting that evidence.

16. Mr Taylor’s case is that the publication was within his implied authority and duty to his client. However, in a letter written on behalf of Mr Taylor after the publication, it was said that the opinions expressed by Mr Taylor were entirely Mr Taylor’s. They were not specifically referred to Mr Anglesea in advance as they represented Mr Taylor’s opinion rather than Mr Anglesea’s, who had not previously read Scallywag. Mr Taylor says in his witness statement that, in answering the journalist’s questions:

” I was acting within the scope of my general instructions to deal with the media on Mr Anglesea’s behalf and in response to the serious attack on him contained in Issue 22 of Scallywag. The specific opinions which I expressed about Scallywag were, of course, my own.”

17. Mr Price submits, firstly, that qualified privilege accorded to a solicitor defending a client who is under attack does not extend to publication by the solicitor of his own opinions which the client has not adopted and authorised him to publish. There is no public interest in protecting a solicitor from having to justify or establish as fair comment publication of his own opinions. Mr Price submits, secondly, that the public interest is that solicitors who represent clients, particularly those who are involved in litigation, should not make statements to the media which go beyond saying, upon instructions, what their client’s case is.

The judge’s reasons

18. The judge considered and rejected both these submissions on the facts of this case. He expressed his reasons as follows:

“In my judgement for present purposes, a solicitor is in no different position from any other agent. His retainer, and therefore his authority, may be narrow and limited, or it may be broad and general. To the extent at least that a solicitor is acting within the scope of his retainer, he is properly to be regarded as standing in the shoes of his client, whether it be for the purpose of protecting his client’s interest against an attack by responding to that attack, or for the purpose of responding on behalf of his client to an enquiry by someone with a legitimate interest.”

19. The judge based that conclusion on Baker v. Carrick [1894] 1 Q.B. 838 and Watts v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1997] Q.B. 650 at 666. In Baker v. Carrick , Lord Esher said at page 840:

“The first matter in dispute is whether as regards the defendant the occasion was privileged. He was acting for clients who alleged that they were creditors of the plaintiff, and he was instructed by his clients to take the necessary steps towards securing payment of the alleged debt, and to see that its recovery was not put in jeopardy. That seems to me to be within the ordinary duties of a solicitor. It is suggested that the solicitor was only authorised to act for his client in the conduct of the action, and would only be protected in respect of such matters. I think, however, that at all events nowadays, the duties of a solicitor go beyond that, and that it is part of his ordinary duty to see that nothing occurs which will affect his client’s claim. If so, and if the occasion was one to which privilege would have attached had the clients themselves done that which the defendant did, it is also privileged in the case of a solicitor acting for his clients.”

20. The judge in the present case then said:

“As to the legitimacy or otherwise of a solicitor introducing his own opinions or other output when seeking to protect his client’s interest, I do not accept that the protection of the privilege is thereby forfeited.

It is nowadays commonplace for solicitors to be called on to answer questions from the media about their clients’ affairs, including pending or current litigation. Solicitors sometimes volunteer such information to the media. Provided the other conditions for the existence of privilege are satisfied, I do not consider that privilege is lost because the solicitor introduces opinions of his own or draws on his own knowledge and experience. Indeed it may even be said that in certain circumstances he is under a duty to do so in the discharge of his obligation towards his client.”

21. The judge did not regard authorities on which Mr Price had relied as inconsistent with his conclusion. I shall consider those authorities later in this judgment. Of Mr Price’s second submission, the judge said:

“I derive little assistance from the Law Society’s Code for Advocacy. In the first place the defendant was not an advocate and he had not been briefed in any current matter. There is in the Code no comparable restriction on a solicitor when acting otherwise than as advocate. I would go with the argument and Mr Price on this aspect to this extent: the fact that the solicitor is expressing his own opinions is or may be one of the circumstances which the court should take into account when deciding whether privilege attaches.”

Parties’ submissions and authorities

22. Mr Price submits that, as a matter of general principle and authority, qualified privilege does not extend to the publication of defamatory personal opinions by an agent. He submits that there are particularly compelling reasons for this conclusion when the agent is a lawyer and the defamatory statements are made to the media and relate to intended or pending criminal proceedings. He submits that privilege should not extend to publications by an agent which go beyond those which are actually authorised or, in the case of a solicitor, those which constitute a statement of what he knows upon instructions to be his client’s case. If he expresses his own defamatory opinions, he is no longer acting in the character of an agent. There is no public interest in giving him a licence to libel.

23. Mr Caldecott submits that, provided that addressing the media comes within the solicitor’s express or implied duty to his client, the solicitor will be protected by qualified privilege if the same statement by the client would be so protected. In the present case, Mr Taylor’s duty expressly encompassed dealing with the media on his client’s behalf. It cannot be a pre-condition of the privilege that any statement by the solicitor must be specifically authorised by the client. The limits of any privilege for the solicitor and the limits of his duty to the client are co-extensive, since the privilege derives from the duty. As to expressing his own opinions, Mr Taylor’s duty to his client was not narrowly confined to that of a mere conduit for expressing his client’s case, or, in this instance, articulating within proper bounds his client’s defence to Scallywag’s attack. A specialist lawyer is employed so that the client may benefit from his experience. That experience and his opinions may well extend beyond those of the client. It is within the duty of such a solicitor to articulate on behalf of his client his own relevant opinions without the client’s specific authority. The attack on Scallywag’s general journalistic standards was relevant to refuting the attack by Scallywag on Mr Anglesea. It was legitimate as a means of deterring other republications of the same material. It was relevant as part of a direct reply to the enquiry as to the reasons for taking criminal libel proceedings.

24. Mr Price referred to a number of authorities. In London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd [1916] 2 AC 15 , there was a defamatory publication by a trade association in response to an enquiry by one of its members. The secretary of the association sent the relevant report. It was eventually accepted that the publication by the association was on an occasion of qualified privilege. Of the publication by the secretary, Lord Atkinson said at page 36:

“Now, if the person enquired can himself reply with this protection, it necessarily follows that he can deliver his reply through the mouth of an agent duly accredited by him in that behalf, but if he does so the privilege which the agent’s publication will have will be that which his principal would have had if he had replied himself. Nothing less and nothing more, since, presumably, he only gives indirectly the information which he bona fide believes to be true. If the agent should contribute anything from himself, that would alter matters entirely.”

25. This last sentence was not necessary to the court’s decision, but Mr Price relies on it as strongly suggesting that any personal opinion of the agent would not have been protected.

26. In Adam v. Ward [1917] AC 309 , libel proceedings were brought against the secretary to the Army Council for the publication of a letter written on behalf of the Council. The case is a leading authority on the privilege which arises where there is a reply to an attack. It was held that the secretary, who acted on the direction of the Army Council, had the benefit of the privilege of his principal. On page 340, Lord Atkinson said:

“Some argument was directed to the defendant’s precise position in relation to this libel, his rights, duties, privileges, his feelings towards the appellant, and his express or implied malice. I think his position is plain. He was the mere agent of the Army Council, bound to obey their orders or resign his post —the mere instrument through whose hands the libel passed for publication. His own personal feelings or privileges are, I think, not involved in the case at all. He had nothing whatever to do with the composition of the libel, or the approval of its contents. In the mere routine of the work of the office, he signed his name to it and passed it on for publication in the way and over the area usual in such cases.”

27. Mr Price again submits that this suggests that, if any personal opinion of the agent had been introduced, it would not have been protected. Mr Caldecott submits of both these cases that they concerned a mere agent acting as a postman. The authority of such an agent would not extend beyond that of a postman. By contrast, Mr Taylor was an adviser, the extent of whose authority was quite different.

28. In Crawford v. Dunlop [1900] 2 F. 987, the Court of Session decided a case where the defendant was a solicitor who had written to the contractors in connection with a building dispute a letter critical of the architect pursuer. There was a concession that the solicitor was protected by qualified privilege and the only issue was malice. However, members of the court expressed doubt whether the occasion was indeed privileged. Lord Moncreiff said at page 998:

“The privilege of a law agent depends upon his acting strictly on the instructions, and as the mouthpiece, of his client. As long as he confines himself to doing this, any pertinent statements which he may make in his client’s interest will, I assume, be held to be privileged; and in general he will not be held responsible for their truth or accuracy.

But this privilege may be lost, and I think it is lost when the agent, not content with speaking or writing in the name of his client, personally adopts and corroborates the charge which he is instructed by his client to make.”

29. Lord Trayner said at page 997:

“If the defender Dunlop had confined himself, in the letters complained of, to a communication of facts or opinions which his client instructed him to communicate, I should have had great hesitation in allowing the issue which the Lord Ordinary has approved. My present opinion is, that in such circumstances I should have refused any issue, on the grounds that the letters and all that they contained were the letters and statements of the client, for which the agent, as the mere channel of communication, was not responsible. But the defender (Dunlop) here has done more than merely communicate the views of his client. He introduces knowledge and experience of his own in support of his client’s views. In doing so he went beyond the mere character of agent, and made, or may have made, himself personally responsible for what he wrote.”

30. Mr Price relies on these passages. Mr Caldecott submits that this is an elderly Scottish authority which does not cite English cases and which predates Adam v. Ward. He submits that it was decided in a very different social climate and that it exhibits an antiquated approach to the question of privilege in the round. Lord Trayner appears not to treat the law agent as an adviser, rather a “mere channel of communication”. Nowadays, a solicitor is not a mere agent in that sense. He submits that the dissenting judgment of Lord Young is more consonant with modern views. Lord Young said at page 996:

“Assuming the relation of agent and client, and the client’s instructions to write and send the letters, what is the ground of liability against the agent? It is of familiar occurrence that a law agent has, on his client’s employment and instructions, to make communication, by letter or otherwise, to people with whom his client has dealings and comes into conflict in business or other matters, imputing serious misconduct to them —sometimes demanding reparation to his client therefor, sometimes intimating resistance by his client to demands because of the misconduct imputed to the party making them. Is the agent responsible for imputations so made? If he had no authority to make them he is of course responsible, and his client not; but if he had authority and the client admits it, and accepts the consequent responsibility, I repeat the question, How is the agent also responsible?”

31. In Slipper v. Brainsby [1930] N.Z.L.R. 953 , the New Zealand Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a solicitor for criminal libel in a letter written on behalf of a client. There was a defence of qualified privilege. Myers, CJ said at page 969:

“Even if a qualified privilege did attach to the letter by reason of the fact that it was written by the appellant as solicitor for the Samoan women, the privilege is lost if the solicitor chooses to introduce a defamatory statement of his own, and it seems to us that that is exactly what he has done in the italicised portion of the letter as set out above.”

32. The cases cited in support of this were Crawford v. Dunlop and an Irish case which, as was agreed before us, was not relevant. Mr Caldecott submits that Slipper v. Brainsby is on its facts very much a decision of its time; that the passage which I have quoted was not necessary to the court’s decision; that it relies on Crawford v. Dunlop ; and that the passage is too restrictive of a modern solicitor’s duty to his client which may, in appropriate circumstances, include advancing personal views in protection of his client’s interests. Mr Caldecott points out that Gatley treats Slipper v. Brainsby as authority for the proposition that a solicitor is not protected if he introduces a defamatory and irrelevant observation of his own.

33. The judge in the present case considered that these authorities said no more on the issue of privilege than that the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant matter may result in what would otherwise have been a privileged occasion losing that protection. Mr Price submits that they are clearly directed to the specific question of personal statements or opinions of the agent. In both Crawford v. Dunlop and Slipper v. Brainsby , the statements were relevant to the matters on which the agents were writing on their clients’ behalf. In both cases, what was said to be objectionable was the fact that they introduced their own personal opinions.

34. Mr Price’s second main submission is that, whatever may be the position with agents generally, there is a particular public interest against according qualified privilege to occasions when a solicitor agent expresses his personal opinion. Mr Price submits that it is fundamental to the administration of justice that the legal profession should be independent and act independently. If lawyers were permitted to express their personal opinions in support of their clients’ case, it would corrupt the independence of the profession. It is well recognised that advocates should not express their personal opinions on their clients’ case before a court or tribunal. Courts decide cases on their own view of the evidence and the law and an advocate’s personal view is irrelevant and unhelpful. If lawyers were permitted to express personal opinions and did so frequently, adverse inferences might be drawn in a case where the advocate did not do so. Lawyers would come under pressure to endorse their clients’ cases in order to get instructions. The public would tend to assume that lawyers only represent clients with whom they are sympathetic. It is only by maintaining their independence and professional distance from their clients that lawyers can carry out their proper role.

35. Mr Price referred us to specific professional rules of conduct for barristers and solicitor advocates which prevent them from expressing personal opinions to the media on cases in which they are instructed. He pointed out that the only relevant rule of professional conduct governing solicitors who are not advocates is that they should not be party to any contempt of court. He noted that the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct in their report of May 1997 entitled “Lawyers’ Comments to the Media” had suggested that this rule was inadequate. He drew our attention to a section of that report which considered expressions of personal opinion to the media by defence lawyers in criminal proceedings. This was in the context of current practice of the police and the media. The committee was most reluctant to recommend any extension to the current restrictions on solicitors’ comments to the media that might prevent them from effectively and legitimately defending their clients’ interests. They considered that additional restrictions could only be justified where there was a clear and overriding public interest in doing so. They considered that there was an overriding public interest in prohibiting litigating solicitors from publicly expressing personal opinions on the merits of their clients’ cases during the course of any criminal proceedings in which they had been instructed; but that before and after the proceedings themselves, they did not believe that the public interest currently required solicitors to be prohibited from expressing personal opinions. Mr Price drew our attention to the Note of Dissent by Mr David Steel QC disagreeing with the recommendation in the report that the prohibition on a solicitor from expressing a personal opinion on the merits of his client’s case should not extend to the pre-charge stage. Mr Price does not submit that a solicitor should never advocate his client’s case in the media. However, when a solicitor is called upon to do so, he should limit himself to acting as an advocate, that is, expressing what his client would say.

36. Mr Caldecott correctly pointed out that most of the material relied upon by Mr Price referred to lawyers acting as advocates in litigation or before tribunals. Mr Taylor was not in that position. He was simply acting for his client. Mr Price did not rely on any specific breach by Mr Taylor of a rule of professional conduct. In addition it seems to me that there is no persuasive case for putting lawyers in a special position for the purpose of the law of qualified privilege in defamation or in any position different from that of agents generally. Certainly a public interest underlies the defence of qualified privilege; and a public interest underlies rules of conduct of the legal profession, including those to which Mr Price refers. But they are not the same public interest and it does not seem to me that that which supports rules of professional conduct can readily be transposed into a quite different context to restrict the ambit of qualified privilege in defamation which would otherwise be available to an agent who was not a lawyer.

Discussion

37. In my judgment therefore, the single point which this appeal raises is whether the publication complained of in the North Wales Pioneer, insofar as it expressed Mr Taylor’s opinion, was so clearly within the scope of his authority and duty to his client that Mr Regan had no reasonable prospect of rebutting that contention. It is accepted that the publication would have been on an occasion of privilege if it had been published by Mr Anglesea himself. It is accepted that an authorised publication by an agent attracts the same qualified privilege as would the same publication by the principal. The question is the scope of Mr Taylor’s authority and duty. That is partly a question of direct fact and partly of inference.

38. Mr Taylor was acting as Mr Anglesea’s solicitor in relation to his libel proceedings which were, in 1994, approaching trial. He had been given a general authority to deal with the media in connection with those proceedings. Mr Anglesea had been subjected to a serious attack by Scallywag which had repeated and extended the allegations which were the subject of the libel proceedings. For the reasons which Mr Taylor had given to the UK Press Gazette, Mr Anglesea was contemplating starting criminal libel proceedings against Mr Regan. Mr Taylor had instructions to initiate those criminal libel proceedings. Mr Anglesea was entitled to defend himself against the Scallywag attack and the scope of Mr Taylor’s authority plainly extended to advancing a defence to that attack on Mr Anglesea’s behalf. The defence was made in answer to a request for information from the media. The journalist asked questions about the intended criminal libel proceedings and Mr Taylor’s authority extended to answering them.

39. In my view, a modern solicitor in Mr Taylor’s position is not to be seen as a mere channel of communication. He is engaged to advise and to give the client the benefit of his experience. He is engaged to represent his client in the matter in which he is engaged and may often be called on to make communications whose content may in part be derived from his own experience, rather than from direct instructions of his client. The client’s own ability and experience may be considerably more restricted that his solicitor’s and the proper conduct of the client’s affairs may demand input from the solicitor which is his and not that of his client. There is no hard dividing line between fact and opinion (and none is drawn in this case, where the element of Mr Taylor’s “opinion” is so expressed for shorthand convenience only). I accept Mr Caldecott’s submission that there may be retainers where a solicitor cannot be expected to obtain his client’s explicit instructions for every bit of material which he publishes on his behalf. That clearly applied to the occasion of this publication, where Mr Taylor had to deal with a telephone inquiry from a journalist. The publication to the North Wales Pioneer, including that part of it which was Mr Taylor’s opinion, was one which Mr Anglesea would obviously in the circumstances have endorsed. I do not think that privilege should in these circumstances depend on whether Mr Taylor obtained specific express authority in advance of the publication. It is also, in my view, significant that the journalist had asked why Mr Anglesea had chosen to initiate criminal libel proceedings, since the matters in the publication which may be seen as being Mr Taylor’s opinion are closely related to the reasons for that course. In my judgment, therefore, Mr Taylor was entitled to say, as he did in his witness statement, that the publication was within the scope of his general instructions to deal with the media on Mr Taylor’s behalf and in response to the serious attack on Mr Anglesea. It follows that I consider that Gray J. was correct to hold that the occasion was privileged. There were no facts reasonably capable of being disputed which would have affected this decision. It follows that Mr Regan had no reasonable prospect of rebutting the qualified privilege defence.

40. There is no authority binding this court to reach a different conclusion. The passage from Lord Esher’s judgment in Baker v. Carrick which I have quoted comes close to supporting it. I am inclined to think that my view of Mr Taylor’s duty and authority is not at variance with those expressed in the majority judgments of the Court of Session in Dunlop v. Crawford nor the sentence in Lord Atkinson’s opinion in London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands. Those may be seen as depending on the limited extent of the authority of the agent which those views assumed. If that were not correct, I would, if it were necessary, hold that times have changed since those cases were decided and that they do not accord with modern conditions. My view, however, does not so much depend on an assessment of the scope of a modern solicitor’s authority generally as on the scope of Mr Taylor’s particular authority in this case.

41. A decision to this effect is not, as Mr Price submits, a licence to libel. It is not a licence to agents to publish indiscriminate personal opinions. It is simply an application of the principle, which I do not understand Mr Price to quarrel with, that a person may publish statements by an agent and that the agent who publishes within the scope of his authority will have a privilege coextensive with that of his principal.

42. For these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.

LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK:

43. I gratefully adopt the analysis of the facts and the law set out in the judgment of Lord Justice May. I agree with his view that the single point raised by this appeal is whether it was so clearly within the scope of Mr Taylor’s authority, as solicitor for Mr Anglesea, to make the statement to the journalist on the North Wales Pioneer on 13 June 1994, publication of which is the subject of complaint in the action, that Mr Regan had no reasonable prospect of rebutting that contention at a trial. But I disagree with the conclusion which he has reached on that point.

44. The statement of which complaint is made has been set out by Lord Justice May. There is no dispute that the words in their ordinary and natural meaning are defamatory of Mr Regan. Mr Taylor seeks to rely on qualified privilege. It is accepted on behalf of Mr Regan that there is a well recognised category of privilege which protects a person who has been the subject of an attack in respect of a statement, defamatory of the attacker, which is made in response to that attack; provided that the statement satisfies the test of relevance. It is accepted, also, that that test is satisfied where the statement in response is, in a broad and reasonable sense, germane to subject matter of the attack – see Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 C.M.&R. 181, 193–4 , Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 , 320–1, 339, 348, Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135, 151 , and Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd [1997] QB 650, 660H-662E, 671C-D . In the last of those passages Lord Justice Hirst said this:

“Mr Watts was the victim of an attack and therefore falls fair and square in the Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 category of case, giving him a right to reply in order to rebut the accusation against him and to do so with a considerable degree of latitude, so long as he did not overstep the bounds and include entirely irrelevant and extraneous material. The offending words inserted on his behalf, even though in my judgment unnecessary for the reasons already given, clearly fell within those bounds since they were not unconnected with the theme.”

45. With those authorities in mind, Mr David Price, at paragraph 4 of his written submissions on this appeal, accepted on behalf of Mr Regan that:

“Anglesea had a privilege, based on a “reply to an attack”, to make defamatory statements of Regan to the North Wales Pioneer . It is also accepted that he was entitled to instruct Taylor to make the reply on his behalf.”

46. But Mr Price goes on, at paragraph 5 of those written submissions, to assert that:

“as a matter of general principle and authority, the privilege does not extend to the defamatory personal opinions of the agent, and there is no good reason why it should do so.”

47. I am not persuaded that the authorities relied upon by Mr Price – to which Lord Justice May has referred in his judgment – support any general rule that the qualified privilege which would otherwise protect a relevant statement made in response to an attack will be lost because it contains material (whether or not aptly described as a “personal opinion”) which has been introduced by the agent and so, in that sense, does not originate from the person who has been the subject of the attack. Nor, in my view, is there any reason in principle for such a rule. The true position, as it seems to me, may be summarised as follows: (a) a relevant statement made in response to an attack will be protected by qualified privilege (i) if made by the person who has been the subject of the attack or (ii) if made by his agent with his authority and on his behalf; (b) in such a case the defence of qualified privilege will be available to the person (whether principal or agent) who makes the statement and (where the statement is made by an agent) also to the person on whose behalf it has been made; (c) in such a case it is irrelevant whether the statement contains only material which has originated from the principal, or material which has originated partly from the principal and partly from the agent, or material which has been introduced by the agent on his own initiative – the relevant question is whether the contents of the statement have been authorised by the person who has been the subject of the attack which gives rise to the occasion of privilege; (d) in particular, there is no reason why the person who has been the subject of the attack should not authorise his agent to make such response to the attack on his behalf as seems appropriate to the agent from time to time —and to do on the initiative of the agent and in terms which have not been referred back to the principal for specific approval; (e) a defamatory statement made in response to an attack will not be protected by qualified privilege if it does not satisfy the test of relevance – and, in that event, the persons liable to be sued will be the maker of the statement and (where the statement is made by an agent) the person with whose authority and on whose behalf it is made. Where the statement in response is made neither by the person who has been the subject of the attack nor by an agent with his authority and on his behalf – for example, by a third party acting on his own behalf and on his own initiative – no question of “response to attack” privilege can arise. In such a case the person who has been the subject of the attack has no cause to rely on privilege —his answer is that he has no responsibility for the statement; and the maker of the statement has no ground upon which he can invoke the privilege – he was not the subject of the attack.

48. In the present case, therefore, the relevant question in this context is whether, at the time when he made the statement to the North Wales Pioneer, Mr Taylor had authority from Mr Anglesea to make such response, through the media, to the attack which had been made by Scallywag upon Mr Anglesea as seemed to him appropriate in the interests of his client. It is not suggested that Mr Anglesea had the opportunity to approve the terms of the statement in advance; nor that he has done so since. The only issue on this appeal is whether that question could be answered in favour of Mr Taylor at a summary hearing and on the limited evidential material which was available. Was the statement made by Mr Taylor on 13 June 1994 so clearly within the scope of his retainer from Mr Anglesea that Mr Regan had no reasonable prospect of rebutting that contention?

49. The relevant pleading is set out in particulars under paragraph 8 of the re-amended defence. So far as material, Mr Taylor’s pleaded case is in these terms:

“(1) The Defendant is and at all material times was Mr Anglesea’s solicitor as pleaded above. Mr Anglesea formerly served as a Superintendent in the North Wales Police and he and his family reside in North Wales.

(4) In response to this question [“Why has Mr Anglesea chosen a criminal libel against Scallywag?”] the Defendant spoke substantially the words complained of

(5) In publishing those words the Defendant was speaking as Mr Anglesea’s solicitor acting within the scope of his general instructions to deal with the media on Mr Anglesea’s behalf and in response to the serious attack upon Mr Anglesea which the Plaintiff had made in Issue 22 of Scallywag.”

50. In response to a request for further particulars of the allegation in paragraph 8(5) —asking whether it was the defendant’s case that he had specific authority from Mr Anglesea to state to the media that Mr Anglesea was planning to bring criminal proceedings against Scallywag —it was said only that the defendant was acting within the scope of his general instructions to deal with the media and in response to an inquiry from the media.

51. For my part, I have no difficulty in accepting that it falls within the scope of a solicitor’s instructions to deal with the media, in the context of a case where there are existing civil libel proceedings on foot against other parties, to explain why the client is considering criminal libel proceedings against a particular defendant. But that explanation is contained in the words:

“There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they consistently claim they have no money. Criminal libel is the only remedy against this worthless organisation “

52. The remaining words complained of: ” who simply seek publicity for themselves. They are not interested in accuracy, even less in fair reporting, and are a disgrace to the profession of journalism.”

cannot be regarded as an explanation in response to the inquiry “why proceedings for criminal libel?”. It is plain, to my mind, that those remaining words are there for a different purpose. They are there by way of counter-attack on the integrity of Scallywag and those responsible for the material published in that magazine. In particular, the words are an attack on the integrity of Mr Regan as the person with editorial responsibility for that material. It is, as I have already indicated, accepted on behalf of Mr Regan that that purpose would (or, at the least, arguably might) fall within the generous ambit of the “response to attack” category of qualified privilege if the words had been spoken by Mr Anglesea himself. The question is whether “general instructions to deal with the media and in response to the serious attack upon Mr Anglesea made in Issue 22 of Scallywag” authorise a solicitor – or, in particular, this solicitor – to mount a counter-attack on his own initiative.

53. In his witness statement, signed on 24 December 1998, Mr Taylor explains the circumstances in which he came to make the statement to the North Wales Pioneer on 13 June 1994. He refers to his retainer by Mr Anglesea in these terms:

“3. Between January 1993 and December 1994, I acted for a retired Superintendent of Police, Gordon Anglesea, in his actions for libel against two national newspapers, a national magazine and a regional television company (the Independent on Sunday, the Observer, Private Eye and HTV respectively).

54. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of that statement, Mr Taylor describes the article in Issue 22 of Scallywag, which he saw in early April 1994 (some two months after Mr Anglesea’s libel action had been set down for trial). In paragraph 7 he describes his reaction to that article:

“7 My immediate reaction when I read this article about my client was one of amazement and shock. It was obviously defamatory of Mr Anglesea. I was frankly incredulous that any publication could publish such allegations when it was obviously aware of the forthcoming libel trial. I was very concerned that this article posed a substantial risk of real prejudice to the fair trial of Mr Anglesea’s libel actions if read by any juror.”

55. At paragraph 9 he says this:

“9 As Mr Anglesea’s Solicitor, I considered that it was my duty to take all reasonable steps to protect Mr Anglesea’s legal interests, particularly his interest in having a fair trial of his libel actions. At the time of publication [of Issue 22] Mr Anglesea was on a family holiday abroad. In view of the seriousness of this matter, I gave consideration to the possibility of bringing a prosecution for criminal libel against Scallywag. “

56. Mr Taylor sent Mr Anglesea a copy of the Scallywag article and, on Mr Anglesea’s return from holiday, considered it with him (paragraph 11). Mr Taylor does not say what, if any, specific instructions he received in relation to that article. In paragraphs 12 and 13 he explains that his investigations into Scallywag and Mr Regan led him to form the views which he was later to express to Mr Blease, of the North Wales Pioneer, on 13 June 1994. Paragraphs 19 to 23 describe the conversation on 13 June 1994. Paragraph 24 is in these terms:

“In answering questions from Mr Blease, I was acting within the scope of my general instructions to deal with the media on Mr Anglesea’s behalf and in response to the serious attack on him contained in issue 22 of Scallywag. The specific opinions which I expressed about Scallywag were, of course, my own.”

57. I can identify nothing else in the material before the judge which throws light on the scope of Mr Taylor’s instructions from his client. Indeed, it is really only the single sentence in paragraph 24 of the witness statement (reflected in paragraph 8(5) of the re-amended defence and in the reply to the request for further particulars) which contains the assertion, by inference, that Mr Taylor had received a general retainer to deal with the media on Mr Anglesea’s behalf.

58. I have already expressed the view that there is no reason in principle why a client should not give to his solicitor a general retainer authorising him to make such response to defamatory attacks upon the client as the solicitor may from time to time think appropriate. Such a retainer may authorise the solicitor to express his own views or opinions without further reference to the client; and may authorise the solicitor to mount a counter-attack in the media in response to an attack which has been made upon the client by an identified person or publication or, perhaps, in response to any future attacks. Whether or not such a retainer has been given – and, if so, its terms – must, in my view, be a question of fact; to be decided on the facts in the particular case. But it must be kept in mind that a retainer in the wide terms which I have described may have serious consequences for the client. In the first place, it may expose the client to proceedings for defamation at the suit of the person against whom the solicitor thinks it appropriate to mount the counter-attack. If the solicitor’s judgment is sound – and his counter-attack remains within the bounds permitted by law – the client will have a defence of qualified privilege to such proceedings. But there is the risk that the solicitor will go further than the law permits; and there is the risk that, even if he remains within bounds, the client will be left with the unrecovered costs of a successful defence. Secondly, it may expose the client to a claim by the solicitor for an indemnity against the solicitor’s own costs of defending proceedings brought against him. Again, it is no answer to say that the client will be liable only if the solicitor’s defence is successful – even if that proposition be correct.

The costs of a successful defence may prove irrecoverable from the claimant. Indeed, it is a feature of the allegations which are the subject of the present proceedings – in particular, the allegation that Scallywag is a worthless organisation —that, if true, Mr Taylor will not recover costs from Mr Regan; so would (at least, prima facie) need to look to Mr Anglesea for indemnity if the allegations were made with his authority.

59. It is because the retainer on which the solicitor seeks to rely in the present case has such potentially serious consequences for his client that I take the view that it should not lightly be implied. I am persuaded that the judge was wrong to reach the conclusion, on the material available to him, that the question of authority was so clearly to be answered in Mr Taylor’s favour that there was no reasonable prospect that a court would come to a different conclusion after hearing evidence —including, perhaps, the evidence of Mr Anglesea as to his understanding of the position. I should not be taken as having formed any conclusion, myself, on the question whether or not Mr Taylor will be able to establish the existence of the authority upon which he relies. I decide, only, that that is question which cannot properly be resolved at this stage on the material at present available.

60. For those reasons I would allow this appeal.

LORD JUSTICE HENRY:

61. I agree with the judgment of Lord Justice May, and would dismiss this appeal. I add a few words out of courtesy to Lord Justice Chadwick, to show why I differ from him.

62. We are here concerned with the qualified privilege which attaches to a reply made by a solicitor in response to an attack on his client. Solicitors acting for their clients in contentious business of any kind frequently have to write letters which are or may be defamatory of their clients’ adversaries. An early example of such a case is Baker -v—Carrick (which my Lord, Lord Justice May, has already referred to and cited from). There, the defendant solicitors were acting for surgeons seeking to recover money owed to them by the plaintiff Baker. Baker had instructed auctioneers to sell certain goods. The solicitors accordingly gave the auctioneers notice that their clients had sued Baker, that Baker had committed an act of bankruptcy, and required them to hold any proceeds of sale pending the trial of the action. At trial, the judge found the occasion privileged, and left the question of malice on the part of the solicitors to the jury, who found for the plaintiff on the basis that malice destroyed the privilege. On appeal, the court held that the occasion was privileged, as the defendant was acting “within the ordinary duties of a solicitor  to see that nothing occurs which will affect his client’s claim” (per Lord Esher at p841), and:

“It is the duty of a solicitor to do all that he can to protect the interests of his client, and in my opinion he stands in the same position with regard to privilege as that in which his client would stand in the light of a similar action against him.” (per Lopes LJ at 841)

63. That remains the proper test for the duty of a solicitor instructed in contentious matters, as was shown in Watts -v—Times Newspapers Limited [1997] QB 650 .at 666:

“[the solicitors] stood in the shoes [of their client] since they had a professional duty to protect the interests of their client by doing the best they could in support of his cause”.

64. So for the last century (the period covered by those authorities) where the occasion of privilege is reply to attack, it is implicit in the solicitor’s retainer in contentious matters that he has a broad retainer to protect the interests of his client.

65. That view is confirmed by the trial judge with his great and recent experience of defamation.

Lord Justice May has quoted his analysis of the “modern practice” of the solicitor’s general retainer, including being called upon to answer media questions about their clients, and where he does so, sharing the client’s privilege.

66. As the trial judge pointed out, the actual terms of the retainer may be narrow and limited, or it may be broad and general. But it seems to me likely that, when dealing with reply to attack privilege, the attack is likely to be a surprise, and so not a contingency planned for. Often, the solicitor needs to act at once to be most effective, and his client may not be available to be consulted (as Mr Anglesea was not available in this instance). Not everyone who is attacked may have thought of having expressly given authority to deal with the media. Therefore I stress the importance of the implied general authority to do your best for your client.

67. So far I have been concerned with the creation of the occasion for qualified privilege. But in this case what matters is the destruction of privilege —see Slade J in Longdon-Griffiths -v—Smith [1951] 1 KB 295 at 304:

“Malice has nothing to do with the creation of privilege, but only with its destruction.”

68. Here the claimant relies on two matters to deny Mr Taylor qualified privilege on this occasion. First, he alleged malice. The judge found there was no evidence to support this allegation, and that finding has not been appealed. Second, Chadwick LJ suggests that Mr Taylor went too far in his reply to the attack, and in so doing lost his protection. Before we come to the words used, I set out the judge’s findings on malice.

69. The judge was required to make a finding as to whether there was a prima facie case of malice on the part of Mr Taylor which would defeat any claim of his for qualified privilege.

70. Here, by way of introduction the trial judge quoted the well-known dicta of Lord Diplock in Horrocks -v—Lowe [1975] AC 135 .at 151A:

“Qualified privilege would be illusory and the public interest that it is meant to serve defeated if the protection which it affords were lost merely because a person, although acting in compliance with a duty or in protection of a legitimate interest, disliked the person whom he defamed or was indignant at what he believed to be the person’s conduct and welcomed the opportunity of exposing it.

It is only where his desire to comply with the relevant duty or protect the relevant interest plays no significant part in his motives for publishing what he believes to be true that express malice can properly be found.” (emphasis added)

71. As the judge commented, that is a relatively heavy burden, and he examined it in the light of the pleadings in the case and the witness statements. He applied the overall test approved by this Court in Telnikoff -v Matusevitch [1991] 1 QB 102 at 120:

“In order to enable the plaintiff to have the question of malice submitted to the jury, it is necessary that the evidence should raise a probability of malice and be more consistent with its existence than with its non-existence.”

72. The judge then examined the pleadings and concluded:

“Standing back from the Particulars I ask myself whether the facts and events which I have summarised, when taken in conjunction with the tenor of the conversations, transcripts of which are before me, bear out the charge that Mr Taylor, a solicitor of some standing, was motivated by a desire to maintain or enhance improperly his reputation as an aggressive and inventive solicitor [the particularised “dominant motive”] rather than by a desire to protect the interest of his client.

I do not think so. In my judgment the matters relied on by the claimant in support of his action for malice insofar as they are supported by evidence fall far short of what is required for that claim to have a reasonable prospect of success at trial.”

73. Accordingly, the judge struck out the allegation of malice.

74. I come to the words complained of. They are those the judge referred to in Paragraph 9, sub-paragraph 8 hereof:

“There is no purpose in claiming damages for civil libel against Scallywag because they consistently claim they have no money. Criminal libel is the only remedy against this worthless organisation  [and then come the words which in the opinion of Lord Justice Chadwick should deprive Mr Taylor of his defence of qualified privilege] who simply seek publicity for themselves. They are not interested in accuracy, even less in fair reporting, and are a disgrace to the profession of journalism.”

75. As I understand Lord Justice Chadwick’s reasoning, it is as follows:

i) Mr Taylor had “general instructions to deal with the media and in response to the serious attack upon Mr Anglesea made in Issue 22 of Scallywag” and in response to an inquiry from the media.

ii) However, for strike out purposes he could not prove that he had “a general retainer authorising him to make such response to defamatory attack upon the client as the solicitor may from time to time think appropriate”.

iii) That distinction is important because a retainer in the wide terms of ii) would expose the client to proceedings for defamation at the suit of the person the solicitor defamed.

iv) His general instructions to deal with the media (set out in i)) entitled him to explain why his client was contemplating criminal libel proceedings against Scallywag, but did not entitle him to counter-attack on the integrity of Scallywag and its editor and contributors. But it is accepted that Mr Anglesea would or might have retained privilege had he said those words.

76. This was not of course the case as run by the claimants. But the trial judge had made findings on the following points:

a) The occasion of Mr Taylor’s reply was one of qualified privilege on the basis of the reply to attack: “In dealing with these enquiries, Mr Taylor was properly concerned both to protect his client’s reputation and to avoid prejudice to the impending libel actions”.

b) Mr Taylor was not motivated by malice, and it is not alleged that he did not honestly believe in the truth of what he said.

c) His answer to the North Wales Pioneer was germane to the questions he was asked.

d) The reasons he gave for not suing are at least very plausible.

77. Against that background, I ask myself the question determinative of this appeal as to whether publication of the words complained of in the North Wales Pioneer were so clearly within the scope of Mr Taylor’s authority and duty to his client that Mr Regan had no reasonable prospect of rebutting that contention. If not, the appeal should be allowed. It seems to me plain that:

i) Mr Taylor had been given a general authority to deal with media in relation to the libel proceedings, in which trial was imminent.

ii) The questions he was asked related to the reasons for the contemplated criminal libel proceedings;

iii) There was nothing in his general authority obliging him to clear all or any material with his client in advance before it was published (in the technical sense)

iv) And in any event, Mr Anglesea would plainly have endorsed what was here said.

v) The question the journalist asked was why Mr Anglesea had chosen criminal libel as his remedy. In my judgment the entire answer was germane to that question. Criminal libel carries with it the power to imprison. Imprisonment is, in this context, a remedy of last resort. But in the last analysis it is the only effective remedy against libels committed by those who are not interested in truth, or accuracy, or fair reporting, and who are protected from the consequences of their behaviour because to bring an ordinary defamation action against them is simply to throw good money after bad.

78. In my judgment, the trial judge was right when he found as a fact:

“When telephoned by the journalist from the North Wales Pioneer Mr Taylor gave an answer which was germane to the questions she was asked. In doing so Mr Taylor drew on his considerable knowledge of articles previously published. The reasons he gave for not suing Scallywag for damages are at the very least plausible”.

79. The passage taken as a whole seems to me to be a frank answer to a question asked (and so reasonable self-defence), and not a counter-charge or diversionary attack wholly unconnected with the original Scallywag attack on Mr Anglesea, and irrelevant to his vindication and the preservation of the integrity of his forthcoming libel action. The answer to the question where to draw the line between legitimate self-defence and illegitimate, irrelevant retaliation is one for the trial judge. He was right to conclude that the occasion remained one of privilege and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing the contrary at trial.

80. Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal.

Order: Appeal dismissed with costs: application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. (Order does not form part of the approved Judgment.)

Other relevant appeals

2016 Oct 21 Cathy Fox Blog [GA1 of 3] Gordon Anglesea v Newspaper Publishing PLC and Others, 22 Nov 1994 Supreme Court [3] 

 2016 Oct 21 Cathy Fox Blog [GA 2 of 3] Simon Regan v Thomas David Barton Taylor 29 Apr 1999 High Court [4]

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.
  • National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups.
  • Other useful sites are One in Four [C]
  • and Havoca [D].
  • Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.
  • Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[3] 2016 Oct 21 Cathy Fox Blog [GA1 of 3] Gordon Anglesea v Newspaper Publishing PLC and Others, 22 Nov 1994 Supreme Court https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/ga1-of-3-gordon-anglesea-v-newspaper-publishing-plc-and-others-22-nov-1994-supreme-court/

[4] 2016 Oct 21 Cathy Fox Blog [GA 2 of 3] Simon Regan v Thomas David Barton Taylor 29 Apr 1999 High Court https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/ga2-of-3-simon-regan-v-thomas-david-barton-taylor-29-apr-1999-high-court/

[5] 2016 Oct 21 Cathy Fox Blog [GA 3 of 3] Simon Regan v Thomas David Barton Taylor 9 Mar 2000 Supreme Court of Judicature https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/ga3-of-3-simon-regan-v-thomas-david-barton-taylor-9-mar-2000-supreme-court-of-judicature/

[6] 1994 Scallywag 22 LORD McALPINE AND THE PAEDOPHILE RING via 2012 Nov 15 Justice Denied SCALLYWAG MAGAZINE ARTICLE LORD MCALPINE AND THE PAEDOPHILE RING http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-article-lord-mcalpine-and.html

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

Posted in #OpDeathEaters, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Court, Criminal Cabal of People in Power, Judges Remarks, Justice System, Police, VIP CSA, VIPs MPs Lords etc, Wales | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments