Tags
(not satire – it’s the Tories)
According to the Daily Mail, Labour should apologise for its supposed links in the 1970s to the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Not a squeak from the Mail or any of the other right-wing press about the Tory Party’s links to paedophiles though.
And I’m not just talking about Savile’s frequent social visits to Thatcher at Number 10 when she was Prime Minister.
It’s been revealed recently that Savile was not a lone abuser. He was part of a paedophile ring based in the Scarborough and Whitby area. One of the leading members of the ring has been revealed by a local newspaper to be a senior local Conservative politician, Mayor and Councillor Peter Jaconnelli.
But don’t expect to read much about that in the mainstream media. Because the cover up of Tory Party connections to paedophilia in general has been going on for decades.
In 1983, when Lord Carrington became Secretary General of NATO, there was considerable disquiet in the US about a paedophile scandal involving Carrington’s close associates – which the Americans were worried could bring the organisation into disrepute.
But we didn’t hear much about that in the mainstream media either.
Also way back in the 80s, Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens gave Home Secretary Leon Brittan a dossier that included evidence of senior Tory Party members’ – as well as other powerful establishment figures – involvement in a paedophile ring.
Brittan however apparently ‘lost’ the dossier.
Something which was also not widely reported.
And Edwina Currie stated in her autobiography that Peter Morrison – deputy chairman of the Conservative Party from 1986 – was ‘well known’ for regularly having sex with 16 year-old-boys. But despite his crimes being well-known by senior members of the Tory Party, Morrison was only ever cautioned once by the police and never faced charges.
Or in other words, the scandal was hushed up.
Even the present Foreign Secretary, William Hague was accused of stifling an investigation in the 90s into the infamous North Wales child abuse scandal.
And Lord McAlpine’s cousin, James ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine – who was almost certainly the man who abused children in North Wales children’s homes – was a major Tory Party donor through his building firm Alfred McAlpine Ltd.
But recently, we’ve learnt of even more links between Savile and the Tory Party.
Savile – who was bizarrely put in charge of Broadmoor hospital by the Thatcher government after a series of strikes there by staff – had his lifelong friend Alan Franey made Chief Executive of the hospital. Franey resigned in 1997 after allegations that a child pornography ring was operating at Broadmoor.
Franey has always had close connections with the Conservative Party and is now a Tory Councillor in Buckinghamshire.
And Labour MP Tom Watson has also said publicly that the Conservatives tried to cover up the case of paedophile diplomat Sir Peter Hayman.
But the cover up is still going on today.
We’ve been waiting for the best part of 2 years for the ‘imminent’ arrest of a ‘former senior Tory cabinet minister’ in connection with paedophilia allegations. Judging by past form – we might be waiting for a long, long time.
So don’t go holding your breath now.
.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
Cock-up, cover-up or conspiracy in the North Wales child abuse scandal? You decide.
Warning – sharing this blogpost (in the UK) might be libellous
Old celebrities arrested for child abuse are all very well. But what about the politicians?
Daily Mail ‘fixer’ David Rose defends paedophilia accused and attacks child abuse victims. Again.
It was the police – not the BBC – who wrongly named Lord McAlpine in abuse allegations
Steven Messham is not just a child abuse victim. He’s a hero.
Lord McAlpine in his own damning words – The New Machiavelli?
It was the police – not the BBC – who wrongly named Lord McAlpine in abuse allegations
How did Cyril Smith get away with paedophilia? By threatening tweeters and bloggers with libel!
Child abuse scandal can of worms – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?
High level child abuse cover-up? Why has Theresa May barred a US journalist from the UK?
Jimmy Savile, West Yorkshire Police and the Friday Morning Club
.
Please feel free to comment.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you can share this article with other people. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
If you visit the site labour25.com you can see who else has a lot to answer for. the site thieves liars and buggers, also reveals who’s done what. Just ook at what happened to Charlene Downes. Just look how that was covered up. Is there some thing in the water that makes these people act this way?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog.
LikeLike
Hi When this page is re blogged by someone ,do our comments go with it also? regards Carl Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:05:18 +0000 To: carlmason123@hotmail.com
LikeLike
Reblogged this on gingerblokeblog.
LikeLike
Could we have a Facebook share button on these posts, please?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on My Blog.
LikeLike
I believe that you are a brave & tenacious person in profiling paedophile rings in the UK & Internationally. Paedophiles exist in every corner of society & profession and are a curse not easily (cured). I wish you well on your continuing journal,s of exposure. Remember to watch your back at all times & think about termite colonies.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ufohunterorguk.com.
LikeLike
No matter what party they pretend to be they are all a bunch of Bilderberg child molesting Moloch worshipping Satanist filth the lost of em
LikeLike
us vip masonic tory types have the right to bum working class kids theirs nothing you can do about it tom pride.
its time you plebs knew you place. and that’s taking a good one up the shitter from your betters.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Thinking Out Loud.
LikeLike
Eviltorypervert, it isn’t just the tories who are paedos. Labour have a lot to hide. Didn’t the leader of the European greens admit to dreaming of under age sex with children.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
No explanation necessary.
LikeLike
A good post but you have only just scraped the surface!I only hope that the whole issue of them are brought to justice.
LikeLike
Yes, power
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson Second Line View of the News and commented:
Tories cover up for their pedophiles and facilitating their abuse of young men and children for more than 40 years!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on redcarrol and commented:
Says it all more or less…..?
LikeLike
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/abuse.htm
Who are their policies designed to protect children from?19th December 2013
—– Original Message —–
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
To: officeofmarklancaster@parliament.uk
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Who are their policies designed to protect children from?
Hi Mark,
There is a single child neglect and abuse offense. The offence is child cruelty under section 1(1) Children and Young Peoples Act 1933.
This offence, in the criminal law, is exactly mirrored in the definitions of child neglect and abuse in Working Together to Safeguard Children (2013).
The offence, and the definitions in Working Together, are negligence offences. They are in respect to the negligence of the person with responsibility for the child when the child is a victim of an offence.
Under section 1(2) a state’s official is expressly liable for the offence and under section 17 a person with parental responsibility or with care of the child is expressly liable.
According to a recent Parliamentary briefing memoranda there are no prosecutions explicitly in respect to sections 1(2) and 17. If this neglect and abuse data were published it would become clearly apparent to all that the UK Government has not one iota of interest in child protection.
At a more sophisticated level, prosecution of the offence is the evidential basis of evidence based health and welfare policy (see Cartwright, Nancy and Munro, Eileen (2010) The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 16 (2). pp. 260-266. ISSN 1356-1294, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28826/)
Professor Eileen Munro is, of course the government’s child protection advisor.
Best regards Dave
LikeLike
Have you read the Baby Bonds study?
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/children.htm
Four in ten children fail to connect with mum and dad 21st March 2014
—– Original Message —–
From: laura.barbour@suttontrust.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:56 PM
Subject: baby Bonds
Dear David
Here is the full report, which is a review of existing evidence.
Kind regards
Laura
—– Original Message —–
From: laura.barbour@suttontrust.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:41 PM
Subject: Further information
Dear Mr Mortimer
As I thought, I have checked with the authors of the report and there was not a specific breakdown on children from broken homes.
Kind regards
Laura Barbour
—– Original Message —–
From: laura.barbour@suttontrust.com
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Cc: conor.ryan@suttontrust.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:48 AM
Subject: Response to your enquiry
Dear Mr Mortimer
Thank you for contacting us in response to the report, Baby Bonds. I will check with the report authors if we have the details regarding a percentage of children from “broken homes” and get back to you. I am not aware that we do.
The report does not specifically address the link between secure attachment and children being put into care. However the theory is that by supporting at risk parents to break the cycle of insecure attachment (that they are likely to have experienced themselves) they will have a better chance of being able to provide a responsive and caring relationship with their child which would make it less likely that their child would need to be taken into care for its own best welfare.
You may be interested to look into an intervention “Parenting under pressure” which is currently being trialled by the NSPCC, which particularly looks at supporting parents (ante natally and once the baby is born) whose babies are at risk of being taken into care because of the vulnerable nature of the parents. The intervention aims to support parents, both mothers and fathers to have the best chance at forming a secure attachment with their child by helping them to build parenting skills and develop safe, caring relationships with their babies.
Regards
Laura Barbour
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Four-ten-children-fail…
Four in ten children fail to connect with mum and dad: Poor parenting in first three years can hold children back at school and cause behavioural problems
As many as four in ten young children have such a weak bond with their parents they are unable to tell them they are upset, new research shows
This puts them at risk of problems including obesity and delayed speech
Poor parenting in the first three years of life can hold children back at school and lead to behaviour problems such as hyperactivity
By Laura Clark
As many as four in ten young children have such a weak bond with their parents they are unable to tell them they are upset, new research found today.
Poor parenting in the first three years of life can hold children back at school and lead to behaviour problems such as hyperactivity.
Four in ten youngsters have failed to develop strong bonds with their parents, the research said, putting them at greater risk of a range of problems including obesity and delayed speech.
These children are split into those who learn to avoid their parents because their distress is ignored and those who learn to actively resist their mothers or fathers because they respond harshly or unpredictably.
The findings came in research by academics in Britain and the United States on behalf of the Sutton Trust, a charity promoting social mobility.
The researchers are now calling for children’s centres and health visitors to do more to improve parenting, including through the use of video feedback.
The research reviewed international studies to determine the long-term effects on young children of failing to develop so-called ‘secure attachments’ with their parents.
Studies in North America and Europe suggest that around 40 per cent of children fail to develop strong attachments to their parents. One paper found that among lower income toddlers, the figure rises to 46 per cent.
Those who fail to develop strong attachments are split into 25 per cent who avoid their parents when they are upset because the parent ignores their needs and 15 per cent who learn to resist their mother or father because the parent makes them feel more distressed.
The research, by academics at the London School of Economics and Bristol University, as well as Columbia and Princeton universities in the US, found that children aged under three who are unable to form strong bonds with their mother or father are more likely to display aggression, defiance and hyperactivity when they are older.
Boys’ behaviour is more affected than girls’ by early parenting.
There are also effects on language development and aspects of brainpower such as working memory. Children from families where attachment is weak are more likely to show poor language skills at three and perform worse in cognitive tasks.
Where mothers have weak bonds with their babies, research also suggests their children are more likely to be obese as they enter adolescence.
The effects continue into later life, with insecure children more likely to leave school without further education, employment or training.
Parents who find it hardest to bond with their babies tend to be insecurely attached to their own parents.
They also at greater risk if they suffer mental health problems, live in poverty or are young parents.
Co-author Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work and public affairs at Columbia University and a visiting professor at LSE, said: ‘Parents are an important influence on young children’s development and their chances in life.
‘Mothers and fathers influence development through the resources they invest in their children, and the home learning environment they offer.
‘But the emotional bonds they forge with their childen also matter. A secure bond or attachment to the parent helps the child manage their behaviour and learn.’
The researchers found that simple, often instinctive, actions such as holding a baby lovingly and responding to their needs are key to developing strong attachments, along with acknowledging a baby’s unhappiness with facial expressions and then reassuring them with smiles and soothing tones.
Conor Ryan, director of research at the Sutton Trust said: ‘Better bonding between parents and babies could lead to more social mobility, as there is such a clear link to education, behaviour and future employment. The educational divide emerges early in life, with a 19 month school readiness gap between the most and least advantaged children by the age of five.
‘This report clearly identifies the fundamental role secure attachment could have in narrowing that school readiness gap and improving children’s life chances. More support from health visitors, children’s centres and local authorities in helping parents improve how they bond with young children could play a role in narrowing the education gap.’
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/children.htm
LikeLike
—– Original Message —–
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
To: tim.farron@libdems.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Is it right to use future harm as a good reason?
Dear Tim Farron,
The family justice system is adversarial & abusive. The Children & Families Act is another so called missed opportunity to change the law & improve the outcomes for children & parents. The Government has failed to protect children or provide their parents with a family justice system which works since they have been in office despite everything they pledged to do when they were in opposition. Broadening the definition of abuse gives the state more power to question parents & put more children into care.
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/fourintenchildrenfailtoconnectwithmumanddad21stmarch2014.htm
The Supreme Court has already considered the future psychological harm and threshold criteria
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed114415
but what I want to know is it right for the social services to be useing future harm as a good reason to take peoples children away or not given that the supreme court said suspicions or possibilities were not enough when considering the significant harm threshold?
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111922
Best regards Dave
http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/care.htm
—– Original Message —–
From: tim.farron@libdems.org.uk
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Please let me know what you think?
Dear David,
Thank you for your email dated 13th January regarding child protection. I am sorry that it has taken so long to respond.
But at least there is good news. On 31st March 2014, it was confirmed that the Coalition Government is seriously considering new measures to improve the law on child neglect. These measures would be designed to protect children from emotional and psychological neglect.
This is the result of months of campaigning from both Action for Children and Lib Dem MP Mark Williams. Last year, Mark Williams introduced a Private Member’s Bill – the Child Maltreatment Bill – into the House of Commons.
The Child Maltreatment Bill called for the current definition of child neglect to be scrapped, and replaced with a ‘child maltreatment’ offence. Our current definition of child neglect was introduced in 1933, and is based on a law that dates back to the Victorian era.
Mark’s Child Maltreatment Bill would broaden the definition so that the law would protect children not just from physical harm, but from emotional abuse too. This would make it easier for social workers and the police to work together when investigating cases of non-physical harm. It would also make sure that outdated terms were replaced with simpler language so that the law is easier for judges and law enforcers to understand.
Action for Children’s Chief Executive Sir Tony Hawkhead has welcomed the move, stating: “We are one of the last countries in the western world to recognise all forms of child abuse as a crime. Years of campaigning have been rewarded, the government has listened and this law will change lives.”
I am aware that some have called for mandatory reporting to be introduced in law. However, in common with a number of child protection charities, I am not convinced that mandatory reporting is the right way to go. In March 2013, the Department for Education published revised statutory guidance – ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ – which clearly states that anyone concerned about a child’s welfare should bring it to the attention of the local authority children’s social care and ensure that they take into account the wishes and feelings of the child. In the case of Daniel Pelka, too often the perceived needs of his mother and her welfare overshadowed the needs of the child.
This revised guidance is clear that the needs of individual children, whatever their age, are paramount. It puts the needs of children back at the heart of assessment processes by removing the requirement to have separate initial and core assessments.
Other countries have tried mandatory reporting and there is no evidence to show that it is a better system for protecting children. In fact, there is evidence to show it can make children less safe. The NSPCC has expressed concern that mandatory reporting could present serious concerns for some children about lack of confidentiality, which is identified as a key reason preventing disclosure to professionals. Their research shows that if children believe that professionals must report specific claims then there is a greater likelihood that they will not come forward, leaving them at risk of harm.
I am aware that there is more to be done, but hope that this signals a significant move towards ensuring that we safeguard our children to the best of our ability.
Best wishes,
Tim
PRES 3572
LikeLike
So Labour are now responsible for the behaviour of the Green Party members?
LikeLike
Pingback: The truth about the Tory Party's cover up of it...
Yes, the ‘mail’ is very selective of where it directs it’s criticism, despite often having stories with enough real public interest that the David Icke Headlines put them out. But what would you expect when one of their top female columnists is married to the loathsome Gove, among other clues as to where they are coming from. At least they are willing to put Prince Andrew under a bit of adverse scrutiny in connection with his mate Jeffrey Epstein. Every little helps, maybe a few good and true journalists on there who say as much as they dare without getting fired for it.
LikeLike
I suspect whole system is rotten to the core. Built on history of abuse, by those who hold your power. Stop feeding them that power. Take it back. At election time do not feed it, vote for known good men and women by their real deeds. Not what they say. Tough on the current crop of those ambitious to hold power. Sadly an election does little to rid the Nation of the same bloodsucking , warmongering opportunists from the rest of the establishment.
LikeLike
Pingback: London 24h – Mass Murder of Canadian Children Admitted
Pingback: The London Gazette - Mass Murder of Canadian Children Admitted
Thanks to all the posters. I am new to this vile subculture. It is amazing to read that some abusers were quite brazen and open about their perversions. regards to all.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.
LikeLike
Barrister Hugh Barton is the Paedophile MP’s friend and defender. In his public CV he boasts about getting a Paedophile MP a non custodial sentence and getting him (it) through the courts with the minimum of publicity and fuss. Barrister Hugh Barton’s boast is sickeningly designed to attract Paedophiles for business purposes. I have told Barrister Hugh Barton that i believe all Paedophiles should be subject to the maximum publicity and fuss and then most definitely given a custodial sentence. Barrister Hugh Barton is the only person i have ever known to advertise for paedophiles in order to make money from them. Has he no morals?
LikeLike
Pingback: Tory Party’s cover up of its links to paedophilia
Pingback: Google searches for ‘Leon Brittan’ and ‘PIE’ censored after Cease and Desist notice | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Tory Party admits it ‘mislaid’ Leon Brittan somewhere in the House of Lords | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Meet the man Leon Brittan handed the lost VIP paedophile dossier to | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Danger of sewage hitting air conditioning unit delays Westminster VIP paedophile probe | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Tony Blair on dealing with the developing VIP paedophile crisis: “Carpet bomb it” | Pride's Purge
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
LikeLike
Pingback: Awkward. Butler-Sloss once said leaders have “sovereign” right to immunity and anonymity | Pride's Purge
Pingback: 8 powerful reasons why Butler-Sloss cannot head the VIP child abuse inquiry | Pride's Purge
Pingback: C of E publishes critical child abuse report – 10 years too late! | Pride's Purge
Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Shock as Jimmy Savile revealed to have been a northerner | Pride's Purge
Thatcher was an Evil Monster and a Tyrant who Associated with the
Sick Fiend Jimmy Savile
Down with Thatcherism and All the EVIL it Represents
LikeLike