As the world rallies around a baby who is being held captive and denied medical care by the UK government, police are threatening his online supporters.
The post Police Threaten Arrest If Citizens Speak Out Against the State-Sanctioned Death of Baby Alfie Evans appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Catholic churches all around the world have been accused of sex scandals, including the Vatican, which has allegedly paid an astonishing $4 billion since 1950 to settle sexual abuse claims. Far too often these stories involve priests taking advantage of their positions of authority in order to sexually abuse people, often children.
More recently, the UK government and the Catholic church have come under public scrutiny for claiming that victims of child sexual abuse “consented” to their rapes in order to avoid compensating the victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) establishes which victims get compensated, and they do so by determining whether or not the victim gave consent, even if the victim is a child well under the legal age limit.
The Telegraph reported last month that, according to CICA, “A victim can consent in fact even though in law they may be deemed not to have consented.” That’s right, this government loophole can be used to claim that even though a child may be under the legal age limit, they can still provide consent.
To give you a better picture of how this works, one case that was explained by the charity Victim Support involved a 12-year-old girl who was led into the woods and sexually assaulted by a 21-year-old man while she was intoxicated.
Interestingly enough, despite the fact that the man pled guilty to having sex with a minor, she still wasn’t compensated because she allegedly “gave consent” by “voluntarily” going into the woods with him.
“No child ever gives their ‘consent’ to being abused, and the increased use of this line of defence, although still quite rare, is worrying,” said Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England. “I have contacted the Ministry of Justice previously and again recently about this issue and the Government should look urgently at what can be done to tackle it.”
They also argued that she was able to give consent because she had recently had sex with someone her own age. That’s like saying, “If you consent to someone your own age, you consent to everyone. If you’ve consented in the past, you consent to everyone.” That is not an ethical argument, and we should not be teaching children that this irrational logic is okay.
A Freedom of Information Act request introduced by Victim Support indicated that since this loophole came into fruition in 2012, a total of 693 cases in which child sexual abuse victims came forward were denied compensation by the CICA. Though many of these cases involved children who were 16, some of the victims were much younger.
As it turns out, this loophole most often benefits private schools, religious groups, and the local authorities. For example, lawyers for the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark explained to one of the sexual abuse victims that his rape “actually occurred in the context of a consensual relationship (albeit one the Claimant in retrospect now appears to regret).”
Although this particular case was actually settled to the tune of £80,000, the victim stated that the defence was both insulting and highlighted the fact that he was below the legal age of consent. There’s a legal age limit for a reason, and it’s strange that this law is being bent through the use of another law.
Dino Nocivelli, a specialist child abuse solicitor at Bolt Burdon, explained on Kent Live: “It is time for the church to practise what they preach and to admit their failings, to take account of the damage this has caused to the lives of far too many children and lastly to apologise for the abuse.”
An important question we need to start asking ourselves and the government is: Why are people in authority positions let off the hook for violent crimes? Sexual abuse and rape are not crimes that should go ignored, yet time and time again, higher-ups and government officials are excused from the law.
To name a few examples, we have the Jeffrey Epstein case, in which he was accused of recruiting and forcing dozens of children into an underground network of sex slaves, who served many of the elite members of society, including former American President Bill Clinton.
Epstein owned a private jet, referred to as the “Lolita Express” by mainstream media (MSM), which was used to transport Epstein and his elitist friends to Little St. James, Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands — dubbed “Orgy Island” by the tabloids. Despite all of these allegations and proven facts, he only served approximately one year in jail time.
Former U.S. representative Cynthia McKinney also knew about the government’s relationship to human trafficking, and she actually addressed it in 2005. She grilled Donald Rumsfeld on military contractor DynCorp’s child trafficking business of selling women and children.
Ted Gunderson, former FBI special agent and head of their L.A. office, worked to uncover years’ worth of information on high-level pedophilia, sexual abuse, and satanic rituals performed by the government and the elite (or the cabal). In my opinion, Ted Gunderson is a wonderful place to start your research on this subject. You can read more about that in our CE article here.
Although these examples are outside of the UK, they still speak to how the government provides special treatment when it comes to crimes committed by those in higher social classes.
Time and time again, the government allows perpetrators of sexual violence to go unpunished. If we’re not willing to face these issues, regardless of who the perpetrator is, then how will we fix this clear issue within society? Sexual violence is never okay, and we should not be blaming the victims for crimes they were not responsible for.
We need to start treating everyone as equal and extend more compassion to others; only then will we be able to not only improve our judiciary system, but hopefully prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place.
Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,
Back in the late 18th century, the American colonies were made up largely of self-reliant people who had a strong work ethic. Most had either been born in the UK, or their parents or grandparents were born there. What set them apart from their fellow Britons was that they didn’t simply accept their lot in life back in the UK. They chose the more uncertain outcome of life in the colonies. They therefore had the courage, imagination, and desire to create their own destiny, traits that their fellow Britons did not possess.
Not surprising, then, that they carved out thirteen very productive and prosperous colonies, without the burden of a top-heavy, overreaching government. When the UK government sought to increase taxation and control (i.e., enslave) the colonists, there was rebellion. The tax being exacted by King George was miniscule by today’s standards, but that wasn’t the point. They fought against enslavement, and, in their talks of independence, they emphasized this point.
The American ideal, first and foremost, was freedom.
They weren’t seeking entitlements, or promises of government-generated jobs, or protection from the natives. They had already learned how to protect themselves, create their own jobs, and provide for themselves. They were prepared to be self-reliant as one of the prices of freedom.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was with the intention of creating a document upon which all the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention could agree as a basic set of understandings. In doing so, he not only unified the colonies; he also defined freedom for every generation of people that came after him, whether they were American or from any other country in the world.
After creating the US, there were, understandably, many upsets along the way. From the time of the very first cabinet, Jefferson, as Secretary of State, was at odds with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who couldn’t wait to create a national currency, direct taxation, and a central bank. Over the ensuing decades, the tide of freedom ebbed and flowed as forces from within the US sought to diminish freedom, just as they do today. In my estimation, the US began its steady decline in earnest roughly one hundred years ago. Since that time, Americans have, increasingly, traded freedom for the promise of a safety that was never fulfilled, and for ever-increasing largesse from the government—largesse that they already paid for through taxation.
I’m British and, two generations ago, my grandparents set out for “the colonies.” Like the first Americans, they had an ideal in mind. They moved around a bit, but finally found that ideal during my generation. Today, I’m able to live a life that’s far freer than I would have if I were to move to the US and, truth be told, I’d be just as unwilling to move to the UK. I like it there, but it couldn’t be my home. At present, I possess the documentation to live in a total of thirty countries, but choose to live in only two of them.
If either country were to fall below the ideal I’ve set, I’d pack up my bags and not return. My philosophy is simple: When the apple is thoroughly rotten, it’s time to find a new apple, not live in the vain hope that somehow the apple will grow less rotten with time.
For many years, I’ve been advising people on internationalisation and, in recent years, the numbers of people I’ve seen have been dramatically on the increase. Many of them come from the US and, frequently, they confess that, although they’re considering leaving the US because it’s become unlivable for them, they feel somewhat guilty. They feel as though they’re turning their backs on America and the American ideal.
The American ideal is in fact a universal ideal. This is an important distinction to understand, because it serves as a reminder that loyalty and patriotism should not be applied to any particular piece of geography. Just as people left for America to find freedom in times gone by, it makes equal sense to move away for the very same reason. Americans, or anyone else who seeks freedom from oppressive governance, should recognize that the world is made up of some 200 countries, each offering a different combination of advantages and disadvantages. No one country is ideal for everyone, but the choices are many.
The good news is that, today, the American ideal is very much alive - it just doesn’t happen to live in the US. (Although there are those who retain this ideal and choose to “fight from within” to return the US to its founding ideal.) But the odds of achieving this are very poor indeed. The US, like many other countries in the former “free” world, is currently plunging headlong in a downward trend. A reversal is unlikely in the extreme.
In my own country, I receive no entitlements. I have to create my own wealth. But, I live under a minimum of laws, including no direct taxation of any kind. I make my own choices, I can speak freely, without fear of reprisal from political correctness. I’ve never been taken to court and I’ve never needed to take out a loan.
The universal ideal of freedom is very much alive and is yours to find, should you feel that your country has lost it and you want to live the rest of your life as a free individual.
When one strips away the lies about central banks" "inflation and employment" mandates and focuses on what they really do - which is to keep asset prices artificially supported and volatility suppressed - the motive behind virtually every central bank act becomes readily apparent: preserve (and increase, if possible) confidence in the market and economy, while saying anything and everything that helps achieve this, or in other words, lie but don"t get caught.
Today, thanks to the FT, we have proof of precisely this, in what may be the first recorded instance of a central bank openly lying in an attempt to preserve market stability... and getting caught.
On Tuesday, the Bank of England admitted that the UK government failed to find enough investors to fully cover its its 1914 War Loan, and was forced to turn to the central bank to help plug a deficit of more than £100m in the fundraising. However, it did so only after it lied to the public that the bond was oversubscribed:
"Despite claims it was swamped with buyers, the 1914 War Loan raised less than a third of its £350m target, attracting a very narrow set of investors, according to BoE employees writing on the Bank Underground website today." The bloggers uncovered the cover-up by trawling through the bank’s old ledgers.
As the FT notes, "the debt yielded 4.1 per cent, well above the 2.5 per cent payable on other government debt at the time, but it still failed to attract a wide enough pool of investors."
So why lie? For the same reason to this day central bankers around the world lie at every possibly opportunity: to preserve confidence in a fragile system, which can collapse the moment doubt spikes.
The government decided that news of a failed bond sale would have been “disastrous” to the general public, and so schemed with the Bank to plug the gap, the BoE now says. The central bank bought the outstanding securities on offer, and covered its tracks by purchasing the bonds in the name of its chief cashier, and listing them on its balance sheet as “other securities”.
Ironically, the FT which reported of the BOE"s blog finding, was instrumental in publicizing and disseminating the lie on November 23, 1914, something which many have accused the paper of doing today.
The Financial Times played its role in convincing the public that the sale was a success, publishing a segment (which appears to be an advert) claiming that the debt was oversubscribed and offering “further particulars of this magnificent investment… upon request.”
It was all a lie. This is how the BOE"s bloggers justify it:
For the Bank of England and economic policymakers more generally, this early failure led to the realisation that managing the national debt was a complex and, in war times, perhaps Herculean task. The episode marked an important step on the Bank’s transformation from private institution to a central bank. A decade after the Armistice, the altered role of the Bank prompted creation of a Parliamentary commission to examine its functions, ultimately setting it on a path to nationalisation.
Did this clear intention to mislead the public lead to any consequences? Here"s the FT"s take: "The BoE’s intervention uprooted the UK’s long-held laissez faire approach to capital, as the government prioritised the war effort over private investors. And although the hoodwink worked, the authors suggest that the failed sale prompted some soul-searching at the central bank:"
Unfortunately, over a century later, the soul-searching has led to zero tangible results, as lies in the name of preserving public confidence and avoiding "disastrous" - but true - news continue unabated, and those who dare to expose them are branded as "conspiracy theorists" and, more recently, Russian sympathizers.
As for the FT, the principal agent employed in propagating the central bank"s lies, it had this to say:
Clarification: On 23 November 1914, a piece published in the Financial Times claimed the UK government’s War Loan was “oversubscribed”, with applications “pouring in”. The item described this as an “amazing result” that “proves how strong is the financial position of the British nation”. We are now happy to make clear that none of the above was true.
Well, thanks for "coming clean." We, for one, can"t wait to find out what current stories and narratives the FT will admit some 103 years from today that it is "happy to make clear" were lies.
