UK Police kept secret records of Jimmy Savile’s child abuse since the 1960s

According to AP, the UK police had records of entertainer Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse dating back to the 1960s, and in doing so, prevented the public from learning about his sickening actions. After the sexual scandal exploded, Savile was linked to British royalty figures such as Prince Charles.

AP | MARCH 12, 2013

An independent report into how British police handled allegations against disgraced late BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile said Tuesday that police held records that connected him to sexual abuse as early as 1964, but failed to carry out an investigation.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, an independent police oversight group, found that police recorded five allegations and two pieces of intelligence against Savile during his lifetime.

Once one of Britain’s most popular entertainers, Savile’s reputation took a dive after his death in 2011 at age 84, when hundreds of witnesses and victims came forward accusing him of sexual abuse. Police have since described the television and radio presenter as a serial sexual predator who used his fame to target young victims across Britain.

Tuesday’s report suggested that Savile could have been stopped decades ago.

The earliest found intelligence record held by the pedophile unit at Scotland Yard dates from about 1964, but was only uncovered last year, the report said. The record, which just contained brief notes, referred to Savile as a “well known disc jockey” and to sexual abuse involving students at a children’s home. No investigation was carried out as a result of that intelligence, the report said.

“Its existence suggests that, by 1964, Savile was known to (police) officers investigating sexual offences against children,” the report said. “On the basis of what we know now, there appears to have been, at the very least, an opportunity to investigate his behavior then.”

The second intelligence record was an anonymous letter sent to police in 1998. It urged Scotland Yard to stop Savile’s activities, but police marked it as “sensitive” because of his celebrity status. It was never investigated and not shared with other police forces.

The Constabulary report also said that five victims filed to various police forces complaints alleging that Savile had indecently assaulted them from 2003 to 2008, but that authorities’ failure to “join the dots” meant a chance to prosecute was missed.

Tuesday’s report came after a police investigation concluded in January that the presenter’s abuse history spanned half a century, from 1955 to 2009, including 214 offenses mostly against victims under 18.

Advertisement

U.S. Administration Supports Indecent Vatican’s Paedophilia Immunity

AFP

The Obama administration in a brief to the Supreme Court has backed theVatican’s claim of immunity from lawsuits arising from cases of sexual abuse by priests in the United States.

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal by the Vatican of an appellate court ruling that lifted its immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest from Oregon.

In a filing on Friday, the solicitor general’s office argued that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals erred in allowing the lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was sexually abused in the 1960s by the Oregon priest.

The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.

The solicitor general’s office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama’s administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.

“Although the decision does not conflict with any decision of another court of appeals, the Court may wish to grant the petition, vacate the judgement of the court of appeals and remand to that court for further consideration”.

The case, which was filed in 2002, does not directly address questions raised in a separate lawsuit in Kentucky alleging that US bishops are employees of the Holy See.

But the Vatican plans to argue that Catholic dioceses are run as separate entities from the Holy See, and that the only authority that the pontiff has over bishops around the world is a religious one, according to Jeffrey Lena, theVatican’s US attorney.

In recent months, large-scale pedophilia scandals have rocked the Roman Catholic Church in a number of countries, including Austria, Ireland, Pope Benedict XVI’s native Germany and the United States.

Senior clerics have been accused of protecting the priests involved by moving them to other parishes — where they sometimes offended again — instead of handing them over to civil authorities for prosecution.

The pope, who has himself faced allegations implicating him in the scandal, has repeatedly said priests and religious workers guilty of child abuse should answer for their crimes in courts of law.

United Nations Perverts Want to Show Toddlers How to Masturbate

The 98 Page Report was Released in June by the U.N.´s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

For the elite of the world it is not enough to have the power to release viruses and diseases when they want, or to prepare the world’s economy for a systematic collapse and run it without any inconvenience.  It now appears that the bureaucrats at the United Nations also want our children -who have barely learned to talk- to learn how to masturbate. This of course is for ´their own good´. How is it that these political and ideological prostitutes have the nerve to write reports in which a suggestion like this is done? Well, programs like this are part of the official agenda to control the destinies of the present and future generations.
In June, the U.N.´s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNHCR) published the 98 page report which promotes universal learning of topics like masturbation for children between 5 and 18 years. Entitled “An evidence informed approach to effective sex,relationships and HIV/STI education”, the report suggests that the information contained in it is essential for all children included those in this age group. Although the U.N. maintains its position saying the content of the program is ´age appropriate´, many professionals consulted were surprised and concerned. Critics say it’s too early to expose children to these ideas about sex, which only offer abstract ideas – like “transphobia” – that´s not even understood.

For Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Academic Curriculum, children should be learning about the proper name of certain parts of their bodies, but “certainly not about masturbation.” Turner was even more disturbed to learn that the program suggested by UNESCO also includes explanations for children as young as nine about the safety of legal abortions, and to defend and to promote the right and access to safe abortions for everyone over 15 years of age. But such programs should not be surprising, it is not the first time a global body tries to interfere as deeply into sensitive issues to be addressed by the parents and not by bureaucrats who live thousands of miles away, or by doctors or strangers.

The U.N. with all its organizations along with the World Health Organization, the World Bank and other foundations like Rockefeller and Ford were created with the simple but clear purpose of controlling the destiny of the population. Among his best-known programs are Planned Parenthood (created by the father of Bill Gates who is a eugenicist himself), to provide ´sexual education´ and abortions to minors. Another program that globalists use to expose children of all ages to drugs in general is D.A.R.E. While on its facade we can only read something like ‘say no to drugs’, the truth is that the program is a psychological tool very useful to fill the minds of our children with pictures of all existing types of drugs and narcotics. The children would never know half of these drugs if it wasn´t because they get exposed to them throughineffective programs such as D.A.R.E. In other programs, children of all ages are exposed to topics such as suicide, and suicide methods which are then used by the same children to end their own lives.

The UNHCR´s report called “International Guidelines for Sex Education,” separates children into four age groups: 5 to 8, 9 to 12, 12 to 15 and 15 to 18. Under the voluntary system of UN sex education, children 5-8 years old learn that “touching and rubbing the genitals is called masturbation” and that doing this to the genitals “will make you feel great.” When children are 9 years old, they learn about the “positive and negative effects of aphrodisiacs and issues such as homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power. “At 12, they learn what are some ´good reasons´ to choose an abortion. At 15, they will be exposed to and asked to lend their support to promote the right to access safe abortions.

So, not only our children will be exposed to topics that they will not have the capacity to assimilate, but through the years, these are ideal subjects to help the globalists achieve their goals to depopulate the planet through abortion, suicide and drug abuse. These programs are of course supported by others such as universal vaccinations, fluoridation of drinking water, consumption of genetically modified organisms, chemical trails in the skies around the world and the creation of biological weapons such as the Ebola virus, influenza A, AIDS, etc.

In this not a good time to ask ourselves whether it is better to homeschool our children? This is certainly much better than to deliver them to an educational system which from its origins aims to poison their bodies and minds, and to expose them to drugs, sex and meaningles abstract lifestyles under which our children feel pressured, are abused and used. It is time that parents take responsibility by the horns and are the true educators that their children desperately need.

Paedophilia in Scotland: A look back at the Hollie Greig case

Why Are Accused Child Abusers and Abettors Hiding Behind the Skirts of Lawyers and Apparently Receiving Protection and Immunity from Prosecution from the Scottish Government and Legal System?…..

By Mark Goode
A highly disturbing case of child abuse is being slowly dragged into the daylight in Scotland concerning the horrific abuse suffered by Down syndrome girl Hollie Greig.

From the age of six, Hollie was serially raped and abused by a ring of paedophile swingers in Aberdeen, Scotland over a period of several years. Her abusers were identified by her as including her father Denis Charles Mackie, a senior Scottish Sheriff, a policeman, social workers, a nurse, a solicitor, an accountant, a fire officer, and married couples among others. A number of the rapes were allegedly carried out at the homes of the said individuals. Other children were drawn into the situation, including those of the abusers.

In 2000, and after 14 years of silence, Hollie finally informed her mother Anne about the events which had taken place. Although formal statements were made to Grampian Police, with the exception of her father, none of the 15-strong ring of those implicated as participants in connection with the serial abuse of the children involved were arrested or subsequently questioned in any manner. A curtain of silence appeared to fall over the case at the behest of the Scottish legal system.

The office of The Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angiolini, which regulates and controls all criminal prosecutions in Scotland, decided not to pursue this case, due to “insufficient evidence”. Corroborating evidence by independent researchers and investigators indicates that other than Hollie and her father, none of the 25 perpetrators and victims has ever been interviewed. This would appear to shadow initial events in 2000, when only her father was spoken to by the authorities.

It also came to light that Hollie’s uncle, Robert David Greig, had disturbed Hollie and her father whilst they were engaged in sexual intercourse in 1997, after which a confrontation had taken place and threats were made against him. Within weeks, the remains of Robert Greig were discovered in a burning vehicle. No official inquest was convened to determine the factors surrounding his death. Although the cause of death was initially attributed to smoke inhalation, this finding was brought into severe doubt when the official post mortem report finally came to light several years later, and listed a variety of previously undisclosed physical injuries to Mr.Greig’s person, including skull fractures, 2 broken ribs and a broken sternum. A large quantity of alcohol had also been apparently forced down his throat. It is therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that Mr.Greig had been intercepted by persons unknown, beaten, murdered, and his remains placed in the burning vehicle in an attempt to destroy evidence of his unlawful death.

The UK Column has reported that Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009, even though no formal charges had been brought or complaints upheld by the authorities. The UK Column has also been in receipt of legal threats on behalf of Levy & McCrae, a Scottish legal firm, who have insisted that the organisation remove all references to Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini and her connection to the Hollie Greig case from its website. Why has the leading legal official of Scotland felt it necessary to resort to taking legal action, and in what capacity is she being represented, as a private individual or Lord Advocate? Additionally, no information seems to be forthcoming as to whether Angiolini or Scotland’s taxpayers are footing the bill for the legal costs that have been incurred. Why has the Lord Advocate not made a personal statement in order to clarify irregularities or wrong-doings in this case, in order to clear the air? Surely, if there is nothing to hide then there should be no conceivable obstacle in this regard. Meanwhile, only silence.

In September of 2009, Hollie was re-interviewed by two officers from Grampian Police in a special facility near Shrewsbury, in the UK country of Shropshire. The details conveyed to the officers were entirely consistent with other information that Hollie had supplied on previous occasions. It is also understood that a representative of Grampian police, a detective inspector, described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.

An advocate of Hollie’s case, Robert Green was arrested in Kafkaesque circumstances by Grampian Police on February 12, 2010 on an alleged charge of “breaching the peace”. Mr.Green had previously spoken openly and at length about the circumstances surrounding her situation, and had travelled to Aberdeen from his home in Warrington, Cheshire in order to distribute information to the public pertaining to the case. He was arrested by two plain clothes CID officers just off of Union Street in the city centre of Aberdeen, and was subsequently held virtually incommunicado until the following Monday morning, when he was transported by police to a court in Stonehaven, Scotland where he was almost unbelievably charged in a secret hearing behind closed doors.

Grampian Police were deluged over the said weekend by e-mail enquiries and telephone calls pertaining to Mr Green’s plight, most of which were generally rebuffed by a terse and brief two sentence statement, and with the phone calls in question being rapidly terminated. Robert’s bail apparently and again includes a highly unusual condition for a charge such as a breach of the peace; additionally, he must also report to a local police station in Warrington several times a week.

This case begs an answer to a very simple question. Why has a man who as acted in good faith on behalf of one of the most vulnerable members of society been treated in such a callous and despicable manner by the Scottish police and legal system?

It is apparent that great steps are being taken in an attempt to erase this case from public attention and scrutiny, and also to intimidate others from taking independent action in order to bring a greater focus on Hollie’s case and the corrupted culture which has permitted such abuses to apparently occur in broad daylight, and under the protective wing to the Scottish establishment. Scottish newspapers have been threatened with legal action if they publish details of this case, and allude to any individuals who have apparently sought to cover-up and cloud the situation.

Mark Daly, Cathy Long and Liam MacDougall from the BBC Panorama program met with Hollie and her mother for several hours, along with Robert Green, in connection to a program that they were intending to produce in connection to her story; the journalists were all entirely satisfied with the veracity of Hollie’s story. It subsequently transpired that the said journalists were informed by senior BBC figures that they were to drop their investigation, and although they fought their corner, the three were told that serious repercussions might result if they did not relent. What positive motive would the BBC possess to silence a story and issue of such great public interest? Indeed, the media silence, even within England has been thoroughly deafening. The potential for political scandal, abuse of office and damage to the Scottish government is immense, yet details which could open the floodgates of public derision and scorn for those charged to protect society from the vile activities indicated in this article, and that could potentially bring down the Scottish government remain untouched by the mainstream media. All Scottish members of parliament and local Aberdeen politicians have been made aware of details pertaining to this case, and again, a conspiracy of silence is apparently seeing to it that nothing is said or done.

When the machinery that is supposedly designed to protect us from the predatory inclinations of perverts and abusers is directed against those that are attempting to bring some manner of justice to bear in this and other cases, fundamental questions arise as to quite who is or will be protected; the young and vulnerable, or a tightly protected and apparently prosecution-immune group who appear able to feed on the former at their leisure?. The truth will out.

Advocate Robert Green re-arrested by Scottish police in connection with the Hollie Greig case

By Mark Goode

Robert Green acts as an advocate for justice in connection with a shameful case of paedophile abuse that has been actively covered up by the government of Scotland and leading members of its legal establishment. Mr Green was re-arrested last week whilst visiting a local police station in Warrington, Cheshire in order to satisfy his previous bail conditions which stipulated that he must sign in with the local authorities several times a week. He was handed over to representatives of Grampian Police by the Cheshire Constabulary on the premise that he had breached his original conditions of bail by speaking about the case, and was returned to the court in Stonehaven, Scotland where he was originally charged and incarcerated.

Upon entering the police station in Warrington, Mr Green was not wearing his reading glasses as he expected to simply sign the register and then depart to go about his business for the day. Upon his arrest, he asked if he could retrieve his glasses from his vehicle, but was not permitted to do so. He then asked the representatives of Grampian Police if one of the officers present might do so for him, but again his request was refused. This act obviously placed Mr Green at a disadvantage if he was asked to read or confirm any manner of written materials, and may have constituted a breach of his rights.

The new bail conditions imposed upon Mr Green were quite draconian, and stipulated that he cannot discuss any element of the Hollie Greig case publically, even in England, or enter any information into the public domain that could be resourced by the public or officials in Scotland by any means, be it via the news media, internet, or discussing the case openly with others. This poses the obvious question as to why an individual who is actively seeking justice on behalf of a highly vulnerable person such as Hollie Greig would be subjected to such levels of harassment by the Scottish state.

Irregularities are now beginning to emerge with regard to the circumstances surrounding Mr Green’s initial arrest in Aberdeen on February 12^th 2010. The original Scottish interdict was allegedly pushed through Mr Green’s door at his home in Warrington, Cheshire by persons unknown. Robert had already departed for Aberdeen in order to distribute information relating to the Hollie Greig case to the public, and therefore possessed no knowledge that he would be potentially violating the said interdict by travelling there. This presented a problem for Grampian Police, as he was duly arrested in Aberdeen, just off of Union Street, at 10 am on the morning of February 12th, 2010 by two plain clothes CID officers.

In response, a second interdict was rapidly cobbled together by the Scottish Crown Office in Edinburgh and “served” to Robert whilst he was being held in custody in Stonehaven. He refused to take delivery of the second interdict, upon which he was touched with the papers by an official who then declared it “served”. Given the fact that Mr Green had refused to take possession of the papers, the act of touching him without his consent may have constituted a manner of assault upon his person. Furthermore, a copy of the original interdict is not held by Cheshire Police and no copy has ever been produced for examination by Mr.Green or anyone else, if it had ever actually existed.

After his arrest, Robert’s home was subsequently searched by Grampian Police.

In an e-mail to a UK Member of Parliament, Cheshire Police stated that the warrant had been organised by a PC Greades of the Grampian force. Upon further enquiry, it was established that no such individual is currently in service with Grampian Police under that name. However, a similarly named PC Vreades of Tillydrone Station was contacted, and confirmed that although he had currently served as a police constable for 4 years, he had no knowledge of or part to play in arranging a warrant in connection with the search of Robert’s home, and would not have had the individual authority to do so regardless. Any such warrant must also be signed by a sheriff in order to legally validate it.

Furthermore, the said warrant, allegedly dated February 13^th, 2010 is not on record with the Cheshire Constabulary or local Magistrates. As of April 21st, 2010, Mr Green is still not in receipt of the said document as was promised ten days previously.

During the search of his premises, Mr Green’s computer and personal files were removed, with some of the latter being privileged in nature, as they pertained to other clients. To date, none of the items removed have been returned. Allegedly, the elusive “interdict” was retrieved during the search of his home, but it has never been produced for examination. The said interdict was also backdated to June 9^th, 2009, constituting a most colourful approach to law enforcement, given the fact that it was purportedly “served” several months later in February of 2010. In shades of the film Minority Report, what remains are alleged retroactive terms stated within the said interdict, and Mr Green being subsequently arrested in February 2010 for a crime that he was totally unaware that he was could potentially commit.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the authorities in Scotland are becoming incrementally unhinged as time passes with respect to the ramifications of the case surrounding the paedophile abuse of Hollie Greig. All members of the Scottish parliament are aware of this case, and none, including First Minister Salmond have lifted a finger to provide any support or assistance. Another area of enquiry which needs to be pursued includes the questioning of potential suspects in connection with the murder of Hollie’s uncle Roy.

If Scotland is to live up to the level of statehood and international reputation espoused by the likes of Mr Salmond, then surely the act of its own government in taking responsibility for the horrendous miscarriage of justice evident in the case of Hollie Greig would aid in it gaining a proper level of moral imperative.

Given the immense current global interest in this case, as has indeed been witnessed by the thousands of individuals who contacted Warrington and Grampian Police subsequent to Robert Green’s second arrest in order to enquire as to his safety and well-being, it must be patently obvious by now to the Scottish Crown office, and its Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, that this case is here to stay until it is effectively resolved under the due process of law. If they have nothing to hide, then why are they all acting with such fear?