Pedophile Cover-up: Hampstead Police, Social Services, Courts brainwash whistleblower kids, send mother & legal helper into exile, protect Satanist abuser father
Here is the video:
VANCOUVER, BC – According to news inside out, in an interview from Germany with Sabine Kurjo McNeil, the “McKenzie Friend”[1] or legal helper to Ella, the mother of two Whistleblower children, Gabriel an 8 year old boy and Alisa his 9 year old sister, whose video documenting a sustained pedophile ritual sexual abuse abuse at the hands of their father and at the Christ Church Primary School they attended in Hampstead UK, NewsInsideOut.com has learned the following developments, evidence of a deep and powerful cover-up of sexual crimes toward children from deep within the UK Police and Social Services structure. NZ Justice Lowell Goddard, newly in charge of the UK Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, has been notified of this case and has not responded as of this writing.[2]
Gabriel and Alisa, the Whistleblower children have been placed in State Social Services care two hours away from London in Kent, UK and after a number of days of sustained brainwashing by representatives of Social Services have been forced to renounce their allegations of ritual sexual abuse by their father and by staff of the Christ Church Primary School they attended in Hampstead UK;
Ella, the children’s mother suffered an illegal home invasion by 10 police without a warrant. Fortunately, the mother’s barrister was present who demanded a warrant and the illegal home invasion could not proceed. Under threat of immediate arrest by UK police intent on continuing a cover-up of child sexual abuse networks of the father and of widespread sexual abuse at the school, the child’s mother fled into exile in Europe.
McKenzie Friend legal helper Sabine Kurjo McNeil was forced into exile in Germany after being threatened with malicious prosecution for posting the videos of the Whistleblower children online. It was as a result of the posting of the children’s whistleblowing videos that the attempts by all UK police, social services, school staff and courts to date to cover this matter up have failed, as an international outcry on the Internet and social media has arisen.
No criminal investigation has been launched against the children’s father, despite the clear testimony of the children and the children’s mother. The father is a reported member of a ritual child abuse and perhaps child sacrifice network.
No criminal investigation has been launched against the Christ Church Primary School in Hampstead UK despite the children’s clear testimony, and the testimony of other parents, such as the following report from a parent at the school: “everything is completely true i am from the local Hampstead area and my children used to attend christ church primary, they would often come home telling me about weird encounters such as specific kids getting taken out of class by the head mistress katy forsdyke for no apparent, and how the staff touch the kids and manipulate them, I was first approached to join the cult in an after school meeting and when declined I was subtly told that if I told anyone about it then there would be severe consequences on my behalf.
Vicar: Revd Paul Conrad,10 Cannon Place, London, NW3 1EJ. Tel: 020 7435 6784. Email paulconrad@btinternet.com, he seems like a lovely guy when you meet him, would never of guessed he holds several secret rooms in the church to carry out untold practices.
47 Hollycroft avenue nw3 is the current address of these kids father, i know him personally, he is a very successful and very wealthy man, hence why he has allot of higher member of authorities working with him to brush under the carpet
Details of school: Christchurch Hill, London NW3 1JH 020 7435 1361, there are several teachers with heavy involvement, but the headteacher is the main instigator of these horrendous acts in school. my child has also told me the school are often setting up any sort of pointless after school class and extra curriculum activity as an excuse to get their hands and do awfull things to these poor children, its only a selected amount of kids undergoing it, because he parents have to be in on it too and the parents who decline get threatened if they tell.
British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (AFP Photo/Cpt Tanner, No 2 Army Film and Photographic Unit)
Sir Winston Churchill’s family begged him to “fight against” the desire to convert to Islam, according to a newly-discovered letter.
“Please don’t become converted to Islam; I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalise, Pasha-like tendencies, I really have,” the letter from Churchill’s future sister-in-law, dated August 1907, says, the Independent reported.
“If you come into contact with Islam your conversion might be effected with greater ease than you might have supposed, call of the blood, don’t you know what I mean, do fight against it,” Lady Gwendoline Bertie, who was soon to marry Churchill’s brother Jack, added.
The letter was found by a historian at Cambridge University, Warren Dockter, while he was researching for his book ‘Winston Churchill and the Islamic World: Orientalism, Empire and Diplomacy in the Middle East’.
The former UK prime minister was greatly interested in Islam and oriental culture, but “never seriously considered converting,” Dockter told the paper.
Churchill in military uniform, 1895. (Image from Wikipedia/the Imperial War Museum)
“He was more or less an atheist by this time anyway. He did however have a fascination with Islamic culture, which was common among Victorians,” he added.
Churchill became acquainted with Islamic culture during his army service in Sudan, and was greatly taken with it.
The researcher noted the possible reason behind the letter, and that those close to Churchill needn’t have been worried. He may have been a great admirer of the culture, but was also critical in his views on Islamic society.
“The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men,” Churchill wrote in 1899 of his experience in Sudan.
The nation of Israel is galloping blindly toward Bar Kochba’s war on the Roman Empire. The result of that conflict was 2,000 years of exile.
By Shabtai Shavit
Menachem Begin before an image of David Ben-Gurion
From the beginning of Zionism in the late 19th century, the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel has been growing stronger in terms of demography and territory, despite the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. We have succeeded in doing so because we have acted with wisdom and stratagem rather than engaging in a foolish attempt to convince our foes that we were in the right.
Today, for the first time since I began forming my own opinions, I am truly concerned about the future of the Zionist project. I am concerned about the critical mass of the threats against us on the one hand, and the government’s blindness and political and strategic paralysis on the other. Although the State of Israel is dependent upon the United States, the relationship between the two countries has reached an unprecedented low point. Europe, our biggest market, has grown tired of us and is heading toward imposing sanctions on us. For China, Israel is an attractive high-tech project, and we are selling them our national assets for the sake of profit. Russia is gradually turning against us and supporting and assisting our enemies.
Anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel have reached dimensions unknown since before World War II. Our public diplomacy and public relations have failed dismally, while those of the Palestinians have garnered many important accomplishments in the world. University campuses in the West, particularly in the U.S., are hothouses for the future leadership of their countries. We are losing the fight for support for Israel in the academic world. An increasing number of Jewish students are turning away from Israel. The global BDS movement (boycott, divestment, sanctions) against Israel, which works for Israel’s delegitimization, has grown, and quite a few Jews are members.
In this age of asymmetrical warfare we are not using all our force, and this has a detrimental effect on our deterrent power. The debate over the price of Milky pudding snacks and its centrality in public discourse demonstrate an erosion of the solidarity that is a necessary condition for our continued existence here. Israelis’ rush to acquire a foreign passport, based as it is on the yearning for foreign citizenship, indicates that people’s feeling of security has begun to crack.
I am concerned that for the first time, I am seeing haughtiness and arrogance, together with more than a bit of the messianic thinking that rushes to turn the conflict into a holy war. If this has been, so far, a local political conflict that two small nations have been waging over a small and defined piece of territory, major forces in the religious Zionist movement are foolishly doing everything they can to turn it into the most horrific of wars, in which the entire Muslim world will stand against us.
I also see, to the same extent, detachment and lack of understanding of international processes and their significance for us. This right wing, in its blindness and stupidity, is pushing the nation of Israel into the dishonorable position of “the nation shall dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9).
I am concerned because I see history repeating itself. The nation of Israel is galloping blindly in a time tunnel to the age of Bar Kochba and his war on the Roman Empire. The result of that conflict was several centuries of national existence in the Land of Israel followed by 2,000 years of exile.
I am concerned because as I understand matters, exile is truly frightening only to the state’s secular sector, whose world view is located on the political center and left. That is the sane and liberal sector that knows that for it, exile symbolizes the destruction of the Jewish people. The Haredi sector lives in Israel only for reasons of convenience. In terms of territory, Israel and Brooklyn are the same to them; they will continue living as Jews in exile, and wait patiently for the arrival of the Messiah.
The religious Zionist movement, by comparison, believes the Jews are “God’s chosen.” This movement, which sanctifies territory beyond any other value, is prepared to sacrifice everything, even at the price of failure and danger to the Third Commonwealth. If destruction should take place, they will explain it in terms of faith, saying that we failed because “We sinned against God.” Therefore, they will say, it is not the end of the world. We will go into exile, preserve our Judaism and wait patiently for the next opportunity.
I recall Menachem Begin, one of the fathers of the vision of Greater Israel. He fought all his life for the fulfillment of that dream. And then, when the gate opened for peace with Egypt, the greatest of our enemies, he gave up Sinai – Egyptian territory three times larger than Israel’s territory inside the Green Line – for the sake of peace. In other words, some values are more sacred than land. Peace, which is the life and soul of true democracy, is more important than land.
I am concerned that large segments of the nation of Israel have forgotten, or put aside, the original vision of Zionism: to establish a Jewish and democratic state for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. No borders were defined in that vision, and the current defiant policy is working against it.
What can and ought to be done? We need to create an Archimedean lever that will stop the current deterioration and reverse today’s reality at once. I propose creating that lever by using the Arab League’s proposal from 2002, which was partly created by Saudi Arabia. The government must make a decision that the proposal will be the basis of talks with the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The government should do three things as preparation for this announcement:
1) It should define a future negotiating strategy for itself, together with its position on each of the topics included in the Arab League’s proposal.
2) It should open a secret channel of dialogue with the United States to examine the idea, and agree in advance concerning our red lines and about the input that the U.S. will be willing to invest in such a process.
3) It should open a secret American-Israeli channel of dialogue with Saudi Arabia in order to reach agreements with it in advance on the boundaries of the topics that will be raised in the talks and coordinate expectations. Once the secret processes are completed, Israel will announce publicly that it is willing to begin talks on the basis of the Arab League’s document.
I have no doubt that the United States and Saudi Arabia, each for its own reasons, will respond positively to the Israeli initiative, and the initiative will be the lever that leads to a dramatic change in the situation. With all the criticism I have for the Oslo process, it cannot be denied that for the first time in the conflict’s history, immediately after the Oslo Accords were signed, almost every Arab country started talking with us, opened its gates to us and began engaging in unprecedented cooperative ventures in economic and other fields.
Although I am not so naïve as to think that such a process will bring the longed-for peace, I am certain that this kind of process, long and fatiguing as it will be, could yield confidence-building measures at first and, later on, security agreements that both sides in the conflict will be willing to live with. The progress of the talks will, of course, be conditional upon calm in the security sphere, which both sides will be committed to maintaining. It may happen that as things progress, both sides will agree to look into mutual compromises that will promote the idea of coexisting alongside one another. If mutual trust should develop – and the chances of that happening under American and Saudi Arabian auspices are fairly high – it will be possible to begin talks for the conflict’s full resolution as well.
An initiative of this kind requires true and courageous leadership, which is hard to identify at the moment. But if the prime minister should internalize the severity of the mass of threats against us at this time, the folly of the current policy, the fact that this policy’s creators are significant elements in the religious Zionist movement and on the far right, and its devastating results – up to the destruction of the Zionist vision – then perhaps he will find the courage and determination to carry out the proposed action.
I wrote the above statements because I feel that I owe them to my parents, who devoted their lives to the fulfillment of Zionism; to my children, my grandchildren and to the nation of Israel, which I served for decades.
[Chatham House: David Cameron, Jean-Claude Juncker’in Avrupa Komisyonu’na başkan olmasına karşı yürüttüğü düşüncesiz kampanya, AB’nin nasıl işlediğini tam kavrayamadan yaptığı diğer tüm yanlış hareketlerle beraber kendi ayağına ateş etmiş ve İngiltere’yi Avrupa Birliğinden atılmanın eşiğine getirmiştir.]
Is the call for an additional contribution to the EU budget as outrageous as David Cameron has asserted, or simply the normal application of EU rules and mechanisms? In reality, it is a bit of both, but there is more to the story. – See more at:
When David Cameron emerged from last Friday’s European Council meeting, the indignation on show could not have been greater: ‘If people think I am paying that bill on 1 December, they have another think coming.’ He was responding to new figures revealed last week which call for an additional £1.7 billion contribution to the EU budget from the UK. In what is a routine recalculation, several other countries, including the Netherlands, have been asked to pay proportionately more than the UK, while Germany, France and 17 others will pay less.
Is this as outrageous as the prime minister has asserted, or simply the normal application of EU rules and mechanisms? In reality, it is a little bit of both, but there are three elements to the story.
The first is that most of the EU’s revenue derives from an income stream known as the GNI (gross national income) resource. GNI is a close relative of the more familiar term GDP (gross domestic product), differing largely because of how profits from abroad are counted. As such, it reflects relative prosperity and, thus, ability to pay – a widely accepted principle of taxation. The amount called from each member state is a fixed proportion of its GNI, though the true cost to the UK is then attenuated by the famous rebate negotiated in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher. Despite some of the headlines about a ‘tax on prosperity’, the principle that countries pay more when GNI rises has been accepted since the system was introduced over a quarter of a century ago. In some years the UK has benefited, in others it has had to pay, as have all other member states.
Second, the GNI resource was something that British negotiators pushed strongly for when it was first introduced, and that the UK has fought to retain ever since. Others have argued for a tax to be assigned to the EU, in much the same way as council tax in the UK or sales taxes in the United States are deemed to belong to the local tier of government. But the UK, along with other net contributors to the EU budget, notably Germany, has been adamant that there should be no such tax. The total amount called from the GNI resource is determined by the spending from the EU budget and, in this regard, acts as a residual resource to ensure that the EU budget always balances (as it is required to do by treaty). Spending is not entirely predictable because the rigorous controls which countries like the UK insist that the EU impose have meant that some projects only become eligible to receive funding much later than anticipated.
The third consideration is that this year’s calculations are unusual, because the statisticians who construct the GNI data recently completed a methodological review of how national accounts are compiled. These are once-in-a-decade exercises, intended to reflect new insights into how income is generated and advances in data collection. The results revealed that the UK, and a number of the others now being asked to pay more, have been underestimating their prosperity. Normally this would not be that significant, but one of the new factors taken into account is the scope of the hidden economy. In particular, new estimates have been made of the extent of the drug and prostitution markets, something that Germany was apparently already doing.
These data corrections are well-known to the UK authorities and the spicier bits of the new methodology made the news headlines over the summer. Nor is it a form of correction that the Treasury can plausibly claim not to have expected. Indeed, in the late 1980s, Italy revalued its GDP and GNI substantially after introducing new ways of estimating the size of its hidden economy. Overnight, Italy overtook the UK – known at the time as il sorpasso (the over-taking) – but also reportedly drawing the retort from Thatcher that the Italians could henceforth pay more towards the EU budget. Moreover, it is ingrained into Treasury officials that they should be alert to any statistical manipulation that would increase GNI, precisely because of this sort of effect. Therefore, the prime minister is either being disingenuous in claiming that the effects of the re-basing of GNI were unexpected, or he knew full well and decided, nevertheless, to exploit it for immediate political purposes.
Other countries and the European Commission insist that the rules are clear and that Britain will have to pay, implying little room for manoeuvre for the prime minister. Perhaps some fault will be discovered in the calculations, allowing a more palatable figure to emerge. There is also a possibility that enough pressure will be brought to bear on the net winners to persuade them to postpone or average out the introduction of the new GNI estimates, reducing the amount the new net losers will have to pay this year. However, tax-payers in other countries will wonder why their governments should agree to pay more to help the British prime minister mollify eurosceptics at home. Postponing the bills would also be tricky because the EU is legally banned from borrowing.
Leaving aside whether Cameron’s stance leaves wiggle-room to pay subsequently (though only after the Rochester and Strood by-election), the new dispute is revealing about his approach to the EU. It follows his ill-judged campaign to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker becoming president of the European Commission. Two conclusions can be drawn: first, that not enough effort is made to understand how the EU functions or to form alliances to head off potential trouble; and second, that there is too much of a tendency to shoot from the hip. This is a conjunction that can only add to the prospects of further imbroglios and a growing probability of a Brexit.
Professor Iain Begg
Associate Fellow, Europe Programme – Chatham House
The Queen tweeted for the first time yesterday with the whole world watching – but not everyone was thrilled with her forray into the world of social media, as inadvertently documented by the BBC.
Her Majesty Elizabeth II took to Twitter to post on the @BritishMonarchy account saying: “It is a pleasure to open the Information Age exhibition today at the @ScienceMuseum and I hope people will enjoy visiting. Elizabeth R.”
According to Independent, the tweet, which was retweeted 36,000 times and favourited 37,000 times, was responded by a curt “f*** off” by a user named @WolfgangDikface, which the broadcaster showed live on BBC News.
His original response, which has now been deleted, was posted again through a screenshot of his tweet captured on the news report amid positive replies to the Queen from other users of the social media site.
@WolfgangDikface no doubt got a lot of attention from his tweet and later posted: “New followers: Have a look round, make yourself comfortable but telling an 88 year old woman to f*** off on the BBC is about as good as i get”.
The British Monarchy account, which has 830,000 followers, is usually updated and managed by palace officials who were announcing the occasion via Twitter in the minutes running up to her first post.
The Queen was watched by 600 guests at the museum as she took off her glove to get to grips with the touchscreen iPad mounted on a plinth.
Science Museum director, Ian Blatchford, said as he invited her up to the keyboard: “You made the first live Christmas broadcast in 1957 and an event relished by historians took place on 26 March 1976, when you became the first monarch to send an email, during a visit to the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment.
“May I now invite you to join me so that you may send your first tweet.”
A BBC spokesperson said: “Following the Queen’s tweet we showed the British Monarchy Twitter page live. Responses could be seen, including this offensive remark which appeared for less than a second.”
According to Reuters, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso will on Monday issue a plea to Britain not to isolate itself in Europe by picking fights over immigration, saying that European Union membership boosts British international clout.
Britain’s future in the 28-country trading bloc has been thrown into question by Prime Minister David Cameron, who has adopted an increasingly defiant stance on immigration to tackle the threat of the anti-EU UK Independence Party. UKIP’s rising popularity threatens his bid for re-election in 2015.
Barroso, whose 10-year term as head of the EU’s executive body comes to an end next month, issued a warning to Cameron on Sunday against trying to seek changes to the EU’s freedom of movement rules, saying they were essential to the bloc’s internal market.
In a speech due to be delivered on Monday he will go further, saying that by engaging in such rhetoric on immigration, Britain risks isolating itself in Europe and undermining its attempts to achieve wider reforms.
“It would be an historic mistake if on these issues Britain were to continue to alienate its natural allies in central and eastern Europe,” Barroso will say in a speech at London’s Chatham House.
“It is an illusion to believe that space for dialogue can be created if the tone and substance of the arguments you put forward question the very principle at stake and offend fellow Member States.”
Under pressure from UKIP and eurosceptic lawmakers within his own party, Cameron has promised that if he wins the next election he will seek to renegotiate Britain’s European ties and put the new relationship to voters at a referendum by 2017.
Cameron has broadly outlined areas in which he wants to win reform from the EU, such as migration controls, retaining lawmaking powers at a national level, and cutting red-tape for businesses. He has not given specific details however. Other British parties also want reforms, but there is no consensus on a renegotiation strategy.
FRIENDS
Barroso will say that while he understands British voters’ concerns over Europe, the country has benefited from having the backing of other EU states on major geopolitical issues such as climate change negotiations and sanctions against Russia.
“In short, could the UK get by without a little help from your friends? My answer is probably not,” he will say.
Last week Cameron, who has long said he would like Britain to stay in a reformed EU, struck a newly eurosceptic note, warning that his renegotiation attempt would be his last, and acknowledging that it might end in failure.
Barroso will criticise parties across the British establishment for not being straight with voters about the benefits of EU membership, and for not challenging euroscepticism.
He will urge leaders to start making a positive case for remaining in Europe, or risk losing a potential referendum.
“If people read only negative and often false portrayals in their newspapers from Monday to Saturday, you cannot expect them to nail the European flag on their front door on Sunday,” he will say.
Pedophile Cover-up: Hampstead Police, Social Services, Courts brainwash whistleblower kids, send mother & legal helper into exile, protect Satanist abuser father
