20/08/23 EDIT: This article has been modified to include a postscript re Stinson Hunter.
It’s been several years since I first heard of Operation Underground Railroad and Tim Ballard. I remember seeing some of the Ballard-centric press drive to raise awareness and funds, and feeling cautious, even suspicious of the presentation and the style of OUR’s genesis story as it was presented then. I didn’t look into it deeply as I had no reason to bolster my then modest awareness but superficial knowledge of a serious, long standing and very disturbing set of pathological behaviours. What I’ve come to conclude since is that an undeniable darkness at the heart of our societies grows at a rate we do not want to know about, even though some aspects of it are very, very straightforward to fathom and scale. Therein lies an important clue to the wider darkness.
Tim Ballard
From memory, OUR was being backed by Glenn Beck. Its early fundraiser junket came off the back of the story of Ballard’s rescue of a boy and his sister from abusers and traffickers. That story is what the movie, Sound of Freedom, depicts. It was a moving, melancholic account that spoke of a darkness in human hearts and minds that I suspect can never be displaced once it takes hold.
Before Sound of Freedom’s publicity machine began to spin up circa 2019/20, I think it’s fair to say that anyone who paid just several hours of focussed attention on mainstream information and evidence was likely to conclude that human trafficking and child abuse in all forms are at epidemic if not pandemic proportions. In this context, the terms “epidemic” and “pandemic” might seem like deliberately bombastic, zeitgeist devices. They’re not.
epidemic
Spreading rapidly and extensively by infection and affecting many individuals in an area or a population at the same time.
Widely prevalent.
pandemic
occurring over a wide geographic area (such as multiple countries or continents) and typically affecting a significant proportion of the population
characterized by very widespread growth or extent
For those who care to look at just the surface evidence, there are some incredibly obvious, almost self-evident truths. One doesn’t need to plumb any depths to get a sense of the darkness.
Sexual abuse against children and adults, and the crimes within and around these acts are old and persistent in all modern human societies. In the UK, sex crimes have tripled in 20 years.
There is now a clear and accelerating dichotomy between the commission of such acts and the consumption of “products” that derive from those acts.
The acts and products are intrinsically bound together in a rapidly expanding market of huge proportions not just in terms of monetary cost and profit, but also in terms of permanent, society-wide ruination and destruction that is pervasive but mostly invisible.
There is obviously an escalatory relationship between the acts and the products i.e. consuming the products creates greater demand for the acts while driving closer towards commission of the acts.
It may be worth considering that this “marketplace” could be as costly to humanity as the act of war and essentially the same in nature.
Given that there is literally zero way for anyone, sane or otherwise, to defend such acts and products, one must ask why they seem to be growing. Also, when is silence, wilful ignorance or insufficient action synonymous with tolerance or, worse still, endorsement and enablement?
Institutions have been repeatedly proven to be variously implicated and complicit in child sexual abuse crime, yet are rarely, if ever, held accountable in any meaningful sense.
The acts and the products are being normalised in society overtly and covertly, repeatedly, by persistent minorities who are successfully co-opting more and more people via the use of sophisticated, manipulative techniques. This is happening top down basis from the highest offices, and bottom up involving increasing numbers of citizens who fulfil the role of useful idiots and who span most major institutions in society.
How much evidence must one be able to find before one starts to change one’s view on any topic? When must one stop looking away and simply look straight into the abyss?
In 2014 I saw something that I found extremely discomforting on multiple levels.
We cannot arrest every paedophile, police admit
The sheer number of people accessing child abuse images online in Britain means that many paedophiles will escape prosecution, the country’s top law enforcement officer has admitted.
Keith Bristow, head of the National Crime Agency (NCA), said that about 50,000 people were regularly downloading illegal images and that it was “unrealistic” to expect they would all be arrested.
The NCA would target suspects who were accessing more serious images or were more likely to have direct contact with children, he said. “Our responsibility is to focus on the greatest risk. But the wider responsibility that falls to all of us is to stop people getting involved in this activity, to help young people protect themselves.”
My gut reaction to it was like everyone else’s, probably. Fear, dread, a projected sense of horror for the victims and those affected, anger and degrees of hatred towards perpetrators, anger and frustration at the police’s claim they couldn’t deal with the issue…
I began to ponder the article’s elements and their meaning.
First, why would the police nationally declare their inability to deal with a problem of this kind for reasons of scale and lack of relative capacity at every stage of the criminal and judicial process?
On the one hand it could be a cry for help to attract extra resources by putting the government in a corner and galvanising public support. This would be measurable in police resource allocation and crime data.
On the other hand, what this story did was literally tell the UK population that, provided one’s crimes did not constitute “the greatest risk” offences, one would likely get away with them, even if those crimes were technologically, remotely detected. It also told:
potential offenders who were dissuaded by fear of getting caught that they could start offending;
actual offenders who were only at a certain level of crime that they could safely progress up the scale.
This would also be visible in crime data.
When California said that shoplifting up to the value of $950 was no longer a felony offence but a misdemeanour, guess what happened?
Those four videos are of California. So whereabouts did this take place?
In the UK shoplifting is still the equivalent of a US felony offence. What do we see in the videos?
Remote triggered flash mob/swarm appearing and acting rapidly;
Outnumbering of law enforcement;
No significant attempts at disguise or anonymisation in the most heavily surveilled city in the West.
Those people have been “remotely incited” to employ flash mob tactics and exploit their force of numbers to commit crime. They are not rioting to make a political point. They are employing tactics someone has given to them to act out while minimising their net risk.
In other words, someone encouraged them from afar to engage in criminal behaviour quickly and in large numbers because by doing so, their chances of getting caught radically drop. Sound familiar?
If it is possible to osmotically affect or stoke criminal behaviour to a degree using information and remote means, how has that power come into play via the National Crime Agency’s 2014 national message that many levels of criminal paedophilic behaviour can’t realistically be expected to be prosecuted because there’s too much of it?
Second, scope, scale and triage/prioritisation all apply in matters of law enforcement even when heavily resourced. The police clearly stated that the specific offence of accessing “child abuse images”/“illegal images” was being detected. The Police know the persons being surveilled have crossed a line. UK police admitted to knowing the number of offenders, which obviously means the police can beat anti-surveillance measures or they aren’t being adequately employed, and the police can decrypt and analyse data streams to know illegal material is being downloaded.
The prison population of the UK is ~87,500. To jail all of estimated 50,000 offenders would require a prison perhaps double the size of Manchester United’s stadium, Old Trafford. The UK is running at 99% of its prison capacity, with perhaps a few thousand more places being made in the near future. There are obvious questions around the “business” of the prison industrial complex in the UK (or any country) and also the wider punitive criminal justice system spanning sentencing, fines etc. When it comes to the crimes around child abuse that the UK police say it can’t deal with, it is a basic failure of intellect to ignore what this means for society now and into the future.
What’s all this got to do with triage/prioritisation? The Police said:
The NCA would target suspects who were accessing more serious images or were more likely to have direct contact with children.
So in addition to the Police’s admission that they know what data is being downloaded, they must also know the identity of offenders to establish which of them do or could have direct contact with children, in order to prioritise targeting them.
These two capabilities - traffic decryption and analysis, and internet user identification - are fundamental to the Police’s public statement in The Times. So, in addition to Keith Bristow telling us that the problem’s so big the Police can’t handle it, he also admitted that the British Police are constantly analysing data on either a bulk or targeted basis, fully identifying internet users and profiling them to determine their contact with and risk to children.
Third, we were told to believe it to be “unrealistic” to expect 50,000 offenders to be arrested. This depends upon how someone is arrested, what purpose the arrest serves, whether and how it sits in other processes and other factors, given that we’re talking about the modern policing of a growing criminal, psychosocial and psychosexual behaviour that comprises degrees of escalating individual and usually clandestine activity, most of which the UK Police didn’t classify “greatest risk”.
Fourth, the Police literally told us that it was our responsibility to prevent these crimes from escalating. Bristow said we are to stop people committing these acts and actively protect children whom we could influence, despite the article failing to explain the pathology of the crimes and what any of us could actually do. Confused? You should be. The Police’s message is very, very confusing when you stop and think about it.
To commit an offence described by the National Crime Agency as “accessing or downloading child abuse images” a perp just has to intentionally access material from anywhere. Access, possession, creation and transmission are distinct actions, although they can overlap and trigger each other e.g. “accessing” something on the internet to view it triggers “creation” because one’s machine generates and displays an effective copy or copies of the image as an inherent part of the viewing process. If that is the extent of the offending, the advice given to us by the UK’s top cop ceases to make sense or apply in these circumstances.
If an offender is:
getting existing material from a source and looking at it; and
they do not interact with potential or actual victims; and
they do not transmit or share that material or seek to act to generate new material;
then how does my effort to help my children “protect themselves” affect this situation? The offender’s actions are totally self-contained after the point of access and have nothing to do with anyone else’s children, so Bristow’s instruction about helping children to protect themselves online is irrelevant here. Also, how do I ”stop people getting involved in this activity”?
Apparently it is now the citizen’s job to police themselves when it comes to aspects of child sexual abuse. But you don’t get a tax break for taking on that unpleasant workload. In 60 seconds this former undercover police officer speaks about being at the sharp end of an undercover child abuse case.
Keith Bristow’s instructions to save ourselves beg the obvious question of “how?” Is anti-paedophilic crime fighting taught on the school curriculum now, or do we all just have to rely on YouTube University like we do for everything else? You see the strange place that article puts us in, right?
When the public fix the problem
Around or just after the National Crime Agency told offenders to “click and carry on”, a UK vigilante operation came to the fore. Enter Stinson Hunter, a Nuneaton man who, with the help of some associates, embarked on extremely effective citizen sting operations against actual, full blown child predators who, from the evidence Stinson collected in the course of a sting, could be demonstrated to constitute the “greatest risk”. Hunter’s team used fake child profiles as bait on various online platforms or fora and waited for predatorial contact that they allowed to develop while following a communications methodology that did not entrap the predator. The predator instigated, persisted and escalated contact in spite of being clearly informed of the profile owner’s age very early in the communications. If a meeting was pursued, Hunter’s team would agree and then confront the predator on video with evidence of their crimes that ranged from grooming upwards. Hunter’s methods have been aped in the UK and US at least, by individuals and groups.
British police did begin taking Hunter’s evidence and some prosecutions did follow but Hunter explicitly stated that the police tried to stop him trapping these predators, citing aspects of risk, potential harm and evidentiary or legal process issues. However, it appeared that by Hunter following Bristow’s advice the police were left wide open to humiliation due to their lack of effective action. The police disagreed with Keith Bristow about what citizens should be doing. Odd, huh?
Hunter made national TV, becoming the subject of a Channel 4 documentary, “The Paedophile Hunter” (now on Netflix) and appeared on GMTV alongside a former police officer, where he was interviewed by, ironically, Philip Schofield, who has recently fallen from grace under circumstances that begged questions about the timing of the initiation of Schofield’s own gay sexual relationship with a GMTV show runner that has since been described as “unwise but not illegal”.
Hunter’s methods wouldn’t have satisfied Keith Bristow because they couldn’t prevent the people he stung from becoming predators nor did it involve actual children. Hunter could only identify and interdict strangers and try to bring their pre-existing paedophilic activities to an end. That alone is remarkable and admirable because Hunter’s team performed public services that the police were incapable of and unwilling to perform using a highly effective, efficient, modern technique.
These techniques were known to police and employed by them before Hunter became known. The FBI were using Hunter-like techniques in chat rooms and social media platforms in at least 2010 and yet the police wanted the nation to believe in 2014 that it could not resource a technique that enables one person to identify multiple predators nationwide who are willing to incriminate and identify themselves. By the time Hunter met any of the predators they were already guilty of prosecutable offences. Arrest in the face of the evidence was a formality and could be done at leisure some time after the communication/grooming or meeting offences were committed. The UK police, in The Times article, said it couldn’t make arrests and even tried to dissuade Hunter from employing his successful methodology despite Keith Bristow telling people they should take responsibility and get stuck in.
Still confused? You should be. The police were contradicting themselves. Add all this up and the police appear to want to send certain signals to paedophiles and then effectively disable society from defending itself, while also saying that stopping paedophiles is a job that is now beyond the police. Not only is this confusing, it is also circular.
Hunter’s work has since inspired others. If you watch nothing else, watch this single 10 minute video (Crystal Meth Predator Goes Crazy After Getting Confronted, below) by People v Preds whose Odysee channel has over 300 cases on it. This particular encounter is bizarre and disturbing (or rather the perp is) but incredibly it transitions into something else involving natural, self-imposed justice, comedy and moments of counterbalancing but dark and bizarre levity.
If you have not watched this 10 minute video, you will have missed out on the closest real world example of Gollum I’ve ever seen. But you should wonder about the very nature of the perpetrator. Listen to what he says from the get go and his ongoing speech patterns, analyse his non-verbal communication, body language, posturing, and then marvel as he “develops”. It’s a sight to behold and a rare insight into the corners of human behaviour and personality. I have no ability whatsoever to empathise or sympathise with this person. I literally cannot imagine how he processes the world, so alien is his external behaviour and communication.
There’s a question about how much steam is left in this technique. Once the MO is widely known, surely less people will fall for it. It’s got some way to go. In this other People v Preds episode, “Jacob” explicitly talked to the decoy about getting caught:
Jacob still went on to graphically self-incriminate in the chat regarding his intentions and then met the decoy boy.
All of the above is set within a context of the here and now of the internet and international data flows being demanded by 50,000 individual UK paedophiles sat on their computers, some of whom are doing more than that and occasionally getting their door kicked in.
Obviously, there’s a hell of a lot more to this. Let’s widen the timeline and our purview to just over the last 50 years in Britain because historical context is the lens through which we should view our present situation.
Grabbing a slice of the PIE
Sir Peter Telford Hayman KCMG CVO MBE was a British diplomat and intelligence operative. He was knighted as a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George in the 1971 New Years Honours List for his work in the diplomatic service. In October 1978, Hayman left a package of paedophilia-related material on a London bus. The police traced the package and discovered that Hayman, under the pseudonym "Peter Henderson", had used an apartment in Bayswater, London, to conduct obscene correspondence. In the apartment, police found 45 diaries describing six years of "sexual fantasies" concerning children and activities with prostitutes, articles of female clothing and obscene literature. He was investigated by police but released without charge after being given a warning not to send obscene material through the post.
Sir Peter Hayman - Top spy, diplomat, member of PIE, author of obscene child abuse material and establishment nonce.
This is just the start of the Hayman story. At a bare minimum you should scan the full CIApedia page to see some of the extent of Hayman’s interests, known actions, connections and treatment. One man serves as a window into a well-established, long standing, far-reaching and powerful web.
Hayman was… a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (a pro-paedophile activist group) that was founded in 1974 and disbanded in 1984… The group campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent. It was described by the BBC in 2007 as "an international organisation of people who trade obscene material". Although it had a few women paedophiles as members, the organisation's membership was mainly young, professional-educated male paedophiles, including youth and care workers. Its membership in 1977 was around 250, mainly focused in London and the South East;the same number for membership was also reported in 1981.”
British nonce club that infiltrated the British state and may have been international.
PIE was connected to the UK political system and state entities to the point that it is publicly known to have received UK state support and substantial grants. British politicians issued formal apologies about not just the state’s actions or associations with PIE but, in some cases, their own (see Hewitt, below).
Consider what PIE was and what it was doing. PIE was a pre-internet:
paedophile member’s club & database;
communications, social, and political influence network that plugged straight into UK government and public money, and the UK civil liberties body;
means of enablement for crimes involving obscene material and against children;
means to directly affect UK society via its politics and laws in the pursuit of effectively legalising paedophilia (and incest) throughout the nation.
PIE’s key political objective was to legalise paedophilia by lowering the age of consent to as low as 4 years of age. In pursuit of that objective it successfully recruited the NCCL to back the lowering of the age of consent to 14 and, in some circumstances, 10. PIE had co-opted and integrated with the UK political establishment and organs of the state, of which the UK’s National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, now Liberty) appears to be the most commonly known about (relying on CIApedia’s version of the PIE story). The NCCL also released a report that argued for the abolition of the crime of incest. It issued a press release to this effect signed off by its then General Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, who went on to become a Labour cabinet minister.
The March 1976 NCCL press release said: "NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved."
The release relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reforms. In it Hewitt also said: "The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished. It says, 'In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent'."
PIE formally: existed for just 10 years; operated with a formal membership list; circulated abuse facilitation materials throughout its membership; infiltrated the NCCL; affected NCCL policy advocacy and managed to acquire protection from it by normalising PIE’s positions and members within the NCCL; influenced Whitehall and British society by co-opting the NCCL; secured government grants in pursuit of its operations and activities; facilitated or enabled crimes amongst its membership that were intrinsic to the organisation and its members’ personalities, identities, proclivities and behaviours; existed to make paedophilia (and likely incest) legal and normal in Britain.
PIE was also connected to and supported by:
The Albany Trust “a British organisation which describes itself as a "specialist counselling and psychotherapy charity, focusing on a positive approach to sexuality and relationships". The Albany Trust developed into a pioneering counselling organisation for gay men, lesbians and sexual minorities.”;
Paedophile Action for Liberation, a breakaway from the South London Gay Liberation Front, with which PIE later merged;
Campaign for Homosexual Equality, a membership organisation in the United Kingdom with a stated aim from 1969 to promote legal and social equality for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in England and Wales;
TheSpartacus International Gay Guide, an international gay travel application and formerly an annually-published guide.
What is quite clear from the above and the sources from which it is drawn is that PIE’s membership were predominantly male and all of the chief supporting organisations are concerned with gay men’s interests (all but PAL still exist).
Many years after PIE had convinced NCCL to back a lowering of the age of consent, a former PIE member and multiply convicted nonce, Tom O’Carroll spoke to 60 Minutes Australia about PIE’s and his notion of consent (2 mins):
Fortunately, in 1981 Geoffrey Dickens MP marked PIE’s card by requesting the prosecution of Sir Peter Hayman. The British establishment protected Hayman and refused. Meanwhile, various members of PIE including its head began to be investigated and ultimately prosecuted for various crimes spanning child porn to actual sexual assault against children. PIE disbanded in 1984 and some PIE members fled the UK to escape prosecution but PIE’s legacy persisted.
PIE re-emerged in British consciousness around 2014 within the post-Jimmy Saville, historic child abuse saga. Digging the PIE skeleton out of the government’s closet forced Patricia Hewitt to issue a formal statement (excerpts):
NCCL in the 1970s, along with many others, was naïve and wrong to accept PIE’s claim to be a ‘campaigning and counselling organisation’ that ‘does not promote unlawful acts’. As general secretary then, I take responsibility for the mistakes we made. I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so. I should have urged the executive committee to take stronger measures to protect NCCL’s integrity from the activities of PIE members and sympathisers and I deeply regret not having done so. In particular, Tom O’Carroll* should never have been allowed to join the gay rights sub-committee.
The proposal to reduce the age of consent was not mine – it was the policy of the organisation and its executive committee at that time. I do not support reducing the age of consent or legalising incest.
I note some of the comments about Harriet Harman and her role. Harriet did not join the NCCL staff until 1978. She was one of two legal officers, neither of whom was a member of the executive committee.
*Tom O’Carroll’s convictions:
1981, O'Carroll was convicted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals over the contact ads section of the PIE magazine and was imprisoned for two years.
2002, O'Carroll was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of importing indecent photographs of children from Qatar, which had been found by Customs in October 2001 hidden in his luggage after his arrival at Heathrow Airport. The conviction was later overturned in November 2002 by the Court of Appeal which held that the trial judge had been overly influenced by O'Carroll's campaigning.
2006 of conspiring to distribute indecent photographs of children after supplying an undercover Metropolitan Police officer with a cache of indecent images of children obtained from his co-defendant Michael Studdert's secret vault containing 50,000 pornographic images. O'Carroll said the images with which he was connected had been in his possession for a "very long time".
Police were still taking action against PIE members 22 years after PIE was disbanded:
In January 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service Paedophile Unit arrested the remaining PIE members on child pornography charges. One of those arrested, David Joy, was warned by his sentencing judge that his beliefs may preclude his ever being released from jail.
Douglas Slade, who was involved in both the Paedophile Action for Liberation and PIE, was convicted at Bristol Crown Court in June 2016, and sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. He was found guilty of multiple counts of indecent assault and other sexual offences against victims aged between 10 and 16 committed between 1965 and 1980.It was said during his trial that Slade had run what was effectively a helpline to aid the practices of child sex abusers from his parents' Bristol home in the 1960s and 1970s.
After fleeing the UK, Slade continued committing sex crimes against children in the Philippines where he lived for 30 years due to a lack of effective extradition to the UK. After his 2016 UK conviction and sentencing, he was pursued by 5 Philippine victims and ordered to pay £100,000 in compensation.
Douglas Slade - “He is without doubt the most dangerous and manipulative child sex offender I have ever encountered.” AKA TurboNonce.
What should be glaringly obvious by now is that PIE was a major paedophile operation that was formalised across Britain and reached to the top of its establishment. Its members were actively criminal for multiple decades in plain sight by virtue of being in a club that operated a membership list, produced a magazine and took part in NCCL activities. According to some views, it was international. It was also supported by gay and lesbian groups.
Notably, PIE is not recorded as being supported by straight and family or children’s interest groups, unless the NCCL is to be considered as such.
Throughout the entire time PIE existed, the UK age of consent was 16 and sex with children was and remains illegal. From a legal point of view there was no “different environment” back then compared to today in terms of the base crimes. What is different now are sentencing and an expansion of the possible crimes as the law has chased methods and acts. No one can seek defence via claims that the UK was a more permissive society pre-1990 because, in colloquial terms, it was illegal to fuck kids then and it’s illegal to fuck kids now.
With this in mind, how could Patricia Hewitt claim that she and the NCCL were “naïve” in the 1970s and couldn’t work out what PIE was and what its members wanted?
Remember, Tom O’Carroll clearly explained the motives and objectives of PIE of video, and he is a multiply convicted nonce who actually, seriously believes that consent for something can be given by a child aged four because that’s an age when children can speak. That’s the level of intellect that was in operation around Patricia Hewitt and that’s what it took to back a lowering of the age of consent to 10. But she, at 28 years of age and the General Secretary of the NCCL, was just naïve.
Sir Peter Hayman - Knight of the Realm AKA Sir Double-O Nonce. Doesn’t look like a gigantic nonce though, does he?
Exactly how did naivety in the 1970s differ from today such that when a group of men tell you they want to fuck kids, you think of them as a ‘campaigning and counselling organisation’ that ‘does not promote unlawful acts’?
The clue to the deception in her statement and what was going on is in the language Hewitt used. PIE campaigned to make it legal to fuck kids (Tom O’Carroll confirmed this on video) and it counselled its paedophile members on: how to get away with fucking kids (while that act remained illegal); how to legalise and normalise the act. Hewitt used deliberate linguistic techniques to ameliorate her own insane, incompetent acts that could be considered to have been criminally complicit as well as negligent. Hewitt would have us believe that the Paedophile Information Exchange was not interested in the illegal act of paedophilia even though the clue was in its name and its actions centred around the promotion of that unlawful act. Hewitt’s statement is a deliberately crafted work of pointed deception. She used specifically limited descriptive language that suggests naïve misunderstanding that relies, in that context, on deliberately omitting reference to PIE’s sole raison d’etre, which was in its name. Hewitt’s statement never refers to PIE by its full name, thereby omitting the word “paedophilia” from the entire statement.
As a result of her statement, some were quoted in the British Press crediting her for making a direct apology about not realising what the PAEDOPHILE INFORMATION EXCHANGE - who told her they wanted to fuck kids - was and wanted.
Can you forgive me for being utterly flabbergasted and repulsed by the state of British society as reflected by PIE’s place in it? I don’t know about you but I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Is it a coincidence that PIE membership featured a top British spy and diplomat who was awarded the state’s highest accolades while PIE was, for a time, an incredibly successful paedophile operation running inside the British state?
Brits protect “Fattest Known Paedo” and cover up 144 accusations of child sexual abuse
Sir Cyril Smith MP AKA BlimpNonce - Britain’s fattest ever establishment nonce, begs the question, “how?”
Throughout PIE’s existence, the utterly grotesque Sir Cyril Smith MP occupied more than his fair share of the political benches. From 1972 to 1992 he was MP for Rochdale, during which time it was revealed he had actively denied the health dangers presented by asbestos while owning 1300 shares in a company with interests in asbestos. He was formally accused of engaging in a cover up two years before his death in 2010, which he denied. But that was small beer for the gigantic blob of scum.
In 2012, after his death and following allegations of child sexual abuse, the Crown Prosecution Service formally admitted that Smith should have been charged with such abuse during his lifetime. In November 2012, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood said there was "overwhelming evidence" that young boys were sexually and physically abused by Smith.
In April 2014, it was reported that there had been 144 complaints against Smith from victims as young as eight years of age. Attempts to prosecute Smith had been blocked. Public authorities—including Rochdale Borough Council, the police, and intelligence services–have been implicated in covering up Smith's alleged crimes. In 2015, it emerged that Smith had been arrested in the early 1980s in relation to some of these offences; however, a high-level cover-up reportedly led to destruction of evidence, Smith's rapid release within hours, and the invocation of the Official Secrets Act to prevent the investigating officers from discussing the matter.
Despite the fat nonce’s arrest in the early 80’s he was knighted in 1988. The Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was told about his suspected kiddie fiddling but approved his title because the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to stay an investigation citing lack of evidence. In 2015, it emerged that Smith’s arrest was in relation to his activities with a paedophile ring, as opposed to wobbling alone.
Smith, Britain’s fattest known nonce, was aided and abetted by three arms of the UK state: a council, the police and MI5, in the face of a litany of accusations of abuse made while he was alive. Smith’s CIApedia page contains an equal if not greater amount of child sex crime allegations than that of the infamous Jimmy Saville. Worse still, because the accusations against Smith were formally lodged there is specific detail on that page, unlike on Saville’s, which has practically zero detail about the few accusations made against him before his death. 144 formal accusations from children as young as 8 were made against Smith but he was actively protected by the state to the point that senior police officers would warn off and threaten junior police officers. Smith was Our Nonce Up The Back Benches.
The world’s arch psycho paedo was a Brit
From the start of his career as a radio DJ in 1958 to close to the time of his death in 2011, Sir Jimmy Saville is rumoured to have been one of the most prolific publicly profiled sexual offenders in Britain if not the Western world. I’m not going to recount what you glean by ploughing through CIApedia suffice to highlight that Saville was ensconced in the heart of both the BBC and the British establishment, as well as Britain’s charity sector and its most severe level of mental health care and treatment. His claim to have spent New Years Eve with Margaret Thatcher and her family at Chequers 11 times running is denied by others, but he was in direct, broad and lasting contact with most members of the British Royal Family.
Saville - National nonce by appointment to HRH Prince Charles?
The BBC as an organisation knew what Saville was and what he did, to sufficient extent (see below). Numerous BBC employees and various celebrities have spoken or written about Saville’s acts well before his death and since yet the honours bestowed upon this seemingly dark tetrad necrophilic, paedophilic, sexual offender beggar belief. The claim that people always knew what he was tells us something very important and persistent about him, them and our societies.
It is widely suggested and accepted that Saville was in a league of his own when it came to criminals enabled by not just the BBC but the wider British establishment and political system. Saville had access to Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital that holds Britain’s worst criminals. Guests include Peter Sutcliffe, Ronnie Kray and Charles Bronson. Saville was appointed a chair on Broadmoor’s interim taskforce overseeing the hospital’s management in place of its board. Saville had his own rooms there and in 2012, after his death in 2011, it was alleged that he had sexually abused prisoners. A former Broadmoor nurse also claimed Saville had recounted necrophilic acts in the mortuary of Leeds Infirmary, to which he may have had relatively free access via the mortician.
Let’s pretend, for a second, that Saville never did anything wrong.
Now ask “what were Saville’s qualification’s for being put in charge of the management of Britain’s top secure mental hospital?”
He was given that role by the Health Minister, Edwina Currie.
It is worth reading a report of Currie’s response to questions about Saville’s role at Broadmoor.
Savile, despite having no expertise in mental health, was given the job of chairman of the taskforce overseeing Broadmoor in 1988 after the hospital had been placed under direct control of the Thatcher government following a series of strikes.
Mrs Currie at the time was health minister with responsibility for the country’s high security hospitals under the auspices of Kenneth Clarke, the then-Health Secretary. Savile counted himself as a friend of Margaret Thatcher and reportedly stayed at Chequers on a number of occasions.
Savile had had a long association with Broadmoor, having been a volunteer worker there in the 1970s and 1980s with the unofficial title “honourary entertainments officer”. He had his own set of keys and living quarters on site.
Pete Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said of Savile's role at the mental hospital: "It really is akin to giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank. It really is outrageous that a disc jockey was given unfettered access to Broadmoor."
Savile’s appointment to the taskforce is now subject to a Department of Health official inquiry but last night Mrs Currie said: “The Department of Health are digging out the papers from the archives and I just don’t know - I’m ransacking my own notes to try to work out what happened, so I am not denying it, it is just very hard to tell.”
The former minister told The Sunday Telegraph that having checked her personal diaries, she had found a note of a meeting with Savile in Leeds in September 1988 - the month the taskforce was appointed. In the entry she described his thoughts on Broadmoor as “intriguing”.
Mrs Currie recorded that during the meeting Savile had told her that he suspected staff were inflating their salaries - and that he had threatened to pass the information to the tabloid papers if the staff caused him any trouble.
Savile also told her he had uncovered millions of pounds missing from budgets and poor use of the hospital’s housing stock.
“In my diary, I wrote 'Attaboy’, she said. “This was what he claimed to be doing; now it is hard to know whether any of it is true. And obviously when you look back, it does suggest he was prepared to use blackmail to ensure people did what he wanted.”
Mrs Currie, who had previously met Savile on his television programme Jim’ll Fix it and on visits to Leeds General Infirmary, where he also worked, said she now thought the presenter was “totally evil” and that she was glad criminal investigations were underway.
Savile once described himself in a newspaper interview as “the boss of Broadmoor” and in 1989 said he was responsible for the freeing of 60 patients and intended to introduce “mixed sex wings” so patients could fall in love with each other.
Following Savile’s appointment at Broadmoor, Alan Franey, an administrator who spent 10 years working at Leeds General Infirmary, also began work on the same taskforce, with progress to be reported to Mrs Currie…
Mr Franey insisted his friendship with Savile did not help him to get the job on the taskforce, and that he later got the job as general manager of Broadmoor through open competition.
If you were responsible for appointing an interim board to manage a secure mental hospital that housed the most vulnerable and the most insane, would you appoint someone with zero qualifications or relevant experience, no track record of relevant achievements and no references? If that person threatened or blackmailed you in any way, or implied the will to blackmail anyone else, could you find a way to deal with the blackmail? If you were the Health Minister and this person’s accusations of financial mismanagement of a site you were responsible for would cause you some political and professional workload, could you possibly deal with it as part of the job? Would you succumb to blackmail that, decades later, you yourself described as “blackmail” in third person terms?
At what point would you forget the details of being blackmailed and write “Attaboy,” then remember the guy’s “job application” as intriguing?
Did Currie govern by fiat?
Edwina Currie - A Minister who gave a nonce control over the mentally vulnerable and criminally insane by ministerial decree, possibly as a result of giving in to political blackmail of no real threat.
Subsequently, Britain determined - by a recruitment process - Jimmy Saville to be the most suitable applicant for the public position of General Manager of Broadmoor Secure Mental Hospital. How’s that for a meritocracy? Or does that just mean Britain had a major mental health skills shortage at the time?
Do you now feel like you’re taking crazy pills?
Here’s two clips of Jimmy Saville’s behaviour. Do you think he committed offences on camera? In the second clip, he was on live TV. What kind of physical interaction causes a woman to scream out and jump a foot away from the other party, on live TV where self-consciousness, compliance and conformity are at maximum? Would the BBC have become aware of offences by virtue of having been there and recording or broadcasting the events?
Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It were the programmes relating to which victims were most frequently assaulted (with 19 victims being assaulted in relation to Top of the Pops and 17 in relation to Jim’ll Fix It).
Dame Janet Smith
The BBC is in over its head and always has been
Sir Jimmy Saville OBE KCSG, Stuart Hall OBE (annulled) and Rolf Harris CBE (annulled) were long term BBC employees and rumoured (Saville) and convicted (Hall & Harris) predatory repeat sex offenders.
British establishment nonces who were all sheltered and enabled by the BBC, via taxpayer funds
What is admitted is that the BBC as an institution knew about, enabled and failed to intervene in the offences of those convicted. However, Dame Janet Smith wants you to believe that, through her careful analysis of BBC documents and employees either admitting or denying what they knew, she is capable of saying for certain that the BBC didn’t know because she said so, even though it’s clear that loads of people in the BBC knew and tolerated paedophilia, and sexual abuse of children and adults, thereby aiding and abetting the perpetrators. None of those whom Dame Janet Smith determined to have known have faced justice for aiding and abetting or criminal negligence.
Top of the Pops… introduced into the labyrinthine Television Centre a substantial number of teenage girls… unsupervised. They could make contact with visiting groups and their support teams and all sorts of BBC staff. Those girls were at real risk of moral danger. I cannot think that it was acceptable for the BBC as a public service broadcaster to run a programme which effectively provided a ‘picking up’ opportunity.
The impression that I have from… Minutes and… memoranda I have seen was that no one within the BBC seemed to consider the possibility that the News of the World articles might have lifted the lid off a true state of affairs at Top of the Pops. I do not think that they treated the Top of the Pops allegations with the seriousness they deserved. There is no hint of any concern that some of the young audience would be impressionable and star-struck and would be vulnerable to the advances of anyone (including such people as stand-ins, photographers or roadies) who had acquired a superficial glamour by virtue of association with the programme. On the contrary, the concern within the BBC seems to have been to dampen down any adverse publicity and to ensure, so far as possible, that any sexual contact taking place in connection with the show would be consensual because the girls would be over 16. In my view, …when they knew of Claire McAlpine’s death, the BBC should have undertaken a thorough investigation of what went on during and after Top of the Pops. The focus of this should have been to establish what ought to be done to protect the young people who attended the show. This was not the responsibility of the police; they were there to investigate possible criminal behaviour. The BBC’s responsibility was much wider than that. But the BBC’s reaction was limited in effect to problems of ticketing, admission and policing the age limit.
These circumstances and the way the BBC’s culture has been variously characterised by those inside it and investigating it point to a criminally complicit organisation that is also criminally negligent, with the power and proven will to refuse to investigate itself and also remain immune when a rigged “investigation” occurs. It was claimed that Stuart Hall was well known for taking children into his dressing room for sex and no one did anything, for example. This is just tip of the iceberg stuff. Hall claimed he was not guilty of any offences and made a public statement to that effect. As soon as he got into court he pleaded guilty and served a pitifully short sentence for multiple counts of indecent assault against children.
See what the behaviour of a pathologically criminal, paedophilic liar looks like in his “before” appearance in a Channel 4 segment. Then listen to Channel 4 relay his statement after he pleaded guilty.
According to the Manchester Evening News “a BBC inquiry found Hall was able to abuse girls as young as ten at the corporation between 1967 and 1991 because of he was seen as ‘untouchable’ status.” This applied to others including Saville and was part of the BBC’s culture, as described in Dame Janet Smith’s Report. Culture is discussed extensively and is specifically highlighted as a key contributory factor in Saville’s and Hall’s crimes.
If the BBC is a criminal organisation and may still be depending upon the conduct of its employees and the internal knowledge of and culture around that conduct, does it deserve to be funded via taxation or at all?
British citizens should cease paying money to an organisation that has, by enabling the largest amount of 20th century sexual offences in the public history of a single British institution, proven itself corrupt and criminally complicit in a litany of heinous sex crimes.
The co-mingling of British containment operations and Cognitive Warfare?
Everything described so far ran in parallel and variously overlapped. If one looks at just the CIApedia page of Jimmy Saville one will find a list of Allegations during his lifetime, going back to 1958. The list only references a handful of allegations and investigations, all of which are said to have suffered a lack of evidence. Compare this lack of evidence in his lifetime to what has been said about and pinned on him posthumously, without trial or presentation of proof, by the BBC report, media and police. Dame Janet Smith alone states Saville had 72 victims via the BBC.
Of the 72 victims, 57 are female and 15 are male. 21 of the female victims were under 16 and 36 were 16 and over; 13 of the male victims were under 16 and two were sixteen and over;
Eight victims were raped (six female and two male) and one female victim was the subject of an attempted rape;
47 victims were the subject of indecent/sexual assault excluding rape (34 female and 13 male);
Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It were the programmes relating to which victims were most frequently assaulted 53 (with 19 victims being assaulted in relation to Top of the Pops and 17 in relation to Jim’ll Fix It);
The majority of victims (44) were assaulted in the 1970s, with 10 in the 1960s and 17 in the 1980s.
If everyone always knew what Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall were why did no one step up or report them to the police? Dame Janet Smith wants you to believe it was internal and external culture, the zeitgeist, a socially widespread unwillingness to believe children’s claims to have been abused, and a power borne out of status that protected them.
Few people are recorded to have gone after Saville, Hall and Harris while Saville was alive. Saville is posthumously accused of racking up at least 200 victims (some improbable press rumours went as high as 1000). As a result of the furore surrounding him, British police mounted at least 12 operations under Operation Hydrant, with massive scope to investigate historic sexual abuse in Britain and Jersey. It was under the umbrella of Operation Yewtree that Hall and Harris were investigated. Through Operation Hydrant et al the police actively encouraged victims to come forward, opening the floodgates on allegations.
In May, the Hydrant team released figures that revealed police across the country are investigating more than 1,400 men – including 261 high-profile individuals – over allegations of historical child abuse.
There was enough evidence to convict both Hall and Harris on many charges of indecent assault, despite the fact that the crimes had been committed decades before the trials. Enough shit was thrown at both Hall and Harris for some of it to stick, and they were purportedly less prolific offenders than Saville was alleged to have been. Harris pleaded not guilty and Hall pleaded guilty (to indecent assault; Hall denied committing rape). On a statistical basis, if it was possible to achieve their convictions with less allegations, why wouldn’t Saville have been convicted for at least some of his crimes if a quarter or half of his victims came forward before he died?
Why wasn’t Operation Yewtree launched in 2007/8 when Saville was alive and accused of crimes? What changed between then and 2012, apart from Saville’s death? Dame Janet Smith wants you to believe that cultural change is a fundamental factor, especially when it comes to the BBC. But Saville, Hall and Harris had all been out of the BBC for ages by 2007/8, were not “protected” by being active stars of a paedophile-protecting BBC - it had better policies and practises by then - and everyone knew what Saville was, didn’t they? Deep down, they always had.
Cyril Smith’s record and the number of accusations made against him while he was alive is the spanner in the works for Dame Janet Smith. He was powerful, political, public, wealthy, and protected. Despite that, 144 children and/or families went to the police about Smith’s abuse of children. It was only active protection and cover ups that kept things away from Smith, not a lack of public will to report him.
I don’t believe that the BBC had a more protective and exclusionary effect on every single Saville, Hall, Harris et al victim than the forces that protected Smith. Smith’s guardian demons couldn’t stop complainants going to the police and filing reports with the police, they could only discourage or stop progression of the complaints. The victims of BBC employee abuse would have gone to the police, not made complaints to the BBC. If you’ve been raped by Jimmy Saville you don’t ring up his producer, you eventually dial 999 or head to the local nick when you muster up the strength and decide to report him. I believe that there are many factors in play and people will have been “discouraged”, afraid, and variously affected by the factors may cite, but the contrast between Smith and Saville’s complaints record (irrespective of a cover up) is simply ignored and unexplained.
Our Nonce Up The Back Benches. A 20th century Baron Harkonnen.
These police operations had various outcomes. In simple terms, one can consider there to have been two public arms of investigation: a media arm and a political arm.
Regarding the media arm, Yewtree’s scope included abuse committed by people in the media sphere including Hall, Harris and other BBC employed celebrities. These operations also investigated and named other media figures who were acquitted, found not guilty and also tried in cases that collapsed, or had investigations ceased for lack of evidence and/or possible procedural errors. Of the media figures convicted, practically all of them were BBC employees.
Regarding Operation Hydrant’s political arm, other police operations concerned accusations that a powerful paedophile ring had committed child sexual abuse and murder at Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square, as well as crimes committed at Grafton Close Children’s Home. These allegations involved British politicians.
As well as Sir Edward [Heath] and Lord Bramall, the other members of the “paedophile ring” included, Labour Peer, Lord Janner, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan ,the late Maurice Oldfield, the former head of MI6, the late Sir Michael Hanley, former director of MI5, General Sir Hugh Beach and another man who cannot be named for legal reasons.
None of the political operations resulted in cases being brought against any politician. In the case of Grafton Close Children’s Home, one defendant died before trial and the other, a Priest, was found guilty. No connection between them and any paedophile ring was demonstrated. All of the “political” abuse came up short largely because: a primary witness was tried as a liar who perverted the course of justice while; another made claims for which no evidence could be found; a key witness, Carole Kasir, was found dead of an insulin overdose at age 47, in 1990. Police errors and procedural failings played a part in some investigations in both the media and political arms running aground.
The vast majority of the (rumoured) most heinous sexual crimes of the era commonly referred to as "Britain’s period of historic sexual abuse” are largely embodied within what has now become the formal Jimmy Saville mythos. A dead man who could never defend himself and has never been tried is now the worst sex offender in Britain, yet the least investigated, by virtue of the number of posthumous allegations levelled at him and believed as fact. Despite admitted police operational failings, a few other paedo blokes were also convicted, so that draws a line under Britain’s historic paedo problem and tells us that it wasn’t half as bad as anyone thought although “lessons have been/must be/will be learned”. Historic abuse was confined to the anomalous Jimmy Savile and a few other, less prolific paedos. Meanwhile, Cyril Smith, who was accused 144 times and actually protected by the state while alive, is not Britain’s most prolific paedo and child abuser, even though there was more to suggest he might have been.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that I am suggesting Saville is either innocent and falsely accused, or less than what he is accused of being, or that this is any defence of Saville. It is nothing of the sort. What I am wondering is whether Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith both served, posthumously, a containment vessels into which most of a nation’s concerns about the historic prevalence of paedophilia were directed.
The greater part of Britain’s notional historic child abuse has been lumped on Saville. Smith isn’t the one who persists in the nation’s psyche because the press concentrated on Saville. Neither man was tried or convicted. Saville’s “reputation” combined with his positions implicated the BBC and the government but nothing happened to either despite admissions of complicity. Smith’s litany of accusations, which included membership of a powerful paedo ring alleged in the 1980s, were repeatedly shut down by the state. This implicated the police, MI5 and a council in a massive cover up, yet nothing happened to them. The few living men who were convicted of historic abuse were, in comparison to Saville and Smith, relative small fry. The handful of men convicted off the back of Operation Hydrant look like fall guys and scape goats to me. None of them are supposedly connected, despite most being BBC employees. The police effectively trawled for people to come forwards and pretty much accepted as fact anything anyone said about Saville (acknowledged in formal reports).
What Britain’s historic child abuse investigations didn’t do was dredge up anything about PIE, Hayman, Slade etc or possible connections between them and Operation Hydrant’s scope, even though Hayman was an MI6 spy amongst other things and MI5 protected Smith. Nor did it establish any direct connections between any of those investigated or convicted. Saville, Hall and Harris were all independent of each other and of the other convicted paedophiles, even though their BBC employment is a common factor. There was no paedophile ring of any kind unearthed by any of the police’s massive operations. The investigations also failed to discuss Operation Ore, which ran from 1999, or the long list of known corrupt or criminal police officers who permeate the Metropolitan Police and other forces, too may of whom cannot or have not been sacked.
Timebound propaganda?
Operation Yewtree produced a report, Giving Victims a Voice. It has been effectively deleted from the internet. One has to get it from the Wayback Machine.
Giving Victims A Voice Yewtree Report Pdf Wdf93652
There is an odd first “learning outcome” in this report regarding Saville’s alleged offending:
Hundreds of people have now given accounts of being abused by him and police have police taken the unusual step of presenting their uncorroborated accounts, when taken together, as compelling evidence of similar facts. This is a potential watershed - a growing number of victims of non-recent sexual abuse now have confidence that that they will be taken seriously by the authorities when in the past they did not.
The admission that all unverified claims have been considered as fact by the police when it comes to Saville is acknowledged as unusual, then hailed as something good because now everyone with an uncorroborated claim has been “taken seriously”. This struck me as odd, given that these are criminal matters of national concern relating to a deceased person. The little matter of proof and where the burden of proof lies seems to have been done away with.
In the course of researching this article I found out I wasn’t the only one to feel this way. Frank Furedi in Spiked described Yewtree as “more propaganda than police investigation”.
Yewtree was never simply about investigating and fighting crime. From its inception, Yewtree was more like a propaganda campaign or a moral crusade devoted to the task of sending out an officially sanctioned message.
In the public mind, a criminal inquiry is associated with responding to an unlawful act, investigating the deed, finding the culprit and the necessary evidence required to gain a conviction… Operation Yewtree was different:…Its principal aim, rather, is to construct crimes through soliciting allegations of sexual abuse committed decades and decades ago.
In a dramatic departure from the legal traditions associated with due process, Giving Victims a Voice decided to break with the practice of treating an accusation of abuse as an allegation and instead represented it as a de facto truth. The report’s authors took it upon themselves to define accusers as ‘victims’ rather than ‘complainants’. Moreover, they decided not to regard ‘the evidence [complainants] have provided as unproven allegations’. The supplanting of the phrase ‘unproven allegation’ by the term ‘evidence’ represents an extraordinary change to the carefully calibrated terminology associated with the due process of the law. Now, the mere assertion of victimisation is all that is required to gain the status of a victim. This implied rebranding of an untested allegation into evidence all but relieves the accuser of the burden of proof.
In general, I am inclined to agree with Furedi’s observations, although he dismisses UK Satanic ritual abuse as largely fantasy, despite significant numbers of convictions. Furthermore, I believe that the juxtaposition of public perception against due legal process was a deliberately manufactured, amplified and exploited circumstance via which collective perception is being profoundly manipulated in a co-ordinated manner by most levels of civil society and the body politic.
Put in simple, colloquial terms, “feelz trumps facts”. However, I am not saying that I discount what are said to be massive historic shortcomings in child protection and the handling of sex crimes. I do however suspect that these issues are being opportunistically used to change society in line with the pre-existing objectives of minority interest groups using identifiable tactics and methods.
On the one hand, sex crimes need to be dealt with equitably, better than in the past, in ways that are effective in today’s offence landscape. Within such efforts to change, one should expect degrees of over-reaction or over-compensation and oscillatory efforts to establish better overall culture and processes.
On the other, one must remember the past and identify all of its lessons. This involves being able to find patterns and take a systemic view that joins concepts and circumstances together. One must also retain a healthy degree of scepticism and cynicism given the known, admitted levels of historic corruption that will not have simply died out or gone away.
The PIE may have gone cold, but it didn’t get thrown out.
In Part 2, I’ll start to lay out what I see as the evolution of the Paedophile Information Exchange’s agenda and what it looks like today.
To close, here’s a 2018 short made for the Adult Swim show “Off The Air - Sound”.
Watch it then contemplate the following top listed comments:
Man, the Silent Hill reboot looks pretty wild.
Love it Mike! Absolutely love the aesthetic.
This is the kind of shit Hideo Kojima would most probably do in Death Stranding.
I love that the babies actually like it and the pyramid heads are actually concerned for their well-being since the one takes the time to comfort it.
this was fucking rad man.
"So what instrument do you play," "its complicated."
POSTSCRIPT
They say “never meet your heroes.” Stinson Hunter was by no means my hero, but he took an active and seemingly effective (enough) stance on something and actually provided a form of leadership that demanded effort, thought and various degrees of risk.
Today, I randomly crossed online paths with him. In looking in to the Lucy Letby case I have become rapidly convinced that there is a very high chance, if not certainty, that she has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. An article outlining will follow, although the substance is from the work of others. Letby’s case points at something else, not the mechanics of who might be a murderer or institutionally culpable/incompetent/negligent.
What I instantly saw online was the same mental mechanism employed as in Covid, Ukraine and almost every major event: what some characterise as Problem Reaction Solution. This time, it was leading to a form of mob rule solution (see upcoming article on this). Once aware of the shortcomings of the trial and evidence, I set about injecting references to the material into tweet streams that castigated Letby in the hope that some difference could be made (crazy, I know). I also searched for #LucyLetby and #LucyLetbyTrial and began scanning the outpourings. They were largely in line with the media villification and castigation narrative that had instantly and co-ordinatedly gone into overdrive. Randomly, I saw Stinson Hunter (blue check verified, although could be staking fake claim to the name) in the list who’d said:
And finally he told me to “Kill Yourself”, thinly veiled. I actually had to look up the meaning of “KYS” as I’ve not been subjected to much online trolling and such vociferous and toxic attack, as I generally don’t use SocMed until very recently. I informed him of this article and the praise I had given him, and await further self-abuse instructions.
Good job Stinson Hunter or Keiron Parsons was never a hero of mine, or I might be very upset. If I was less resilient I might be upset by the nature and content of his vicious and unwarranted attacks. Based on the analysis by
and Mark McDonald, I’m fairly certain that should Letby mount an appeal that is adequately resourced, a mistrial/retrial may result, or miscarriage of justice be determined. The problem is, this is not just about Lucy Letby. This is about something far, far bigger: the entire NHS as a system, culture and group of individuals with interlocking self-serving interests. It’s also about criminal negligence, recklessness, malicious prosecution, unsound processes, unsound practises and scape goating. I, in trying to flag this to random people including Parsons, have encountered knee jerk toxic hatred. Stinson Hunter must be deeply damaged.
At best, a sort of anti-hero. I hope he has found a greater and better calling than the pursuit of paedophiles, judging by the lack of activity. Such things are known to be costly and damaging to anyone involved and he may have started from a difficult place to begin with.
Then again, I could have really just fucking annoyed him with my tone.
Who knows?
Kieron, go fuck yourself and thanks for all the fish.
An excellent dive into an important topic that shouldn't be avoided.
'Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story' is a must view but its a pity that ' Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island: Garenne' never got the same attention.
An excellent dive into an important topic that shouldn't be avoided.
'Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story' is a must view but its a pity that ' Dark Secrets of a Trillion Dollar Island: Garenne' never got the same attention.
Sorry, couldn't finish reading the article. It's too much to take.