Monday, 30 November 2009

Number 533, 30.11.9. Don't Let Plymouth Paedophila Be Buried In Police Red Tape!

Post number 533,

The case of Susan George, the female paedophile was apparently broadcast at some length on the BBC, according to Joan Smith of the Independent as reported on 15.10.9. While Joan’s critical review of the coverage by the BBC is noted, we see advantages in the detailed reporting. In similar cases such as this one in Plymouth, cases are investigated, and eventually a Suzan George – equivalent and one or two accomplices take the rap, and that is the end of the case.

Such conclusions are fine in cases of small time paedophiles, where punishments (often inadequate) are meted out. The danger is that state and council organised paedophile cases remain buried by punishing the few exposed paedophiles. Suzan George and accomplices in Manchester and another place may very well be linked with the Plymouth City Council Chiefs, the police, social workers, solicitors, barristers, judges and courts who are the prime causes of child sexual abuse and trafficking.

A great chunk of the public’s council taxes are shared between establishment elite while fulfilling the divide and rule policy of Israel’s New World Order master plan. Families are destroyed, and through them the communities too. Weaker and disunited communities are cheaper to keep under total control and domination.

If Suzan George and accomplices are parts of the state sponsored rings of paedophilia, then the public cannot and will not receive justices and eliminate paedophilia from our societies. How can they if Suzan George and the police are in it together? Tuis is where thorough reporting by the BBC and others can indeed play an important role in enabling the public to take on the establishment head on, starting with the police. Parents and school pupils can become vigilante civic journalists, and follow inconclusive police reportage, closed files etc. Leave no stones unturned in view of feeding sites like this one informed of proceedings.

We will in effect become your personalised newspapers and inform the world of your findings and hard work. Email your findings to


“””Joan Smith: Who benefits from hearing interviews with a paedophile?

Thursday, 15 October 2009

Earlier this week, excerpts from a series of extraordinary tape recordings were played on BBC TV and radio. They were clips from four police interviews with Vanessa George, the nursery worker convicted a couple of weeks ago of horrific offences against young children, and George could be heard initially appearing to co-operate with detectives. As the interviews progressed, George gradually became sullen, refusing pleas from detectives to reveal the identities of the infants she abused. She sounded cold and uncaring, but that's hardly surprising, given the nature of her crimes.

I suppose some viewers may have felt they learned something from the programme, even though it was already known that George had refused to provide this information. It won't have attracted public sympathy for child-abusers in general, and certainly not for the female paedophiles whose existence seems to have been barely acknowledged prior to this case.

Paedophiles do huge harm to their victims, leading in some instances to a life-long struggle to cope with the consequences. If the general public has belatedly realised that some women abuse children – a fact I have never doubted – then it's possible that future perpetrators will be apprehended at an earlier stage. But the BBC's decision to broadcast sections of the George interviews contributes nothing to that process, and risks stirring up violent emotions in a case which has already produced extreme reactions.

After her conviction, I heard calls for her to be skinned and rolled in salt, which is just the kind of savagery the criminal justice system is designed to avoid. There have been cases where paedophiles have been released from prison, identified and murdered, and that is something civilised societies should do their best to prevent.

For all its perceived failings, the system worked in this case, with police officers moving to arrest George as soon as she was identified as the person who had sent obscene images to one of her co-defendants. It might be argued that she should have been detected earlier, and that women who apply to work with children should now be regarded with the same degree of suspicion as men who aspire to work in nursery and primary education.

Men sometimes complain that they have been deterred from such careers by the fear of being treated as potential paedophiles, and there is a delicate balance here; the country needs adults who are prepared to look after and educate other people's children, and most of them are not paedophiles. We need vetting procedures and sensitive supervision which increase the chances of spotting abusers, without throwing the entire system into turmoil.

Sensitivity is what this subject needs most of all, and that is what was totally lacking when the BBC decided to broadcast parts of the police interrogation of Vanessa George. The interviews were carried out not to stimulate hatred and loathing of George and other female paedophiles, which is the most likely result of the broadcast, but to establish precisely what she had done and extract information that might help her victims.

One perverse effect might be to make future offenders wary of co-operating with detectives in case the tapes are released and inspire revenge attacks; now that a police force has provided this material to journalists, perhaps interviewees will in future have to be warned that anything they say may be used in evidence, broadcast on television or even published in a celebrity magazine.

It's worth recalling that the practice of tape-recording interviews with suspects was introduced to protect them, following cases in which defendants claimed they had not made the admissions in their statements or had been coerced into confessions. Since then popular sentiment has shifted unequivocally towards the view that everything should be out in the open, regardless of whether there is a genuine public interest justification or, as is often the case, nothing more than prurience masquerading as public interest. Perhaps that is why the airing of sections of the George interviews has caused so little adverse comment, even though there are powerful arguments against broadcasting material gathered in the course of an investigation.

Not least is the blurring of boundaries in a culture obsessed with famous and indeed notorious people. The public wants to hear from everybody, it seems, from their favourite soap stars and bereaved parents to convicted child-abusers, even though the belief that interviews are in some way "authentic" is contradicted by the cover of every celebrity magazine. That's where soap stars, footballers' wives and Page 3 girls nurture their public image, and their popularity is an index of the success or otherwise of that process.

Police interviews with suspects involve a different kind of manipulation on both sides, but are even less likely to deliver the unvarnished "truth" the public apparently craves. Crimes which inflict immense harm should be reported with seriousness and restraint, not the sensibility of Hello! magazine.”””

Mohammad Karim Ahmadzai,
For RICE and Earth Projects

PS. The denial of holocaust in Europe is a crime now, subject to imprisonment, because holocaust as portrayed never happened and is a lie!!


Let us try to destabilise the Talmudic Jewish paedomasonic means of total control and anal domination. Google, are now publishing all of our recent posts, but for the backdated omissions by Google, a comprehensive record can be followed in our Facebook site.

Subtext for continuity so that we do not forget Teresa Cooper, Julian Grail (Plymouth City Council) and the government involvement.
For readers new to the blog, we recommend you research and Google the following:

‘Dunblane conspiracy’, ‘the Bryn Alyn Welsh Homes scandals’, and then Google ‘Freemasons sexual abuse conspiracies’. The information will be staggering.
Some previously visited sites have been deleted/cleaned up/hidden from scrutiny. For an insight, new comers to the blog are advised to read from post number 244 onwards.
Every council in the country is run by the Freemasons, answerable to one man in position of authority.

That man was Sandy Bruce Lockhart, but now replaced by homosexual Simon Fuller. There is an overt Masonic Lodge in every town, but also covert (secret) Masonic houses in every town, where ritual abuse takes place.
It must be noted that Lord Nigel Lawson and Harvey Proctor have been exposed by our own team members of taking active parts in the ritual anal domination/rape of young children.

The rarity of exposure of the individuals involved is due to the secrecy of the system, and control over the dominated children who don’t speak out.
In all fairness, we have given ample opportunities for the likes of Lord Lawson, Lord Mandelson, Lord George Robertson, Tony (Marilyn) Blair, his mentor Peter Selby Right, David Cameron and Michael Howard to come forward and talk, but the silence is deafening!!!

The physical evidence and symptoms of sexual abuse are obvious to our team members. We know, from experience, that the bags around and under the eyes are evidence of anal penetration as young children. This may also be relevant to adult anal penetration depending on the size of the implement used. We now predict that in the near future, plastic surgery will be used in an attempt to hide this evidence and symptoms.

Take a look at the MPs, the House of Lords, the media in particular, and political commentators on TV. How many have the give away signs, of not only the pressure induced bags under the eyes, but also other physical traits that we will divulge at a later date. We know of a multiple number of anally abused victims that show not only the bags under the eyes but various other physical symptoms which correlate.

From our research and experience, only about one in ten paedophiles are exposed. Reference to a previous blog post, where approximately 450 paedophiles abused 67,000 children!! If one paedophile abuses 20 children, how many paedophiles do you think will be created by the paedophiles acts?? ‘Official figures’ suggest that 50% of the abused children become paedophiles. So from 67,000 abused children, you may very well have ended up with 33,500 paedophiles among you!!! And they are not being exposed and caught!!!



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home