As Godfather to Prince William, heir to the British throne, Prince Charles chose his close friend and adviser Laurens van der Post. A paedophile.
Van der Post raped a 14 year old girl who had been given into his care for the sea voyage from South Africa to London. He then installed her in a flat in London as his mistress, but abandoned her when she became pregnant age 15 (though he sent a monthly payment). She was not the only one. The victim later stated that van der Post was “sick” and “he knew how to pick his victims”.
In a sycophantic authorised biography of then-Prince Charles written thirty years ago, Jonathan Dimbleby wrote that “for Prince Charles there was a missing dimension”, that he felt his life lacked a spiritual awareness. At age 25 Charles sought out Van der Post after reading his books, and Van der Post became his spiritual Guru. Charles continually sought his advice and absorbed his mystic teachings. Not only is Van der Post William’s Godfather, he gave marriage counselling to Charles and Diana and was a frequent guest at Highgrove, Sandringham and Balmoral. On his death Charles initiated the Van der Post Memorial Lectures, held inside St James’s Palace.
There is a question which will run throughout this article, which is how much did people know? In the 1970s and 1980s it was not public knowledge that Van der Post was a paedophile. But then Charles was not the public. Then, as now, if somebody becomes very close to the heir to the throne with frequent access to Royal palaces, they are going to be under close investigation by the security services.
I find it wildly improbable that the security services did not find out about Van der Post’s predilection for young girls and that he had been paying the expenses of an illegitimate daughter originally fathered on a young teenage mother. There is also the question of Van der Post’s wider lies. It is possibly neither here nor there that in fact Van der Post had only ever spent a fortnight with The Bushmen of the Kalahari when he penned his famous book, full of lies and plagiarism.
But that he was actually a Lieutenant (and at times acting Captain) rather than a Lieutenant Colonel as he claimed, would have been instantly discovered. It is worth noting here that Van der Post’s famous military memoir, which became the film Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence starring David Bowie, was massively embellished, not just in terms of his rank.
The Royalist defence of Charles’ associations rests, rather peculiarly, on the claim that any huckster and paedophile can just get entry to the Palace inner circle without any checks. That is just not true. What appears to be true is that paedophilia was treated as a peccadillo.
Before Van der Post, the man credited by all biographers as the greatest influence in shaping Charles’ character was his great uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten. Born in Austria as Prince Louis of Battenberg, Charles can hardly be blamed for Mountbatten, who was thrust upon him as a child.
I hope not too literally.
Mountbatten was a paedophile, which was an open secret in upper class society – including the diplomatic service – long before his death. He benefited from the lifetime protection of the inner Royal circle, which was absolute in his lifetime. It has only become mainstream acknowledged in the past very few years.
That is deliberately phrased as “acknowledged”, not “knowledge” – there was not a Fleet Street Editor in 50 years who did not know; they just did not publish it. Mountbatten’s paedophilia was fuelled by his access to underprivileged children, from New Delhi to Rabat to Kincora Boy’s Home.
Mountbatten spent more time with Charles in his childhood and early adulthood than Charles’ own parents did, including encouraging and coaching him to have as much sex with as many “non-marriageable” girls as possible, and providing a venue for it in his homes. After he died Charles said, “Life will never be the same now that he is gone”. It is not a stretch to think that Van der Post – whom he first met four years before Mountbatten’s death – filled the emotional void.
A 1944 FBI dossier described Mountbatten as “a homosexual with a perversion for small boys”. This was two years before his appointment as Viceroy of India, where the open debauchery of the Mountbattens was an open secret in high-level Indian society.
It is worth noting that in this period his military aide-de-camp was one Willie McRae. I have always believed that the murder of McRae by the British state was related to his knowledge of Mountbatten and elite paedophile rings: in this context McRae’s ties with Irish Nationalists may be relevant, as they assassinated Mountbatten over the abuse at Kincora.
In Mountbatten’s case there is no doubt at all that the security services knew all about his paedophile, and covered for him.
So at the death of van der Post in 1996, Charles had lost two men he viewed, exclusively, as guides and spiritual mentors, and from whom he took the most intimate personal device. There is nobody else who fits this description. Both were extremely vicious and calculating paedophiles, shielded by class privilege from the consequences. So, in 1996, to whom did Charles turn as his new “mentor”?
Jimmy Savile was introduced to a 17-year-old Charles in 1966 by Mountbatten, who vouched for him. The official story is that Mountbatten had met Savile through military veteran fundraising.
You can believe that was the primary shared interest of two prolific paedophiles, if you so please.
Savile cultivated the relationship long-term, and by the 1980s was corresponding assiduously with Charles, which continued for over 20 years. Savile was yet another person to whom Charles turned for marriage counselling. In scores of letters, it is always Charles seeking Savile’s advice and adulating him. There is no record of Charles using the word “mentor” to describe his relationship with Savile, but Diana literally stated that Savile was a “sort of mentor” to Charles.
I presume I do not have to explain that Savile was throughout this period one of the most prolific paedophiles in British history. It is widely believed the royal cachet helped to protect him from prosecution. A huge amount was known to the police, to BBC managers and to various other branches of the British establishment, but Savile was untouchable.
In 2000 Charles constructed a chapel at his home at Highgrove, and a stained glass window in it commemorates Laurens van der Post. Before that window, Charles kneeled for long prayer vigils with his new spiritual guide, Bishop Peter Ball – who was also a friend of Jimmy Savile. It was Savile who introduced Ball to Charles.
Rather like Epstein, Ball was a known paedophile who had got off the first time without incarceration. He had, in 1993, accepted a police caution for a ceremony in which he had forced a 17-year-old novitiate, Neil Todd, to kneel naked in the snow for hours, whipped him, and then forced him to perform a sex act. The police also investigated at that time numerous other allegations, including two very similar ones.
The decision to caution was taken on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service. As the Independent Inquiry into Child Abuse Report 2022 primly noted (p.378):
The first report on the Anglican Church investigation – The Anglican Church Case Studies 1. The Diocese of Chichester 2. The Response to Allegations Against Peter Ball Investigation Report – was published in May 2019. It considered the Diocese of Chichester, where there were multiple allegations of child sexual abuse, and whether there were inappropriate attempts by people of prominence to interfere in the criminal justice process after Bishop Peter Ball was first accused of child sexual offences.
I cannot, though, identify the passage referred to of the Diocese of Chichester Report.
Yet immediately after this, and for the next 17 years, Charles provided Ball with rather splendid rent-free accommodation on Charles’ estate. Ball was suspended by the Church of England as a priest and, astonishingly, Charles asked him to officiate at services and perform the Eucharist at his personal chapel in Highgrove, as reported in the Church Times. Ball was frequently in his company and was a personal guest at Charles’ 2005 wedding to Camilla.
In 2015, Charles gifted Ball £20,000. This was said to be simply a friendly gesture – exactly why is unclear. Charles is very definitely not known for personal generosity.
In 2015, Bishop Ball was finally convicted of 12 horrific instances of sexual abuse of boys and young men, all under the guise of religious ritual. Prince Charles put out a public denial that he had interfered in the 1993 decision not to prosecute. My surmise is that he had not done so directly, but rather let it be known through others. That is how it works.
The BBC actually reported that:
Ball’s court case heard that a member of the royal family – who has never been named – was among a host of public figures who supported him when he avoided charges in 1993.
The article goes on to carry this extremely over-specific and narrow denial from the Crown Prosecution Service:
The Crown Prosecution Service has publicly stated that it had neither received nor seen any correspondence from a member of the Royal Family when Ball was under investigation in 1992–93.
Note this very deliberately does not rule out a word in the ear at a function, a phone call, or – as it would be done – getting a friend known to be close to Charles to give the message.
Charles in fact in 1997, two years after his police caution, told Ball that he would directly intervene against Ball victim Neil Todd. “I will see off this horrible man if he tries anything again,” Charles wrote to Ball.
Todd did not live to see Ball ultimately convicted. He committed suicide in 2012. This was convenient for Ball, but there were plenty of other victims who testified in 2015.
I have no doubt the Royal Family will have known about Uncle Louis’s sins – he had an official entourage and was plugged in to the system. The immediate civil servants and close protection officers always know everything. I have already explained why I do not believe van der Post’s paedophilia was unknown. That goes double for Savile – about whom authorities had a huge amount of knowledge, but whose royal connections were a key part of his protection.
While there is no doubt whatsoever Charles knew about Bishop Peter Ball, Ball’s royal circle protection appears to have broken the surface.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not know any paedophiles – but none of us can be absolutely certain we do not. Of one thing, however, I feel extremely confident. The four most-valued advisers in my life, the people whose advice I have most craved and to whom I have turned in times of crisis, are not all paedophiles. I should be astonished if any of them were.
You just can’t have your four closest non-official life guides as paedophiles by accident. You just can’t. It has been put to me that Charles, by nature of his role, knows vastly more people than ordinary folk. That may or may not be true (there is a counter-argument about privilege and protection). But if it were true, it does not improve things. If there is a much larger-than-normal pool from whom Charles could have chosen, it makes it even weirder he chose four prolific paedophiles.
To be clear, prolific paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour.
What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class. People who have much more power and wealth than the rest of us, have the ability (rightly or wrongly) to get attractive adult consenting partners more easily. So why do they, apparently in disproportionate numbers, seek to prey on the young and defenceless?
It is more than time we got rid of the Medieval system of monarchy. That will not solve the corruption of corporate interests controlling the state, or redress the appalling inequality of wealth. It will not even do much to end elite class paedophilia. But as one clear demonstration of the rotten nature of British society, the tale of the King’s four paedophile mentors is extremely instructive.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJZD9USbM8
In “Jerry Building” by Jonathan Meades, he remarks apropos a nazi architect he’s mentioned, that he’s Charlie’s favourite architect….
See also Charles Windsor’s friendship with John Michell, the raving follower of the ultra-fascist Julius Evola and author of “The Hip-Pocket Hitler”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmv-1mebbHo
Jerry Building part 3 Léon Krier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Krier
Gleichschaltung.
The term needs to be defined. Is a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children? Or someone who sleeps with people under the legal age of consent?
Very dodgy history for Charles, and noticeable that they all seem to have introduced each other to him, and it makes it quite clear that Andrew is being punished for being caught and not for anything he did. But I’m not sure all these sexual abusers are rightly called paedophiles. Maybe ask Chris Morris.
Not sure “punished” is the right word for what has happened with Andrew Windsor. Didn’t his mother pay off Victoria Giuffre with money she’d stolen from taxpayers?
Latest news is “someone” may have sorted him out a refuge in the UAE, a “country” run by a regime with which the Windsor family has close connections. What a coincidence. (There is no way that any of the despots there would want to upset the British monarch. Help him out, though – now that would be different. I wonder what plane will fly Andrew Windsor there. He’ll be hoping he doesn’t get Prigozhined.)
She got far more money out of Lloyds Names than out of taxpayers, so it is likely that Virginia´s money came from them.
What was the Lloyd’s connection?
I know she was patron of the Chartered Insurance Institute, the insurance scammers’ professional public relations body “dedicated to building public trust in the insurance and financial planning professions”.
Lloyd’s probably handles its own image though, or a different agent does.
Even seasoned City-based financial scammers detest Lloyd’s. Anyway what you are referring to?
Also Lloyd’s okays many filthy rich people’s security arrangements.
Asbestosis claims.
Knowing what was coming Lloyds agents fanned out across the US recruiting new Names. The number of Names increased fivefold. Ten years later those Names learned that they had signed a contract which stipulated ¨English jurisdiction¨. They also learned that in 1982 Parliament had passed Lloyds own Act. Long story short, they were cheated.
An SEC investigation was about to get underway when John Major went to Camp David in 1991 and convinced George Bush to scupper the probe. (Not very much later Major was caught interrogating Home Office files in a search for dirt on Clinton. Clinton never forgave him and delayed the Irish peace process until after Major left office.)
¨Names were bilked of at least $23.8 billion for just the years 1988 through 1992¨ (Time Europe February 21, 2001)
So, much much more than stolen from taxpayers.
Lapsed Agnostic has given us a definition (see yesterday’s post at 19:38 on page 1) and so answered your very pertinent question.
Good article Craig- to which I respond with an answer and a question.
“People who have much more power and wealth… have the ability… to get attractive adult consenting partners more easily. So why do they… seek to prey on the young and defenceless?”
I think you’ve answered your own question. Some people are mainly turned on by the absence of consent, and the huge imbalance of real power which makes consent almost meaningless to them. The consensual BDSM scene would not interest them as that is about role play- everything stops as soon as the safeword is uttered. There is also the thrill of breaking what in modern Western society is the ultimate taboo. Plus the intense bond created by shared secrets.
People who love power are obviously more likely to seek it, and do whatever that takes to rise to the top. And people who are gifted power by hereditary right, inevitably come to see themselves and their own kind as almost a different species to the rest of us, and therefore not bound by the same rules.
You claim that “Irish Nationalists… assassinated Mountbatten over the abuse at Kincora.”
Have you any evidence that they killed Mountbatten BECAUSE he was a paedo? If they were that disgusted by paedophilia there were surely easier targets. Gerry Adams’ father and brother for a start, plus the Christian Brothers, the men at Kincora, and any number of Catholic priests.
” You claim that “Irish Nationalists… assassinated Mountbatten over the abuse at Kincora.”
Have you any evidence that they killed Mountbatten BECAUSE he was a paedo? If they were that disgusted by paedophilia there were surely easier targets. Gerry Adams’ father and brother for a start, plus the Christian Brothers, the men at Kincora, and any number of Catholic priests. ”
It’s all conspiracy stuff, PIRA never mentioned it, he was just a prominent member of the Establishment who was slack about his security despite warnings from the Garda and RUC. Whoever did it didn’t care enough much about children, three teenage boys were aboard the boat and two, one a 15 year old Irish boy, were killed. The three men who were convicted over abuse at Kincora survived to die in their beds although they ought to have been much easier ‘hits’ than Mountbatten.
Before this article I had never heard either that Kincora was the reason Mountbatten was killed. I remember hearing Gerry Adams saying that he was a legitimate target because he was part of the British Army. The accusations of paedo abuse may have given the IRA some extra motivitation though.
Mountbatten was in the British navy, not the army. He was the “First Sea Lord”, as was his father before him.
He was born in England, not Austria.
“Mountbatten” is an Anglicisation of “Battenberg”.
Surprised no-one has mentioned his relationship with coup plotting, both in 1968 and 1974.
Having thought about this a little, and done some “research” (that’s perhaps a too grandiose way of putting it!), I feel increasingly uncomfortable with Mr Murray’s confident assertions about Lord Mountbatten’s paedophilia – whether paedophilia in the way defined by Lapsed Agnostic yesterday or as a loose word for sexual intercourse when one participant is considerably older than the other.
One of the most hard-hitting demolitions of Lord Mountbatten in recent times is to be found in Andrew Roberts’ “Eminent Churchillians” (1994). Now it is true that this demolition focusses mainly on the WW2 years and Indian independence but there is no a single mention or hint of sexual abnormality or perversion. It is difficult to believe that Roberts could not have found a little place into which he could slip some such allegation, after all he managed to tell us that Lady Edwina Mountbatten was being fucked by that great luminary Nehru (for reasns of influence rather than pleasure, it seems).
I must say I also have never heard or read a word about Mountbatten’s “paedophilia” and I find it difficult to believe that if true nothing whatsoever would have hit the public domaine. It reminds me a little of the various allegations bandied about concerning Edward Heath, safely after his death of course. Heath was suddenly “exposed” as a homosexual or a child abuser, depending on the flavour preferred, again without the slightest shred of proof. Is it really likely that all the people who would have known, including humble erks like his protection officers, would not have sooner or later sold their stories to the gutter press?
Therefore, I believe that these sorts of assertions about Mountbatten and Heath are really attempts by low-class people or people with some sort of agenda, or people who get a kick out of phantasizing about the sexual lives of others to get in a kick at members of the establishment or, in the case of Mr Murray here, to bolster a view on the peculiarness of the future King’ “gurus”- gurus who were certainly flawed enough without having sexual abuse thrown in their direction.
You are entitled to your beliefs but Mountbatten being a paedophile is more or less accepted fact nowadays.
However it was not when Irish Republicans killed him.
It’s been known for decades that Mountbatten was a prolific user of an MI5/ loyalist paedophile boys home in east Belfast, Kincora. Numerous survivors have testified to historians and independent journalists that they were ferried from Kincora for rape at Mountbatten’s castle in County Sligo. See the works of Andrew Lownie, Chris Moore and David Burke.
Lownie also uncovered FBI files and testimony from Mountbatten’s wartime driver that show he was raping young boys even before his Viceroy of India days.
Do not be surprised that it remains unmentioned by Britain’s high-class genocidal establishment, including figures like the Baron of Belgravia (aka Andrew Roberts). If they want to suppress something it won’t matter how well-documented it is, as we currently see with their non-reporting of the multifaceted British participation in the Gaza Holocaust. On any given issue, they will let you know only what they want you to know. For example, see the latest offerings from Baron Roberts of Belgravia..
https://freebeacon.com/culture/what-makes-hamas-worse-than-the-nazis/
For those who have just surfed on to this website, a good antidote to Roberts may be the works of Ilan Pappe, Miko Peled and the website The Electronic Intifada. In particular, the torture, rape and murder of medical doctor Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh, Head of Orthopaedics at Al-Shifa Hospital at Gaza, in the Sde Teiman detention camp in Israel, must never be forgotten. Not to mention that the allegations of mass rape and murder by Palestinians on 7 October by Israel are a pack of lies, indeed it was Israeli action that was responsible for most deaths that day, and every day since, even after any ceasefire agreements, which the Israelis, unlike their adversaries, are notorious for breaking.
That’s a fascinating (and awful) article. His accounts of rape remind me of the comments of an American Vietnam vet who pointed out that front line troops almost never committed rape as they were far too scared of being killed. Mass rape, as he asserted was invariably carried out by by the follow up military who had no such worries. So the idea that Hamas would indulge in a bit of casual rape while at the same time trying to survive seems fanciful.
Who says paedophilia is the ultimate taboo? What about murder?
See the Lucy Letby case. I haven’t looked at it much, but it seems likely that she may well not have done it, and also that there was an “it”. Logicians here will no doubt realise that if these two premises hold then the proper conclusion is that somebody else did it.
Do we think the said person would be a proletarian, a lowly junior manager, or a person of somewhat higher status?
Certainly quite a lot of (public) resources seem to have been expended on getting Letby. Middle class people love to say there is something wrong with the system (yawn), but this seems to have been deliberate – nothing to do with “systemic failure”. A case of round up the nearest prole? Quite possibly the chief Letby-getter was either the perpetrator or a conscious helper of the perpetrator. Quite possibly too, it turned them on like nobody’s business, framing someone other than themselves. (Nice ol’ world we live in.)
As I said, I haven’t studied this case, but you can be absolutely certain that since it happened in Britain it must have been about class.
It’s particularly suspicious that the idea is being put forward that she didn’t do it but the reason she got prosecuted was that “experts” got their statistics in a twist. Yeah right. As if the only two possibilities are 1. She did it, and 2. No murders happened. Now why would anyone propagandise for THAT?
I can only suggest you read the ‘Eye’s Special Report on the case.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby
It’s a bit long but very comprehensive. There is a growing suspicion that the police decided Letby was guilty before they’d begun their investigation in earnest. “Expert” Dewi Evans’ attitude is extraordinary.
@BrianRed You say yourself that you “haven’t looked at it much.” I have looked at it much, having a personal interest in the case as I was a nurse for many years. I see no evidence that any murders happened. There is however plenty of evidence for gross incompetence by senior doctors and also managers. The management tolerated a situation where raw sewage was leaking from the floor of the SCBU, as was testified by the only expert witness called by the defence, a plumber. The doctors were just out of their depth with some of these exceptionally sick, frail babies. for instance, on one occasion they took hours trying to intubate a baby, eventually gave up and called in a doc from Liverpool, who did the job in minutes.
You’re correct in implying a class aspect. The NHS is very hierarchical, likewise private hospitals which operate on same structures. The prosecution called doctors as expert witnesses, the defence called a plumber. Class again, but also gross incompetence by the defence who I believe had no previous experience in such cases.
Mainly her conviction was down to a better theatrical performance by the prosecution, assisted by the police and media. In cases involving forensic evidence which the jury can’t begin to understand, it comes down to emotional manipulation and ill-informed assumptions about whether the defendant seems a bit odd- as if anyone knows how they would behave if wrongly accused of 13 murders!
It’s good to know that Lucy has some support on the political Left anyway, previously it’s only been from the Right, some of whom see this is a chance to bash the NHS. But of course the same issues happen in private hospitals.
@BrianRed “Who says paedophilia is the ultimate taboo? What about murder?”
Sexual abuse of kids is certainly a bigger taboo than murder. In prison, paedos are segregated for their own protection in VPUs, whereas murderers can be safely accomodated on the ordinary prison wings.
True, but that is because of widespread prejudice, not moral judgment. Some prisoners at least regard murder as no problem – just a man doing what honour or necessity demands. They are admired by many, and respected by more. Hardly the moral view of the public at large.
But “kiddy-fiddling” is presumably not to the average murderer’s taste – not the average criminal of any kind. So they regard the perpetrators as beyond the pale, and fair game.
Obviously, being an Israeli zionist Trump’s all as the ultimate taboo. Who’d want to be identified as one of those disgusting excuses for humanity ?
There will be a subset of the sociopathic elite for whom murder is a prediliction.
I recently read an autobiography by someone who, as a young man in the ’60s, moved in such circles. Two things struck me: one was the casual indifference of the group to members discussing murder for kicks; the other was the complete lack of critical thinking by the author and his Oxbridge educated peers as they followed the hogwash peddled by various charismatic gurus of the time.
Somewhere in my book collection I have a book which describes the debate in Parliament around legalising paedophilia when homosexuality was decriminalised. There was an argument that the swinging sixties and liberated seventies might extend to this aberration. Considering that so many MPs were products of single sex boarding schools the debate was a complex issue.
For the uninitiated the possible existence of such a terrible harm, perpetrated against children, was beyond imagining. Powerful men took children to abuse from right under the noses of their carers and guardians, who were too naive to even think of such a possibility. Children were disbelieved if they tried to disclose abuse by a high status individual.
Now we have Trump’s America reducing the age of consent to 13, to protect high status paedophiles.
Teachers were particularly predatory at that time, but if you didn’t know, you couldn’t imagine it could possibly happen. And the child was labelled a fantasist.
The opening up of debate around the issue brought it into the open. Powerful men went under cover. Children started being believed, and the horror made its way into common knowledge.
This led to better legislative frameworks to enable prosecution of abusers. The Houses of Parliament were also under scrutiny and the files were destroyed by Cameron. This all took time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8BJptvxCl8
^ Tim Fortescue, Tory parliamentary whip, formerly of boarding school and the British colonial service, talking about helping colleagues who’d got themselves into a spot of embarrassment regarding “small boys”.
That debate would be interesting to read in Hansard.
Harriet Harman called active paedophilia (i.e. raping children) a “preference”. But that was before she became an MP.
FWIW the films “Johnny Come Home” are extremely difficult to get hold of… They’re not on Youtube or AFAIAA at any torrent site.
@ Alyson
You write that Trump’s America is reducing (or has reduced?) the age of consent to 13.
Is this law meant to be retrospective/retroactive?
If not, it will do nothing to protect paedophiles of high, medium or indeed low status who “indulged” before the entry into force of that law.
So far as I’m aware, age of consent is a matter for individual US states and varies a bit between them. Trump would have a job on his hands to try to get a significant number of them to change it. As also with getting the required number to agree to a constitutional change allowing him to seek a third term.
See Luis Cunha da Silva @ 7:10pm
Alyson
I just did a search and found the following, posted on August 14th (and most of the results that came up referred to the age of 14):
Rumors of Lowering the Country’s Legal Marriage Age to 14 Debunked — What’s Really Happening
Tahirih Justice Center Public Policy Manager Alex Goyette addresses a harmful rumor being spread on social media: that there is an attempt by the President to use federal power to lower the legal age of marriage to 14 across the country. This is false….
https://www.tahirih.org/news/rumors-of-lowering-the-countrys-legal-marriage-age-to-14-debunked-whats-really-happening/
:
“Now we have Trump’s America reducing the age of consent to 13, to protect high status paedophiles.”
Care to give a reference? I was not able to find any, and almost all references for such debates I found lead me to…the UK! See refs below as the examples.
“Against the Stream: lowering the age of sexual consent“, by Philip Graham, BJPsych Bulletin, Aug 2018, 42(4):162–164.
NB! Though the link goes to NIH, the author is a professor at University College London, UK.
“Russell Brand accuser sparks debate about staggered age of consent” (BBC News, 24 Sep 2023)
“Day of the Girl: why we must debate the age of consent – setting a globally agreed legal age of marriage only deals with half the issue”, by Doortje Braeken (The Guardian, 11 Oct 2012) – archived
Alyson, I checked your claim with Grok. This came back.
No, it is not true that the USA is lowering the age of consent to 13 years. This appears to be a baseless rumor or hoax, similar to recirculated misinformation from past years (e.g., a 2015 false claim about then-President-elect Donald Trump signing such a law). More recently, viral social media posts in 2025 have spread variants of this claim, often tying it to Trump, Republicans, or unrelated bills, but no credible evidence supports it.
Child marriage is still legal in some states in the USA. If under the age of consent, then it requires parental permission. Child brides can be very young. Between 2000 and 2015 there were 51 cases of 13-year-olds getting married, and 6 cases of 12-year-olds getting married. This is just legalized child abuse.
http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/
And the USA is the only country that have not ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child.
You know, this all reminds me of what Gore Vidal wrote about Watergate: that it wasn’t the tip of an iceberg, it was the tip of a glacier. FWIW, Vidal also wrote about “pederasty” at one of the elite schools that he attended as a teenager. Having attended a similar place, I can attest that revelations of relationships that would be euphemistically described as “inappropriate” have been seeping out — decades late — with the force of a reckoning that was looooooong delayed. And it is amazing to watch the real-time reactions of people who were and remain “stakeholders” to use the jargon of corporate HR departments. The sheer lack of empathy and awareness is staggering. The vivid failure of a great many otherwise sensible and decent people — their inclination to look the other way — is a huge part of the problem. That’s where change takes place. Victims need allies. And institutions need accountability. Not image management, not damage control. The monarchy has given evidence of its depraved, sadistic, warped, vindictive soul for a very long time. I wonder what will be the drop that finally makes the bucket overflow.
Yes, they have no empathy whatsoever. They think empathy and feelings are pathetic. These scum don’t even love their own children, and nor did their parents love them. The ruling class aren’t really human beings.
Any leftwing movement in Britain that really wanted to stick it to the ruling class and inhumanity would target the private schools and the monarchy.
Those who want to dip their toe in the water to see what opposition is like could start by never referring to the country Britain as “the UK”, and always calling out any blinkered idiot who does. Or say you are going to the FR on Eurostar next week. If the person asks “What’s the FR?”, say “The Fifth Republic. I thought I’d join you in calling countries after their current political regimes”.
In order to comprehend both why such individuals choose to indulge themselves by sexually predating upon vulnerable others and why they continue to get away with such depraved criminal behaviour, any analytical framework needs to encompass the perpetrator’s childhood history, the social and religious conventions of the class they were born into, the prevailing political and ideological status quo prejudices of the era they lived through and the largely still invisible moral imperatives built into our economic systems. Inotherwords,
it is a complex question with no simple singular answer. However, understanding that predators can not operate without complicity and manipulation of others in their wider social and familial circles and more often than not work in self protecting similar interest groups, like predatory wolfpacks, should be a starting point for any criminal investigator. So, this article, which does just that, is much appreciated.
Although legal in 1967 homosexuality was not excepted in polite society, so that when Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe was accused of the attempted murder of Norman Scott who was threatening to expose their affair, alongside several of his colleagues in the 1970’s the powers that be tried to keep the Thorpe scandal under wraps.
Here is an extreme example of the Judge at the trail. The late Peter Cook does an impression of the Judge in his own inimitable way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
I would be surprised if you don’t know any, Craig. I agree it’s abnormal, but unfortunately it’s not vanishingly rare. I have known at least three convicted, each from different parts of my life, and I don’t think my life is unusual. I am not saying that this affects your main point.
A few years ago I was told to look at the local rag and saw an article about someone who had been given 20 years in a south coast town. He had been sentenced for grooming children with drink and drugs. It took a while before I realised who he was. In the early 90s he was a worker for a Health Authority who was seconded to the place I thought I was managing that housed vulnerable adults…. The systematic despoilation of people’s lives by the fascist ghouls of Care Management was the main reason for me leaving care in 2001 but this later revelation was worse.
Yes, you’re missing an important aspect. It’s not that powerful people are more likely to have these perversions, rather that people with these perversions are found to be suitable to hold positions of power, as they can be controlled. I can’t find the exact quote, but I seem to remember that Charles had said – before Savile’s paedophilia was public knowledge – that the British people will never appreciate the debt that the state owed to Savile.
“t’s not that powerful people are more likely to have these perversions, rather that people with these perversions are found to be suitable to hold positions of power, as they can be controlled. ”
There is, of course that, but it is also the case that paedophilia is much more newsworthy when it occurs amongst the rich, famous and influential. Victims of paedophilia are much less likely to come forward with accusations if all they get out of it is the harrowing experience of suffering the adversarial British justice system, where the counsel for the defence will see it as their duty to rip the plaintiff’s character to shreds.
Well, there’s also the risk taking aspect; the most ruthless individuals in politics and officialdom, often elbow their way to the top, in part, precisely because they’re the ones willing to sanction diabolical acts – when they’re giving orders to slaughter families from situation rooms – it’s hardly surprising many of these people are also addicted to other atypical risky behaviours.
There’s a film, Kill List (2011) that really encapsulates, the scarily dark world these people inhabit. It all seems darkly plausible, especially when you read about real life, ex-special forces sleeping with loaded guns under their pillows. Whether the occult plays any part, I’ve no idea. There is a history of that too though : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club
Hellfire Club was a term used to describe several exclusive clubs for high-society rakes established in Great Britain and Ireland in the 18th Century. The name most commonly refers to Francis Dashwood’s Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe. Such clubs were rumoured to have served as the meeting places of “persons of quality” who wished to take part in socially taboo activities, and the members were often involved in politics. Neither the activities nor membership of the clubs are easy to ascertain. The clubs allegedly had distant ties to an elite society known only as “The Order of the Second Circle”.
Maybe to prove they are so rich and powerful they can afford eating the forbidden fruits? Sort of in the line of the Italian movie Indagine su un cittadino al di sopra di ogni sospetto (1970) – Investigation of a Citizen Under Suspicion [Wiki]
Transcript…( biographer J D F Jones talking)
‘(Laurens van der Post) introduce(d) the prince to Jung’s work and that led to a relationship of more than
19:52
20 years during which I have no doubt whatsoever that
19:57
Lawrence was the single most important influence on Charles’s personal development
20:03
so much so that in 1977 he and Van Der post went to Kenya they were repeating a
20:09
trip young made 52 years earlier which became an important Voyage of self-discovery
20:14
Lawrence was an immense flatterer he deluged him with letters and memoranda
20:20
which were constantly praising this young man he compared him with the finest thinkers
20:26
of our time he assured him that what he had said was full of great wisdom…’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31YHEmdSWU&t=83s
“To be clear, prolific paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour”.
But is it? How can you possibly know that? Mr Murray himself freely admits that “To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not know any paedophiles – but none of us can be absolutely certain we do not”. It’s notoriously difficult to prove a negative. When I was young, I had barely heard of paedophilia and certainly believed that it was a rare aberration. Yet we hear of more and more cases. Is this like “Invasion of the Body-Snatchers”?
“What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class”.
Indeed. There are very many politicians and members of the ruling class – and their associates and hangers-on such as Van Der Post and Jeffrey Epstein. If paedophilia is so attractive to them, how can we know that it is practised only by a small minority?
Incidentally, the word “paedophilia” is truly ludicrous. A better one is badly needed. Strictly, a paedophile is someone who loves children – which, I should hope, includes almost all of us. It’s almost as stupid as “homophobia”, which means “fear of the same”.
Was it such a rare aberration ?
For example, In the 1960/70s when Mr Murray was a very young lad the Who were singing about ‘wicked uncle Ernie’ in the rock opera Tommy, Reg Dwight was all over the tabloids because of alleged rent boys, the Catholics were well known abusers thanks to skits by the likes of Dave Allan and Jimmy Savilles preferences were well known in places like Bournemouth where he had night clubs. Hidden but well known !
That’s a great summary Craig. I was unaware of Van der Prost. I keep trying to open people’s eyes to the real ‘royal’ family. But it’s a difficult path.
You are spot on with so much of your writing.
The aristo-kakistocracy is like a vast, fast-moving, sweaty amoeba – it’s hard to keep up.
Hunter S Thompson had a few theories about the nexus of wealth and depravity.
Tony Greenstein also posted an article on this topic a couple of days ago:
Andrew Was The Tip Of A Royal Iceberg – The Question is Why Hasn’t He Been Prosecuted for Rape & Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice?
Charles Too Covered for a Child Abuser – The Crown & the Monarchy is the Human Face of a Corrupt Establishment
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2025/11/andrew-was-tip-of-royal-iceberg.html
Virginia Giuffre was sexually abused from a young age, by her father. She got a job working for Trump, who recommended her to Epstein and Ghislaine as being exactly the type they could make good use of. Andrew is an arrogant and entitled, self indulgent, fool. She was 17 when he accepted their offer of her services on Epstein Island. He was stupid, and generous, enough to provide her with a huge sum of money, and liberty to write her book. His name is on the cheque. The rest of the big evils have not acknowledged their guilt, and so she has not named them in her book. Their names are however on various hard drives around the world, awaiting the day when they have been prosecuted on other evidence. A car crash involving her editor was preceded by a dash cam recording saying they’re coming, they’re coming, before her car ended up in a ravine and she in a coma.
Whilst everyone is in meltdown over Andrew, they’re not looking elsewhere. Maybe that’s the plan !
“Having ONE paedophile acquaintance may be considered a coincidence; having TWO a misfortune; having THREE is a party to whose invitation one politely but firmly declines; having FOUR is a losing hand.”
Craig,
you will forgive the accuracy, but i remember you said when you went to join the foreign office ,the question of you being partial to an occational drink was raised, the chap interviewing you for the post remarked `its usually little boys are the problem here,not alchohol ‘
Made me laugh.
One can clearly observe patterns in the phenomena of child sexual abuse in the constructs of society where one rises to excercise power over another ,Church,Schools,armed forces ,judicial systems,politics,government,monarchy,and obviously of course ,the foreign office.
I have often wondered that perhaps the phenomena has SOME roots in the observation that this behaviour was not frowned upon in ancient Greece and Rome,this is after all,where our democratic constructs elvolved from.Our great universities where originally founded by religous orders of one persausion or another ,with their thorough grounding in latin and greek.
The UK,it seems to me,alas. does seem to exhibit this phenomena a lot more than other countries.
Which is rather embarrasing,all said.
To deprive a child of their inoccence,for me ,is up there amongst the worst of crimes.
“What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class”. It is possible that pedophilia, like other forms of rape are about domination and subjugation rather than purely a sexual attraction. Politicians and the ruling elite are by their very nature “in it for the power” so that being tied into their sexual preference isn’t a huge leap of the imagination. Either way, they all need to burn, and preferably in this life rather than the next.
It’s funny I just assumed that Charlie was a pedo “because of course he is. All these people are.” and hey presto, I was right.
I try to tell people that we’re ruled by people who brutally and sadistically and habitually rape very small kids and they refuse to believe me.
Why is that?
Probably because it’s not true, Rowan.
What do you call some who hangs around with musicians ? A Drummer.
What do you call some who hangs around with pedos ? A fine upstanding pillar of the monarchy.
Thanks for your reply Steven. Just because someone was friends with people who may have been predatory paedophiles or hebephiles, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they themselves are ‘brutally and sadistically and habitually’ raping very small kids. In any event, to all practical purposes, Bonnie King Charlie does not rule over anyone. The most he can do is refuse to give Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament, which will cause a constitutional crisis that will result in that assent no longer being required.
What do I call someone who hangs around with musicians? Well they used to call them ‘groupies’, and some of them were on the young side, as Trump would put it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix
“In any event, to all practical purposes, Bonnie King Charlie does not rule over anyone.”
Neither does Prince Andrew and nether did Jimmy Saville, so that’s alright then ?
¨Bonnie King Charlie does not rule over anyone¨
Is that so?
Riddle me this
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/11/the-four-mentors-of-king-charles/comment-page-1/#comment-1089215
Thanks for your reply Stevie. Rowan originally wrote: ‘we’re *ruled* by people who brutally and sadistically and habitually rape very small kids’ – a statement for which he or she has provided no evidence. The Royal formerly known as prince has probably done nothing worse than have consensual sex with a 17-year-old prostitute that he didn’t know was a prostitute. I don’t now believe the stuff about the orgy with 8 underage European girls on Epstein Island, not least because she didn’t even mention him being present for that in her manuscript ‘The Billionaire Playboys Club’. Jimmy Savile never had any parliamentary office.
—-
Thanks for your reply John. In the UK, we don’t have a written constitution. The US does, but it’s just some words on some paper, and it’s regularly flouted. For example, hundreds of thousands of US citizens have been convicted of felonies without a grand jury being assembled – that’s unconstitutional, but hardly anyone cares. If King Charles ever tries to assume power, he will soon find out where the real power lies – because while most British people are monarchists, they are not absolute monarchists.
Re-lapsed Agnostic,
Mountbatten Windsor has been sent off to live with Mrs Rochester.
Somehow his crimes are much much greater than the ¨unknowing use of a prostitute¨
And King Charles certainly did assume power. What else did he use to strip his embarrassment of a brother of his titles and so on? Sweet nothings?
You no longer refer to a ¨British Constitution¨and prefer to criticise the American constitution. You point out the ¨unconstitutional¨ actions which nonetheless take place. Can you really not see the irony in what you say?
In Britain you don´t even know when an act is unconstitutional because you have no reference. Said act becomes unconstitutional because somebody (who has sworn an oath to the Windsors) says so. It´s all so circular and self referencing.
The United Kingdom has been an absolute dictatorship since Blair defenestrated the hereditary Lords. They were the last part of the power structure who were independent of the Crown, sitting in their own right independent of Crown patronage. An independent check could never be tolerated.
Thanks for your reply John. AMW is being punished for the ‘crime’ of lying in a TV interview, saying that he had broken off all contact with Epstein in 2010 when recently released emails showed that he hadn’t. Technically, he is still a prince and the Duke of York – he just won’t be referred to as such in official documents. By ‘assume power’, I was referring the power of an absolute monarch, not the power to use letters patent to confer and remove largely meaningless titles.
There’s no irony in pointing out that written, codified constitutions are often not adhered to. It’s also worth remarking that they can be completely torn up and replaced with new ones (see the US state constitutions).
The UK has not been an absolute dictatorship since the Blair ascendency, because at any point a majority of MPs could have voted that they had no confidence in him, so that he could be replaced by someone who wasn’t a deranged lunatic. Unfortunately, they didn’t and as a result, unless some weird things happen, the long-term effects on Britain will be catastrophic.
Britain does have a constitution just not a codified one.
“The United Kingdom has been an absolute dictatorship since Blair defenestrated the hereditary Lords.”
Hereditary lords = democracy? I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The only honest reform of the lords is its abolition but why would Bliar bother, Britain is a republic with a unicameral legislature and he was the executive president.
Squeeth,
With respect, doubly no.
The point is not that the Lords were democratic. The point is that the House of Lords was an independent check on the Executive because they were sitting in their own hereditary right. They were not dependent on Crown patronage like every other part of the power structure. Their replacements, the so called Life Peers are absolutely dependent on the Crown for their position, and of no use as any sort of check on the Dictatorship. I don´t know how old you are, but there were times that the Lords, or perhaps a single Lord, would act in the interests of the country and stick his head over the parapet and take incoming fire. These Life Peers don´t do that. And sometimes the two Houses would disagree, and the little people would get a look in. Not Democracy, for sure, but much better than today.
Then you say ¨Britain does have a constitution just not a codified one.¨
Can you show it to me?
If you follow the usual ¨line to take¨ and tell me that of course the constitution is unwritten, then where does it exist?
If you follow the usual ¨line to take¨ you will tell me it is spread about the statute book, then what is its extent? Where does it begin or end? Who decides what is or is not part of the constitution? What is to prevent the Establishment from simply creating a new ¨constitution¨ whenever it suits? What is to prevent the Establishment from simply lying to the people again and again and again?
Let´s take a contemporary example, that of the Mountbatten Windsor chappie.
About six weeks ago, Virginia´s posthumous autobiography was published. At the same time Washington leaked the killer email showing Mountbatten Windsor had lied egregiously about his Epstein connections, and the game was afoot.
The newspapers were full of speculation about what might happen to ¨Our Andie¨.
He would Lose this. He would Lose that.
We were gravely informed by constitutional experts that the removal of his Duke of York title would require an Act of Parliament, and that the removal of his title as Prince was impossible because he had been borne thus. Do you recall?
Then suddenly, out of nowhere the Establishment acted decisively.
Our Andie would lose the lot. Wow.
King Charles had decided to use his ¨royal prerogative¨ powers and save Parliament´s time for ¨something more useful¨ .
Remember that? Not so long ago.
So where did that come from? Where did the King acquire powers equivalent to or even greater than those of Parliament?
What happened to ¨the Constitution¨? What are these royal prerogative powers, and where do they begin and where do they end?
No. The truth is this. There is no constitution for the United Kingdom.
ALL of the power rests with the King. And he is a nasty dictator causing untold misery to the people.
Parliament is pathetic and is not even allowed to discuss the royal family.
(Probably because every Member must declare ¨I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.¨ before he or she can take up their seat)
Very well said, Mr Cleary.
Andrew is in big trouble and should have kept his mouth shut. Nobody likes a grass.
‘Jeffrey Epstein called former Prince Andrew “a useful idiot,”
According to former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown’s book The Palace Papers’
Privately, Epstein told people that Andrew was an idiot, but – to him – a useful one,” Brown wrote in an excerpt published by The Telegraph .
“A senior royal, even if tainted, is always a potent magnet abroad. Epstein confided to a friend that he used to fly Andrew to obscure foreign markets, where governments were obliged to receive him, and Epstein went along as Andrew’s investment adviser. With Andrew as frontman, Epstein could negotiate deals with these (often) shady players.”
“Epstein made Andrew feel he had joined the big time – the deals, the girls, the plane, the glittering New York world, where he wasn’t seen as a full-grown man still dependent on his mother’s Privy Purse strings or on the harsh pecking order of the Palace,” Brown claimed. ” Andrew was always as oversexed as a boob-ogling adolescent.”
“The privacy of Epstein’s homes was a valuable prerequisite to a prince always trying to avoid Palace censure and the scorn of the press,” she wrote. “On visits to New York, instead of staying as expected at the British consulate, Andrew stayed just five blocks away with Epstein so often, he was given his own grandly decorated guest suite. The sardonic Epstein christened it ‘the Britannica Suite.’”
“Prince Andrew was Ghislaine’s biggest social catch to present to Epstein,” she wrote. “He was easy to entertain and satiate. Andrew, Epstein and Ghislaine became a peripatetic social trio – the Three Musketeers of Lust – showing up together at Ascot, joining a shoot at Sandringham, and stepping out at the Queen’s Dance of the Decades at Windsor Castle in June 2000. Andrew insists that Epstein was there only as Ghislaine’s plus-one – but three months after the Sandringham weekend, in March 2001, there they were again, partying together, this time in London.”
“It is the events of that weekend that would seal the Duke of York’s destiny of descent and disappear him altogether into a lifelong pit of shame,” the excerpt concluded.’
FB
When does guilt by association become reasonable? I’m not close friends with any paedophiles, as far as I know, so the fact that Charles was close friends with at least four active paedophiles is alarming. He’s either very, very forgiving of men who rape chlldren, or he shares their views,
Or he just didn’t know; they forgot to tell him; nobody else told him; he saw their philanthropic successes, as so many did, and was not made aware of what we, with the benefit of hindsight, and robust enough legislation, now know to have been from unacceptable to horrifically predatory, in some examples like Savile, and now means the risk of death at the hands of prison inmates, many of whom were abused as the children of naive and trusting single mothers, because nonces can be and are being prosecuted now.
This chimes with the church of england scandal not long ago, and like the royal family, a decrepid, corrupt institution in this country relying on taxpayer handouts despite huge amounts of wealth. The CofE is older than the royals and they have 26 of their guys in the lords. Morally bankrupt comes to mind, but this is how things work in the kingdom, we can’t forsake supposed ancient traditions and the unentitled ancestral rights to rule that come with it in favour of making the country a fairer place. Westminster can never truly be be reformed if these ‘traditions’ are allowed to live.
Oh hoity toity, young Adrian. Before the Children Act of 1990 children were vilified in Court for having ‘asked for it’ just as women still get slandered in Court today, when they have the audacity to report a rape. The MPs who were up to the worst of it were in a large file which was ‘lost’ by Theresa May, and the investigation’s leadership dismissed. The lesson that power can be abused was slow to learn, and paedophile rings still operate despite so many reports from victims who are deemed ‘unreliable witnesses’.
Those who are unmasked now know they are in big trouble, but for the most part, they ‘pass’ as normal until such time as enough evidence is gathered to bring them in for questioning.
I remember teachers in relationships with pupils, or so it was defined, and the ones whose broom cupboard you needed to avoid, who were not widely known about by most staff or pupils. One of the Rolling Stones started living with the girl he later married when she was 13. Where were the parents, you ask, and did they approve of the ‘relationship’?
“The CofE is older than the royals ”
Hardly, the Church of England was created by Henry VIII, but the royal bloodline goes back to William I.
Think you’re getting confused with the reformation when the CofE no longer accepted the popes authority, before that the institution was catholic/orthodox with the first archbishops ordained in the 7th century.
SleepingDog,
Wow. Thank you. That is tremendously useful.
I’ve just had a quick scan, and something jumped out at me. (page 90)
That struck me as a peculiar definition of ¨waifs¨, so I looked it up
That is what I thought.
So this tells us two things. First, by royal prerogative (the highest power in the Realm), the King has the right to all homeless children. And second, they don´t want us to know this fact, and seek to hide it by defining waifs as ¨valuable animals of a tame or reclaimable nature found wandering and whose owner is unknown.¨
Maybe this explains why it was that the four mentors of King Charles were all paedophiles.
What say you all?
I would not be surprised at all if this is how the Windsors privately justified to themselves bringing their collection of vicious pet nonces into the inner nest. I doubt there is anybody in the modern world who believes more ardently in the royal prerogative than these people. It may even be how ”Sir” and his mum and dad responded when the security services informed them who these four gentlemen, these “gurus”, were.
Our prerogative as English Royals overrides all other laws of man, now be gone.
Since you ask, I should say rather far-fetched, John.
The only democracy in the ME defines anyone who isn’t a member of their deviant clique as animals, so no surprise that monarchy is of the same mindset – and, it’s also a pedo’s paradise !
@John Cleary, we have some idea of how this royal prerogative was used by Elizabeth I who authorised kidnap of boys for sexual exploitation in seedy London theatres for largely male audiences, partly through a case where the distraught father of one schoolboy tried to recover him. Royal impressment powers were not just used to fill the Royal Navy with (temporary but sometimes fatal) slave labour (still legal today).
Queen Victoria may have collected the odd child from around the Empire, Indian boys seemed her type (British sea captains seemed to favour small Black boys).
So it would only have been par for the course if Elizabeth II really did abduct ten children from Kamloops residential school in Canada, but that may just be a conspiracy theory. What is significant, though, is that the Queen never apologised for the atrocities committed against children, who were her subjects, some in Anglican-run schools. Even the Pope apologised! (sort of) Some ‘guardian of infants’.
To all those commentators who perhaps believe that King Charles is surrounded exclusively by Establishment paedophiles and sexual deviants, a question as follows:
do you think that all – or the great majority – of the civil servants both living and dead attached to the King’s Household , ie, his private secretaries, attachés, press officers etc are paedophiles and sexual deviants?
As detailed, it’s not quantity that counts it’s quality. A few in the right places can, and will, cause problems, Charles doesn’t listen to 100s, he just listens to a select few. And those select few can control the subordinates.
But Mr Murray does refer to quantity, does he not? Penultimate paragraph.
I rather doubt that the King’s Private Secretaries were/are subordinate to his “gurus” , so I’m not sure what you mean by “in the right places”. In the “right places” to do what, concretely?
So anyway, to repeat, what’s your opinion about the rather important civil servants in the Royal Household (there’s only a handful you know – probably not more than the number of his gurus) – do you think they might be mostly paedophiles and sexual deviants?
“I rather doubt that the King’s Private Secretaries were/are subordinate to his “gurus””
What about them being subordinate to him, and him being subordinate to his “gurus”?
I imagine the Monarch follows the advice of his civil servants (eg Private Secretaries) when it comes to constitutional practice and matters of state and governance and so he is probably subordinate to them in that respect. He might also be mentally or spiritually subordinate to his “gurus” when it comes to various (or perhaps all?) issues. I suppose that was the thought that made me ask whether people thought that his civil servants were also paedophiles or sexual deviants (or sympathetic to/tolerant of paedophilia or sexual deviancy, if you will).
I would like to make a final comment on this article of Mr Murray’s : an article which has attracted, in a much shorter time, far more comments than his previous article on the not unimportant subject of the Palestine Action tewwawist proscription. Perhaps that is because the previous post was dry (or at least dry-ish) whereas this one is, let us say, much…juicier?
But I inform that I am not a defender of or apologist for paedophilia : my personal view of how to to deal with paedophiles can be found in the New Testament in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2.
Now to the comment. I was trying, after re-reading it several times, to understand what was the objective of the article. The various possibilities could be prospected in the final section, that is, after the detailed sections on the four paedophiles listed. But for reasons of internal and external logic, my own conclusion is that the objective is given in the very last sentence : it is “…one clear demonstration of the rotten nature of British society…”. I would agree that Mr Murray makes a powerful case.
I wonder if Mr Murray would agree that the historical and recent cases of paedophila – indeed predatory paedophilia! – mainly in northern cities and towns in England which have been attracting headlnes and much attention are, taken as a whole, also a clear demonstration of the rotten nature of British society, in that, although the offenders and “consumers” are about as far as one can get from the members of the Establishment, there would appear to be many common elements with Mr Murray’s demonstration (eg, the long-term cover ups by various parties, the reluctance to act, the obstacles being put in the way of a proper inquiry, etc…)?
” Perhaps that is because the previous post was dry (or at least dry-ish) whereas this one is, let us say, much…juicier?”
It’s pretty clear to me that it is because it has allowed an indulgence in fantasies that, though dearly held, have no basis in truth. Such “facts” that are produced are given as axiomatic, with no evidence produced apart from publications that subscribe to the same fantasies, which is like quoting the Bible as evidence that God exists. What is frightening about this is how quickly the concept of “the other” turns into the concept of the subhuman, with the corresponding feeling of freedom to say anything you like, however unpleasant, unlikely and untrue about such people because, after all, they are not really human. Because their skins are not a different colour, it’s not racism, but the thinking and motives behind it are exactly the same. The truth about what really goes on in this country, especially the abuse of power amongst the ruling elite is bad enough; there is no need to exaggerate with lies, that only discredits those revelations that are true.
Tim Davie has fallen as director-general of the BBC. The BBC itself is saying it’s because of some ol’ sh*t to do with Trump in 2021 on “Hang Mike Pence” Day. The rest of the British regime’s media are saying it’s to do with that, and also, mumble mumble, lack of impartiality over Gaza, and some ol’ sh*t to do with transvestites. [*]
In short, Zionism has said the head of the BBC has got to be sacked because he’s Hamas. Cue “Yes sir” from Jonathan Powell, Blaise Metreweli, and Genocide Starmer in No.10 if anyone asked him.
Expect more like this. All that extra money they’re spending on keeping the media in the USA and satellites in line will have effects.
Note
*) Those who have studied proper writing know that the most emphatic position in English is at the end, and the beginning is also quite strong, so if you want to mention an item in a list and downplay it, put it in the middle.
Relating your belief (in your “Note”) to the topic at hand, that would imply that Mr Murray is emphasizing Bishop Peter Ball and emphasizing secondly Laurens van der Post……and downplaying Jimmy Savile and Lord Mountbatte
Just trying to appease the orange one, will be interesting to see where Davie turns up next !
The organisation is still infested with zionists, removing this one won’t change anything.
Sure but they have punish even a toady to encourage the others to make a greater effort.
Maybe there will soon be a string of ex-DGs of the BBC available for Cenotaph duties on Remembrance Sunday, even longer than the long, long string of Tory ex-PMs!
Accusing someone in CommercialPrivateEquitybbc of supporting humanity in the middle east is preposterous, it can only be a pretext. I wonder what they were really purged for?
Tim Davie is just one more straw man used and now discarded by the Sovereign.
The BBC of course operates under a Royal Charter and Parliament keeps its head down.
You DO realise that the ¨Rusiagate¨ hoax paralysed the US government throughout Trump´s first term. You may believe that to be a good thing, but that same hoax has led directly to where we are today and the return to nuclear brinkmanship.
That was a proven hoax, and prosecutions are coming because there was no interference.
Yet now we have clear evidence that the British did exactly that.
They created false evidence and broadcast that false evidence in the week of the election.
It doesn´t get any worse than that.
Then Starmer gets involved in the 2024 election and sends teams to support Harris against Trump.
Maybe they are all just simply front men acting on behalf of the Sovereign, who simply discards them when they get caught.
(Just like Andy)
Paedophile is a term that is widely misused. See the NSPCC on “Why language matters: why the term ‘paedophile’ can be problematic and should be used with caution.”
Case in point is Jeffrey Epstein – there is no evidence I’ve seen he was a paedophile and yet even the BBC constantly refers to him as a ‘convicted paedophile’.
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/paedophile-problematic-caution
Newspeak: control the language and you’ll control the official ideology.
Eg. paedophile, antisemite, conspiracy theorist, antivaxer, climate/holocaust/covid denier, etc, etc.
Ah yes they’re not paedophiles they’re MAPs, Minor Attracted Persons.
https://www.safegroundpsychology.com/minor-attraction
In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a child for prostitution, he was alleged to have sexually abused 36 girls, some as young as 14, but was found guilty on just two counts after a controversial plea deal. His sentence was 13 months….
Don’t forget that his GF, Ghislaine Maxwell, is serving 20 years for child trafficking on his behalf.
Millions of teenage girls and boys are exploited worldwide every year. The age of consent in some countries is 14.
The category of ‘minor attracted persons’ is daft – it’s what mostly older men have done to younger women for ever and isn’t a psychiatric disorder, which paedophilia is.
Epstein was not a paedophile and it’s not acceptable to misuse the term.
Yes it is dangerous to mix up a sexual attraction to post-pubertal children with a sexual attraction to infants, and only a person who isn’t thinking about real dangers to real children would take it into their head to believe that making that point is somehow justifying the former, or minimising the issue with it, or being pedantic.
Nonetheless the NSPCC is not a clean organisation deserving of any respect, which perhaps is fitting in a country like Britain where there is so much sexual abuse of children at elite boarding schools and yet the institutions continue to exist. You just have to think about what would happen (and what wouldn’t happen) if a victim of such abuse (or anyone else with information about such abuse) were to call the NSPCC.
there is so much sexual abuse of children at elite boarding schools and yet the institutions continue to exist
You’re right Brian. I had the same thought when I read the report into Rochdale.
Apparently she identified seventeen official bodies with a statutory duty to intervene. And all failed.
That´s seventeen ¨oopsies¨. A statistical impossibility. Something else was going on.
What would be able to cower so many and without exception?
Perhaps our late Queen was alluding to this when she warned Paul Burrell in 1997 to be careful, and that ¨there are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge¨
Those ¨powers at work¨ are a bit like a black hole, in that you can’t see them, but you know they are there because of the effects they have on whatever or whoever comes into contact with them.
Sleepingdog,
God, it´s horrible. It’s still the same as during the reign of the first Elizabeth.
Nothing has changed
And during the reign of the second Elizabeth, do you recall hearing about that father that managed to track down and rescue his daughter from the rape gang, only to have the police turn on him and send the girl back to her predators.
Yes. The police, the social services, taxi companies, local government and local MPs were all explicitly involved in the grooming scandals. It continues. In London, Khan tries to downplay the grooming, but it still exists and continues. This is 21st century, multicultural Britain.
“seventeen official bodies with a statutory duty to intervene.”
What would be the point? The state has spend decades recolonising the working class. What would be the point in treating working-class people as equals, deserving of the protection of the state when it has spent the period from 1970 to now throwing us out of the lifeboat? If the only value of young working class people is to be sexually-exploited then why would the state interfere with the exploitation of that resource? Callaghan’s Britain.
I´m not sure I understand your point Squeeth, when you say what would be the point.
That is seventeen official bodies with a statutory duty to intervene. The people inside of those seventeen official bodies were aware of that duty. They were aware of the failure. They would have gossiped about that failure. There must have been some external power which acted upon all seventeen in order to achieve one hundred percent failure. That does not happen by chance.
What you say about Callaghan´s Britain is doubtless correct.
Wilson was forced out in 1976 and Callaghan took his place.
The very next year ¨Bank of England Nominees¨ was created and the Windsors were granted the perfect vehicle for insider trading, tax evasion and general skulduggery.
In return the Callaghan (Jay) family became the most favoured ¨socialists¨ until the coming of the Smiths.
So I would say the throwing out of the lifeboat began in 1976 with the fall of Harold Wilson.
This is pseudo-Marxist babble. The victims were young working class people and the perps were not-so-young working class people (quite a few of whom didn’t do any of what most people would class as “work”).
Let’s not beat about the bush : the failure to act was due to incompetence, complicated bureaucracy and a fear of being accused of racism.
That is why I am surprised that Mr Murray did not write also about the grooming gangs affairs as an illustration of how dysfunctional the British state is.
What of my post don’t you understand?
I understand perfectly what you’re writing, Squeeth, it’s just that I think it’s nonsensical pseudo-Marxist babble.
Sorry, but you did ask!
I disagree, ‘the failure to act’ was not due to incompetence, it was primarily due to active involvement in the grooming, through: race, religion or money. No excuses or get out of jail card for these scumbags.
It appears to have been made into an issue that the BBC is publishing articles about the suffering of poor Occupation darlings in Palestine, and about the supposed badness of the Resistance, on its English-language site but not its Arabic-language one.
If “someone” is influencing the BBC to publish Occupation-friendly pieces in Arabic, I can’t imagine any MI6 officers who haven’t yet been recruited by a foreign government will be pleased about that.
Gotta wonder where this all leads, and whether there’s possibly somebody out there, maybe who once lived in Minsk or somewhere like that, with the middle name “Harvey”.
The item to roleplay is rich global Arab players telling MI6 they can f*cking do one.
https://archive.is/mJIsB#israel-hamas-warundefined
You may also have seen these new adverts on Youtube fronted by modestly attired faux-Kibbutzim types asking, in soft, pleading tones, for money: y’know, to help those poor victims of Islamist Terrorism. They are truly gob-smacking in their sheer, brazen hypocrisy and total victim/victimizer role-reversal upending of the reality of the situation
Yes, I think I’ve seen those adverts as well. Who exactly is behind them? Presumably some organization – does it have a name?
LDdS. I don’t know who is behind them; I was barely able to watch the entirety of even one, such was my revulsion at the nauseating hypocrisy and bogus victimhood-seeking on display
Always the victim, never the problem.
Israel will be behind this without a doubt. 80 years of rubbing people’s noses in WW2 and now they have a new stick to beat people with. Let’s have a national day of mourning. FOAD Israel.
I use the (free) Adblock Plus and don’t see any adverts on Youtube. Highly recommend it.
A kibbutz is a settlement of armed supremacists on violently stolen land. Many were set up at the far reaches of territory conquered by terrorists in 1948-49. They ban Arabs.
“Kibbutz” means “gathering” and is also used for supremacist get-togethers in Ukraine.
I’m not sure when they started marketing themselves as somewhere that young naive idiot gentiles from faraway places could come and work for them for “the experience” and “the camaraderie”. Probably the 1960s.
All the “left wing” marketing pitch is bullsh*t. They have nothing to do with the many attempts to create genuinely socialist communities that have been made in many countries, inspired for example by Charles Fourier, or for example during the revolutionary movement in Portugal in 1975. It’s true that Robert Owen in Lanarkshire made a profit, but they’re not in that category either. They are supremacist gangs of land thieves. Comparing them with German Nazi settlements in Chile would be appropriate.
They exist on the internet too. A huge example is Stack Exchange, the Zionist organisation that influences the “minds” and “community” of computer programmers around the world. Many idiots work for it for free, largely in return for being allowed to use the tools they work for it with (when they’re working for it), and the sense of “community”. They don’t have any “rights” or employment contracts, but that doesn’t bother them. It’s unmistakably a kibbutz. (You don’t get any gentile organisations for which Jews work for free.) It was founded by Joel Spolsky, the Occupation paratrooper who had previously founded a physical kibbutz in Palestine.
(Tell some people the above info and sometimes their jaws hit the ground with surprise.)
The terminology in the MSM is closely controlled in this area. “Settlement” is almost never used except in relation to some of the land conquered in 1967. Someone like Natan Sharansky for example is never called a settler. Can we imagine a young journalist in the MSM taking it into his or her head to call a kibbutz what it is and then not agreeing to desist? I wouldn’t fancy their career chances.
I didn’t know that Laurens van der Post was a paedophile. He has always, however, been a renowned fantasist, plagiarist and racist. While less publicly shaming than paedophilia, I don’t think these are very good auspices for the advisor to the heir to the British throne. Or maybe they are simply qualities which the heir to the British throne needs to possess?
Dunno about auspices, but it’s not so great from the point of view of national security either, for a family with such great influence over the state, and such a “right” to get high-level information from the state, to have members who are so close to sexual abusers of children. Leaves them open to being “compromised” by a foreign power. I would have thought that was in National Security 101.
But it’s not as if the monarch, the heir to the throne, or someone in Mountbatten’s position, would ever get vetted.
It has been alleged that Mountbatten being given a free pass because of his family connections caused some trouble at some point between London and Washington. This may well be true, but the story has been affected by disinformation in the true (and not throwaway) sense of that term.
The security services aren’t worried about the security of the nation being compromised by these perverts, what they see is an asset that can be used to compromise the security of other nations. So as far as they are concerned ‘bring on the perverts’, they will protect them. Fact.
Snowden reported in his book how a foreign businessman had been compromised by him and the CIA with a honey trap, it destroyed the man’s life. The security services are scum, they are not there to protect us.
The monarchies and Governments, as well as their establishment hyeanas of the union are not just guilty of the enclosures acts and the concentration of powers at Westmonster, they have exploited the nations reserves in oil gas,whilst avoiding taxes to the exchequer by the billions into protected tax havens.
They have taken the nations reserves and the City goons have made sure that the redt of the worlds dictators and cretins can bank their ill gotten gains and use their bakshish habits to impregnate the political system with ‘donations’ at election times, garnering favours, lordships and public acceptance by undermining ordinary taxpayers.
Their sexual depravities ran undisturbed and unchallenged. This criticism will not be discussed in the current debate over Gaza and some Hamas linked coverage of Palestinian life, Savilles lifelong behaviour with children, dead bodies and anyone who could not run away from this pervert is part of the bbc historic failure.
The so called national broadcaster is more concerned with its dastardly image than to report impartionally and unbiased. They should have exposed these ‘pecadillos’ not amplify them with their silence and respectible accreditation.
This system is more crumbly than a buttery shortbread, its desintigrating at all four corners with the royals taking the p..s with tubthumping glamour and fake posturing.
Sod the lot of them, anarchy will be a fresh breaze in exchange.
Who protected Saville ? Why, none other than the head of the CPS, Starmer.
Meanwhile, the new generation of Royals continue with contorting with the worst dregs of society, ‘afternoon tea with Princess Beatrice of York’, nothing changes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15270279/titles-Royal-Lodge-Princess-Beatrice-rich-Saudi.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore
Who protected the smaller fish caught in the net of Operation Ore?
Dunno. Was Starmer involved? There are supposed to have been many judges who experienced a spot of bother in that case…
Re. Savile, it’s true there’s a BBC angle but the NHS angle has been deflected from. As has the point that those in authority in this country lie their heads off all the time, e.g. the idea that an addled ex-DJ who smoked lots of cigars could do long-distance walks in good time without breaking a sweat, rather than being picked up by car and dropped near the finishing line, which was the truth that everyone involved in organising the “charity walks” and hobnobbing with “Jimmy” must have known.
It looks like it was handled badly, accused people who were obviously innocent and concluded early. Seem familiar? The MP expenses fiddle comes to mind….
Craig, I suppose your critique of the royal family is because of the popularity it enjoys as a state institution and the slavish devotion to it we see in the main stream media. For me the main criticism of the reign of the firm is that it is inherently undemocratic and that it enjoys many benefits that it does not deserve.
It’s decadence comes with the territory of privilege. So the case for its abolition or reform is overwhelming. It is immensely sad that this prospect seems to be no closer than it was decades ago. This institution is so entwined with the levers of power that it would need a revolution to end it. You may be correct in assuming that Scottish independence is a stage in that shift in the power structure, this is one of the reasons I admire your persistence in pursuit of your goal
If more Scottish independence supporters were to target the principle of monarchy, it could influence my view.
All monarchy is mediaeval cack. Monarchy appeals to strutting authoritarian thugs and to capdoffers too.
It is sad to see the Scottish royal lion flag brought to pro-independence events, and for the issue to be pooh-poohed if anyone raises it. Similarly Picasso’s painting “Guernica” has been returned to Spain even though he gave strict instructions that it should not be returned until Spain had a republic. And Spain has not got a republic yet. It has got a monarchy that was chosen by the fascist dictator Franco. Well, monarchy should be an issue, and there was nothing vague about what Picasso said. Sometimes one feels like saying “read my lips”.
There is, and always has been, a strong Anti-Monarchy dimension to Scottish Nationalist/Independence thinking, Brian; though you would never know it from the oleaginous fawning displayed by successive leaders of the SNP: most recently evident in the deferential head-bowing to Proper Charlie 3rd displayed by ” feminist to her claw tips ” Sturgeon; Humza The Somewhat-Less-Than Magnificent & Uriah Swinney. Even Alex Salmond was not immune from a degree of Royal-fluffing when circumstances * required *.
Of course circumstances NEVER required, just that all these leaders of the so-called ” main vehicle to Independence ” lacked the requisite Republican spirit to mock and refuse to participate in this farcical bowing n scraping.
Until a leader of any party claiming to be 100% committed to the restoration of Scotland’s Independence does display such a spirit, in addition refusing to swear allegiance to the Crown and repudiate all the other slapstick anachronisms involved in the WM/Monarchy costume drama we can be certain the preservation of the * Union * is under no threat.
In 2014 the SNP – then led by Alec Salmond, let’s recall – fought the referendum on the basis of the “Scotland’s Future” plan which said an independent Scotland would have a monarchy. It didn’t sideline the issue.
I respect Scottish republicans who say ah but on Day One after an indyref win we’re going to have a huge push for a Scottish republic, but it would be nice if a larger proportion of the population voting for pro-independence parties could vote for anti-monarchist candidates now…
I mean what was Salmond even doing appearing in public with the then Prince Charles… Really bad taste to say the least. Not a lot better than his successor, another effing lawyer, curling up on the sofa imagining she was Margaret McThatcher.
Where is the spirit of Clydeside etc….
The spirit of Red Clydeside died with Jimmy Reid. Or, at least, has been in a coma since Jimmy’s passing. The chances of it ever being revived diminish with every successive forelock-tugging FM & his/her retinue of bland, submissive MP/MSP drones.
It’s a source of great frustration that there seems to be not single Scottish politician in Holyrood or WM – and precious few outside those two ” Establishments “- advocating a Republican Scotland: and this dismal fact at a time when the stock of the Windsors has never been lower and advocating for a Republic and disengagement from the Monarchy could find increasing support.
Trump wants it both ways. If the wicked Democrats, having suborned Mike Pence, were stealing his election victory from him, wasn’t he entitled as head of the executive, as the innocent target of all this wicked action paid for by George Soros, to recruit some Viking horn-wearing Confederacy-fan heroes from the Proud Boys and to gee them up to sack the Capitol using violence?
Rightwingers are crybabies when they can’t get what they want, shocker.
*the unrepentant baby-shredding Cheney Democrats