We demand Government, Labour and Lib Dems investigate allegations that MPs raped children.
1.1 We call on the Government, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems to launch investigations into allegations that MPs and peers raped children or conspired to help others to do so during the administrations of John Major and Margaret Thatcher.
1.2 Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs and peers are widely named by child abuse survivors and contemporary witnesses whose personal testimonies mutually corroborate. Moreover, many of the MPs and peers whom child abuse survivors and witnesses identify are still alive; some continue to sit in Parliament, the crimes in which they are implicated covered up and buried.
1.3 The ongoing Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and police investigations are essential and long overdue. Notwithstanding the IICSA and police inquiries, the Government, Labour Party and Lib Dems must launch their own investigations.
1.4 These should seek out and analyse internal party files; historical complaints by party activists, whistleblowers and employees; and the private records and memories of MPs and peers (deceased, retired and still-serving). Absent proactive and exhaustive investigations by Government and the main parties in Westminster, the IICSA and crime agencies may be unable to discover and consult these crucial sources for evidence of crimes long buried.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
2.1 In a series of investigative news reports in the 1990s, several MPs and peers were averred to be serial child abusers. Their alleged crimes were committed against minors occupying, or recently exited from, children’s homes around the British Isles.
2.2 The reports indicate that certain MPs, peers and others colluded and collaborated in the coordination, planning and covering up of organised abuse episodes. Further, that MPs and peers were present at and took part in said abuse episodes.
2.3 Of the parliamentarians repeatedly implicated in premeditated/organised assaults on children, several continue to hold high-status positions in Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition, the House of Lords and local government in the capital. Many remain members – ostensibly in good standing – of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties.
2.4 In the reams of newsprint devoted to the subject of Establishment paedophilia post Jimmy Savile, many of the ‘hotspots’ of organised paedophile abuse linked to parliamentarians have come into focus.
Hotspot 2: Richmond upon Thames children’s homes in the same period, similarly benefiting from the services of in-house solicitor Keith Vaz in 1982 before he transferred to Islington Council (Margaret Hodge);
Hotspot 3: Westminster City Council real estate in the same period under the oversight of Shirley Porter, whose Tory councillors allegedly partook in ‘paedophile parties’ at Westminster City Council-owned Dolphin Square. Tory parliamentarians, apparatchiks and lobbyists were also involved in these, according to child abuse survivors. Moreover, there was alleged trafficking of children to Central London from Clwyd and Gwynedd children’s homes (see below).
Hotspot 4: Lambeth Borough Council children’s homes during the same period under the oversight of Janet Boateng, wife of Labour’s Paul Boateng – whom police recently sought to question over his links to former Lambeth Council children’s home manager and convicted paedophile Michael John Carroll;
Hotspot 5: Wales’ Clwyd and Gwynedd children’s homes, where Conservatives with links to prime minister Margaret Thatcher and Westminster Council’s Dolphin Square reportedly preyed upon the vulnerable residents, trafficking some to child ‘prostitution’ [rape] in London (see above) and elsewhere;
Hotspot 6: Belfast’s Kincora Boys’ School, also known to have been frequented by paedophile Conservative and Unionist politicians;
Hotspot 7: The Channel Islands, to whose notorious Haut de la Garenne children’s home it has been reported that local authorities including Birmingham and possibly Islington (Margaret Hodge) sent children in care. Many children at Haut de la Garenne were assaulted, raped or went missing.
2.5 The names of the aforementioned Labour politicians (Margaret Hodge, Keith Vaz, Paul Boateng, Janet Boateng) are not cited in the 1990s investigative news reports. Yet, these Labour politicians almost certainly have important information that an investigation by the Labour Party would need to analyse.
2.6 The 1990s reports do name and implicate several prominent Conservative parliamentarians . They are:
ii. Cllr Robert Davis (Conservative on Westminster City Council)
iii. Conservative activists and/or possible Conservative Party members:
(David) Russell Walters (who was recently employed in the Mayor of London’s office during the Boris Johnson administration)
iv. Retired Conservative parliamentarians – now in some cases local minor celebrities or famous television faces -:
v. Former Westminster councillors:
vi. Turning to the Liberal Democrats:
2.7 In order to review the early 1990s investigative news articles which set out specific allegations against the above parliamentarians and others, please visit http://pdfsr.com/pdf/the-child-abuse-investigations
2.8 Supplementary information can be viewed at pdfsr.com/pdf/who-is-murdering-britain-s-children
3.0 We call on the Government, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems to launch investigations into allegations that MPs and peers raped children or conspired to help others to do so during the administrations of John Major and Margaret Thatcher.
Female sexual abuse of children is frequently hidden in the daily task of care giving. It can happen during bath time, dressing and undressing, and diaper changing. But the abuse is not restricted to care giving; sexual abuse of children can happen any time of the day or night under any number of circumstances. “Women who sexually abuse children can be of any age, social class, intellectual ability, and marital status, and can be involved in any type of employment. They can perpetrate any form of sexual act and can behave seductively or sadistically towards their victims.” In the book Women Who Sexually Abuse Children: From Research to Clinical Practice, the female offenders were classified into three main groups: women who initially target young children, women who initially target adolescents, and women who are initially coerced by men. There were “atypical” perpetrators, however, who did not fall into any of these categories. “Numerous studies have espoused that female sex offenders are not distinctly different from male sex offenders.”
Be there…. or miss out
Come along with other Bedfordians and realise your potential… the Rule of Law applies to Bedfordshire Police, the worst Police Farce in the country just as much as it does to you… educate ‘Plod’ to be a PEACE officer, not a POLICY officer…stop the Family Courts destroying Families…. help to stop schools destroying our children especially boys… kick the ‘Critical Theorists’ into the long grass….
Interesting request that is worth some time thinking about….
Is boys and men’s violent behaviour taught to them by their mothers?
In broad terms I would say an emotionally abusive mother is a mother who uses her son or daughter in an attempt to fill her own unmet emotional needs. This is similar to defining sexual abuse as someone who uses another person in order to fill their own sexual needs
The fundamental failure of the so called Child Protection system is that is doesn’t protect children. Perhaps ‘Childabuser Protection’ would be more apt.
Almost without exception the organisations fraudulently claiming to fulfil this role at taxpayers expense such Children Services, CAFCASS and the Police fall into the trap of linking the vulnerable child to the mother, whereas in fact the mother is very likely to be the abuser. The blind spot which is designed into the system helps to perpetuate the Children Industry and helps further the aims of the UN by destroying families.
If the mother did not feel adequately loved, safe, secure, protected, appreciated, valued, accepted and respected before giving birth, she will, in all likelihood, attempt to use the child (and later the teen) to fill these needs. If she did not feel adequately in control of her own life as a child and teen, she can be expected to try to control her son or daughter as compensation. This is the recipe for emotional abuse.
Sadly the Useful Idiots who have been on the Common Purpose training programmes feel they are acting in the Best Interests of the Children, whereas they are in fact acting in the best interests of the collectivists and globalists intent on destroying families and children so soften them up for the future dictatorship being rolled in under the radar, except it’s being picked up at long last, hence Brexit, Trump and Rome Referendum.
General Characteristics of Emotionally Abusive MothersMaking the child/teen feel responsible for the mother’s feelings.
Threatening them in general.
Threatening them specifically with rejection or abandonment.
Threatening them with vague, unstated consequences.
Using force upon them.
Invalidating their feelings.
Laying undeserved guilt on them.
Placing undeserved blame on them.
Dominating the conversations.
Refusing to apologize.
Always needing to have the last word.
Judging or rejecting their friends.
Sending them to their rooms for crying.
Locking them out of the house.
Using punishments and rewards to manipulate and control them.
Invading their privacy.
Failing to show trust in them.
Giving them the silent treatment.
Failing to give them real explanations.
Giving non-explanations such as “because it is wrong” or “because it is inappropriate” or “because it is a sin”
Ref: www.eqi.org S. Hein
If you are a man who is a victim of Domestic Violence and there is a good chance you are then should you find yourself not working and struggling to cope with the demands of the globalist agenda down at the jobcentre and the emotional and physical consequences of being abused then this may help.
You can obtain 4 weeks respite by completing a form the next time you sign on, then up to 13 weeks if you get a GP or Police Officer to sign the form.
Naturally the staff at the jobcentre won’t have a clue what you are talking about and certainly won’t be thinking as a male victim you have feelings and need help. So ask, otherwise you do not get. They should conduct any DV related meeting in a private room.
The Forum received this post and thought it worthy of a repost:
- Section 20 arrangements are voluntary – this means that the local authority cannot place a child in alternative accommodation unless parents agree to the arrangement.
- You are entitled to be fully informed – the local authority must offer you as much information as you need, in a clear and accessible format
- If you have parental responsibility for a child, you can remove your child from accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority at any time
- If a child is 16 or 17, they can leave the accommodation without parental consent
- Always ask for a S.20 arrangement to be put into writing – something this important shouldn’t be set up on word of mouth. If anyone refuses to put this agreement in writing, tell them you have the support of the President Of The Family Division
- Children have a right to be heard – any child who wants to express their wishes and feelings in writing is entitled to do so under a S.20 agreement, and to have those views taken on board by the local authority
- A S.20 arrangement should never be used to secure care proceedings – local authorities do not have the right to put you off terminating a S.20 by giving you the impression that it’s final or compulsory.
It’s from Researching Reform and can be found here.