The Cover-up in England

Yesterday I was reading the news from England, I bookmarked the pages so I could write about it later. It was going to be a long post and I had a lot to research before writing it. It was going to be on how situations and the media are used to muddy the waters and keep people from going to justice if they are rich enough and powerful enough. Today they proven me write in the manner I expected.

The BBC is government owned television and radio. It is very near and dear to the English people. One of its most popular celebrities was a man named Jimmy Saville (I have seen it spelled with both one and two ls. Mr. Saville had a show called "Jim'll fix it" where he fulfilled kids wishes in some manner. I wrote about him recenlty; but, will repeat things to make a point about the media.

Mr. Saville died and over 300 allegations of child molestation were made about him. In addition, things he wrote and said took on a new meaning and many people who knew came forward saying that it was commonly known that Mr. Saville was a pedophile. It also turns out that he had complete access to homes that cared for children and even a room at a couple of them and the keys to the buildings. Some of the people who allege that he molested them were from those places.

Mr. Saville was good friends with the royal family and the powerful in England. He was even given a title, he was made Sir Jimmy Saville. A group at the BBC made a documentary about Mr. Savile in which they went into how Mr. Savile was child molester. At the last minute the documentary was pulled, it would not be shown; however the BBC did broadcast a show honoring him.

It came out that the documentary had been pulled and the allegations came out. The media immediately tried to steer the conversation to the issue of what the BBC did and away from the people that Mr. Savile supplied children to. But, it wasn't working and people were investigating what Savile did. Another televsion station aired their own documentary on Mr. Savile's pedophilia.

It didn't take long to get more damning statements against Mr. Savile. All the stuff about the group that he had improper access to, the fact that he had been investigated for such things back in the 90s. Those cases just sort of went away and he was allowed to continue. Mr. Savile bragged that he was untouchable and could do whatever he wanted.

Now Mr. Savile even organized parties for the Royal Family. It also came out that others were involved and that some were politicians. Oddly enough this was not the direction the media wished to go. The British then arrested a couple of old celebrities, one was a known pedophile and the other went on television professing his innocence and saying how he had never even been in Mr. Savile's dressing room. He explained how the whole thing was killing him. Both were released and they were the only people arrested, no politicians.

Now in England they do not name names while a case is being investigated, they have a different set of legal rules. There was however a man that came forward and said that one of his molesters was high up in Thatcher administration. When that happened people started looking a little deeper at their politicians, judges, police and the whole system. Over the years their had been a number of scandals involving pedophilia at certain state run bording facilities, the places where they kept troubled and in need youths.

The investigation kept heading back to who the people were that Mr. Savile was supplying children to. It was pointed out that although he had not worked in quite a while, he had lots of money and houses. Anyways, this man that had been molested and said that it was a high up person in the Thatcher administration got people looking to determine who it was he was talking about. Neither the BBC nor the boy ever publicly said who it was and neither did the police.

This when the media stepped into high gear to get people to believe that nobody in the government was involved. The British Primer Minister went on television and said that they were doing all they could, they were conducting multiple investigations all at the same time. They had investigations on all these group homes, on the BBC and well, they were going to investigate just about anything they could. Basically focus on everything, spread their investigators too thin and at the same time he started to imply that the whole things could turn into a witch hunt and he didn't want that. NO, he wanted it to appear to be a witch hunt because then nobody would believe anything that came out.

While on the show, the interviewer said that he had spent 3 minutes on the internet and had a list of names of suspected pedophiles in the government and handed it to the Prime Minister on air. Again, the media jumped on the meaningless and tried to make the story of the day about how this interviewer had possibly violated the law if the note had been seen by the television viewers (again you can get in a lot of trouble in England naming names prior to the arrest). It was a beautiful piece of theater.

The other point the Prime Minister was trying to make was that he didn't want the investigation into the politicians to be an attack on gays. I guess I should discuss how I came across this all. There is a man named David Icke, he claims that alien reptilians rule this earth. He also made a lot of predictions about how things were run that turned out to be correct. 20 years ago, Mr. Icke who had been a broadcaster for the BBC had said that both Mr. Heath (famous politician) and Mr. Savile were pedophiles.

There are a number of websites that list alternative news that I read, I just don't link to them, I will independently find the same information from more reliable and accepted sources. When this all broke Mr. Icke began reminding people of what he said in the past. At the same time others were continuing to come forth and mentioning politicians. This video hit me in the head yesterday.

YouTube - CARE HOME ABUSE VICTIM -Tells of Sex Parties "Exclusive Personal Interview" DOCUMENTARY

The whole thing sounded just like the scandal and cover-up that happened in Omaha, Nebraska involving Boys Town, politicians and pedophiles. They made a documentary about that there was pulled the day before it was to be shown on television.

YouTube - Conspiracy of Silence: The Franklin Cover Up - Censored Documentary!

The way to kill a story is to sensationalize the parts of it that you don't care about and keep the focus away from the real issues. In this case the real issues are who was Mr. Savile supply children to and which politicians used these children.

Back to the interview with the Prime Minister. He makes a big deal about saying that the investigation should not be some anti-homosexual thing; but, it never was. Mr. Savile liked little girls and the issue should have remained focused on pedophilia regardless if the people were straight or not. It was another attempt at misleading people and it wasn't enough.

Back to the man who reported how he had been molested by the high ranking person in the Thatcher government. People were wondering; but, nobody was saying and then Lord McAlpine a former high ranking official came out and said that it wasn't him and that he would take legal action against those who accused him. Problem is, neither the BBC or the witness ever publicly accused him of anything. The man who was talking in fact said that it was not Lord McAlpine publicly.

How convenient that someone who has not been accused tries to make it look like he has. Makes it all look kind of funny to those who don't read the whole articles. What gets interesting is how this is all portrayed in the media. Articles now say that the reports of politicians being pedophiles is false; they say that the mans allegations were false; but, he did not allege and the BBC did not report that it was Lord Alpine, the allegations of a high ranking politician being involved have yet to be fully investigated and they are not of Lord McAlpine as far as we know,

The media in England is actively engaged in attempting to confuse the issues and apparently protect some important people. In order to further create smoke, the head of the BBC resigns and apologizes for allowing these false accusations to be broadcast. Huh? They were not.

Well, when I saw that the head of the BBC had resigned and that the media was making all attempts to misstate what had occurred, I was not surprised at all. I kind of expected it and was going to say so yesterday; but, I never finished the post. I am going to post a link to the article on Mr. Icke's site from today. He sees it all as a sham also.

Is it only me??

What can we expect next, I suggest unexplained deaths with at least one being of an ex-politician who commits suicide. Perhaps they will confirm that is the person who abused the witness. It all depends on how the republic responds to the non-sense they are being told now.

What will be forgotten is that Mr. Savile supplied numerous people with children to abuse. That is how these things always go when the rich and powerful are accused of being involved with pedophile rings.

Hopefully the British public will not lose their focus and will insist upon fully investigating the claims from the Savile case. That is where the proof lies and it will lead back to those in power.

SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

England has had all of these problems with pedophiles at their government run group homes and yet in the midst of the current scandal, the Mail Online reports that Teaching union calls for porn lessons on national curriculum amid fears children as young as 11 are addicted to adult websites

The Newspaper basically states that you have two choices, filter the internet and require adults to opt in to view porn or have your kids taught about porn. What do you think those lessons will be like. I have a guess. You cannot show the kids porn so you show nudes and explain why they are not pornography. Old paintings, nude statues, provocative advertising and pictures. Take them right to the line of what is not considered pornography.

UPDATE 2

Well, once I finished the last update there were some interesting new developments aimed at directing the course of the discussion away from the people Mr. Savile provided children to. A 70 year old man has just been arrested in connection with the case. Here is your fall guy. There is an old saying in chess, when in doubt, kick a pawn. It means that you give unimportant to protect the more important. The other story being pushed today is about a friend of Mr. Savile's who is devastated by Mr. Savile's pedophilia and he telling how Mr. Savile had introduced him to one of the most famous serial killers in English history.

UPDATE 3

It turns out that the 75 year old man they arrested was one of the people on the ITV documentary who said that he found Mr. Savile in bed with a girl about 12 to 14. That sounds about right, arrest the witnesses who helped expose Mr. Savile.

Thinking

I wrote a post last night; but, did not publish it. When I got up this morning it turned out that what I was expecting happened. The problem is that to fully explain will take a bit of time. I don't know when I will finish; but, I will give it a shot later tonight. Have a great weekend.

Electronic Money and Travel

Before I get to the article, I must apologize. Somehow I managed to injure my neck yesterday. I thought after a good nights rest it would feel better; but, it doesn't. As a consequence I will keep this short.

Forbes - Department Of Homeland Security To Scan Payment Cards At Borders And Airports

As we go to a cashless society, methods have to be put in place to prevent you from taking all your money with you and moving. It is about control.

Just a link, no paper trail, just electronic money

NCR - Going Green with Your ATM

Scary Xbox technology coming the internet

So the Pimpernel has been talking about how you will need to be biometrically identified to use the internet in the future and you may think this is decades rather than months away, well, guess again.

ReadWrite Play - Microsoft Wants To Turn Xbox 360 Kinect Into Big Brother!

The article states the Microsoft has applied for a patent that would allow Xbox (the videogame machine) to use kinect (hardware that watches you and responds to your moves allowing you to play games with just your movement) to count the number of people in your room watching a movie and charge you per person. It can also identify the people in the room. Not only that; but, it will know the age of the people in the room and keep out age inappropriate content, no porn for your kids.

Haven't I been talking about this for years? This is real and you are going to pay for the privilege of being watched. Next up will be voice recognition being used to interact with video game characters who will respond to what you say. We do not live in the Matrix, we are building it so that we can live in it.

Restricting Your Movement

What we are seeing on an international level is the restriction of your ability to move about freely. It began with border patrols and then passports were created. Passports were not actually required for traveling from country to country until after World War I. The primary purpose of the passport was only to prove the country of citizenship and allow the person to return to their own country, it was not needed to leave your country. Why should I need permission to leave my country if another country will allow me in. Up until 911, Americans could travel to both Mexico and Canada without a passport.

Now here is where we get into what is really going on. After 911, Mexico did not require a passport for US citizens to go there, the United States did. If the problem is terrorists coming into the United States then why should I need a passport to leave if the other country will let me in?

Okay, lets look at other travel restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to have a drivers license. In the United States we tend to believe that drivers licenses were intended to prove that you had taken a test and knew how to drive; but, the reality is that up until 1977 you could buy a car and drive on the roads of Belgium with no drivers license. It was not until 1913 that any state of the union required a drivers license of all people who drove within the state and years later before all the other states required it. It has now become our primary form of identification.

The people in many countries hate the idea of having to have a national identification as it was used by the Nazis and the Communists, you needed permission to move about in your own country and people did not like it. Your drivers license and Social Security card served the same purpose and both were sold on the idea that neither was required to travel or for use as identification and both became exactly that.

You cannot take a boat, plane or car to another country without having a passport and a drivers license today. Lets fast forward. The TSA is now conducting check ins at train stations in the United States. Why should I need to prove who I am to take a train within the United States. Oh, in Sweden to take a bus you must use electronic currency and it identifies you. LOL.

You can take your boat and sail to another country; but, the United Nations is about to pass the Law Of the Sea Treaty (yes we are truly lost). What do you want to bet that it will require a form of identification is required to just sail in the international waters which no man has a right to control?

So our right to travel is restricted by plane, boat and train. It is restricted by car. Well, maybe I can use horses. Sorry, those are chipped and the wild horses are being killed, this has been going on against the law by the government for about 10 years.

My question is then, by what manner of transportation am I allowed to move about freely? I guess by bicycle in most places and by foot. Prior to the 1900s most people in history had never been further than 20 or so miles from their home in their life.

Well here is a thought, at least you can still take the bus or subway without having to report who you are. Well, up until now. Here is a lovely story from The Baltimore Sun - MTA recording bus conversations to eavesdrop on trouble

The local transit authority for Maryland is going to begin not only filming inside the buses; but, it will also be recording all of your conversations and storing them electronically. Here is what their defense is according to the article (the next two paragraphs are taken directly from the linked article.

"But one of the bills' sponsors, Del. Melvin Stukes, an MTA customer service investigator, said state officials have been "gun-shy" in dealing with the ACLU and unions. The intent of the legislation, he said, was to eliminate bad language that often sparks violence.

"This is not your bathroom. This is not your bedroom. Buses are public spaces and people are elbow to elbow," Stukes said. "I'm not trying to punish people. I'm just trying to clean up problems I hear about every day so that people realize that MTA is trying to provide a more congenial, more cordial ride."

I guess just want us to talk nicely. That is the dumbest thing I have even heard. There is no law against cussing on a bus, cussing itself is not illegal. They do not claim that they will arrest people for using profanity so why do they need to record the conversations?

I do hope my wonderful and intelligent readers see where this is going. Your travel will not be restricted just as long as we know who you are and where you are going and eventually why; but, we can guess that using the internet. You might ask why restricting travel is so important, it is fairly simple it is to control communications that do not go over the internet or cell phones, those are already claimed to be unprotected by the courts, no right to privacy with either.

While there are those who might think the Pimpernel is just some slob, the fact is that I am a recognized expert on the Constitution. Ask your attorney how many American Jurisprudence Awards they have, I have two and one is in Constitutional Law. People who know me personally read this blog and are more than welcome to see it; but, they know. Now lets talk about cell phones.

When radio first came out, it was determined that there was only so much band with that existed and therefore any company wishing to broadcast radio had to do so in a proper manner, they sort of had to fulfill a public benefit because there was a limitation on how many could broadcast. That made sense and the court cases gave the government the right to regulate the airwaves. Times change and now we have cell phones, yet, the same old court cases were used to say that the government has the right to listen into your private conversations because they have the right to monitor the airwaves; but, that is to make a joke of the reasons behind the original cases. The logic was twisted.

The government was not allowed to tap your phone, to record or listen to your private calls because they could not be heard by others, they were not public broadcasts that could be heard by anyone with a radio. It was presumed that the operators were not listening in and the rules prohibited them from doing so, though some did. Cell phones can be listened to by anyone with the proper equipment and that was used as one of the excuses for allowing the government to tap all cell phone conversations; but, the joke is that I am less concerned about some random person attempting to listen to ever cell phone conversation than the government doing the same. The government has taken the prior court decisions and completely ignored the logic behind them to get to the result they want.

I want you to think about this. The laws were put in place to protect the unwitting public from seeing or hearing obscenity without knowing what they might be exposed to. If a parent was just checking out different radio stations they didn't want their child to hear things that were improper. If something were not publicly broadcast with the technology of the time, the telephone, then it was protected and nobody was authorized to listen in. This same logic and court rulings apply to e-mails, they are unprotected because someone with a lot of time could read them and the solution is that the government can read them all. We made the rules to protect your privacy and those same rules are now used to say you have none, that is not good logic.

So, the government does not trust it's own citizens. They want to know everything that you say and do. The restriction travel allows them this ability because you are only going to walk so far.

Your Face is Your Passport, Now What Else Can We Use it For?

Everyday there is something new in the news about biometrics and it all keeps heading in the same direction. Here is where we are going, in the future your ability to travel will require that you have been biometrically, positively identified and authorized. No fly lists are already in effect. I personally am on a watch list (not a no fly list as far as I know). Yet, how much concern does the average person have over the fact that we have these lists, they will not tell you are on one and there is nothing you can do to get removed from them.

EndTheLie - Facial recognition-based border control system in Netherlands to process millionth passenger by end of year


There are many people who are afraid that the government wants to put a chip in us, an RFID chip to be precise. The same chip that is in your cell phone, your car, your dog and your passport. The idea biometrics is therefore much more pleasant; but, the effect is exactly the same, you can be monitored and prevented from traveling.

I will tell a story that I wrote about once before. I was going to Hawaii a number of years ago right after the shoe bomber. As we were going through security the TSA agent asked me if I wanted to take off my shoes. I asked them if it was required and they told me it was not, so, I said I would prefer to keep them on. I was taken out of line and told that I had to take my shoes off and checked out further. I asked what type of game they were playing and asked why they hadn't just told me it was required if it was. The answer was as stupid as possible, I was told it wasn't required but that if someone didn't then they were given additional checks which included removing their shoes. It was funny how the other people all got anxious as I questioned these people.

Biometrics and facial recognition are only a carrot if you have a stick and the stick is the RFID chip. Fear and hatred of the chip convince people to accept the same result by means of another technology.