Interesting post here, from a blog by Stuart Syvret. Here's his bio:
Stuart Syvret, a former politician on the island of Jersey in the Channel Isles, has been imprisoned for refusing to remove controversial posts and comments from his blog. Most of Stuart’s blog content is related to a large child abuse investigation that was begun in 2008 while Stuart was the Minister for Health and Social Services. The Jersey authorities, concerned that the publicity of the investigation was damaging the image of the island, suspended Stuart from his position. Later they did the same to the Chief of Police at the time, Graham Power. Stuart then began releasing evidence documenting the cover-up and the shutting down of the police investigation.
These actions led him into head-on conflict with the Jersey authorities who, since 2008, have been trying to silence him. In February 2014, Google blocked public access to Stuart’s blog at the request of the Jersey authorities, even though no defamation action has ever been taken against him. This site was created so that the Jersey public can read the important evidence that the blog contains.
http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/ted-heath-child-abuse-the-rule-of-law-in-britain/THE CONFLICTED PARTICIPATION OF THE WILTSHIRE POLICE FORCE IN THE ILLEGAL SABOTAGE OF THE JERSEY CHILD-ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS.
Things can hide in plain sight.
Some things are able to do so because of disguise;
Some are able to do so because of camouflaged invisibility;
Some are able to do so because we’re distracted to look in a different direction.
Right now, the boiling question of the moment is “did former British Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath abuse children?” And what a question.
A profoundly important question, to be sure.
But is it the right question?
Is it the question which is most relevant in enabling us to gauge whether there has been a breakdown in the very rule-of-law in British society? A corporate failure by all arms of the state to properly carry out the most basic duties – such as protecting children from torture and rape, and deterring those who would commit such crimes?
The British state – the British establishment is – as history shows – one of the most resilient – perhaps the most ruthlessly survivalist – “establishments” in human history. Certainly, even in the immediate wake of 1066 – when the then English establishment had to bow to William the Conqueror when their front-man Harold lost – the “deal” was essentially a “regrettable” retrenchment of current investment-holdings; a realpolitik business deal – a kind of investor “hair-cut” faced up to by the English barons and their vassalage.
Ever since then – not least in the PR stunt – the secret deal amongst elites historically disguised as a “victory for ordinary people” – that was Magna Carta – the elite factions of the British Isles have known what side their bread was buttered. In spite of their occasional factional differences, the British elite have always known they must – ultimately – hang-together – or hang alone.
And it is that “culture” we still see so starkly at work in the continuing – and futile and bizarre – efforts to down-play the British establishment’s child-abuse atrocity.
An “establishment” largely formed by successive generations of people imbued with a sociopathicly brutal sense of entitlement does not found its longevity without utilising every conceivable and disgusting trick in the book. Knowledge is power – it’s-not-who-you-know – its-what-you-know-about-who-you-know – or, to use the more modern phrase, “having the dirt”.
So it isn’t at all difficult – is it – to understand the “utility” of vulnerable children to power – the immense “value” of that Currency-of-Concealment – it isn’t difficult to understand the political-economy of child-abuse?
Let’s not be foolish; the genuinely powerful, the cunning, the ruthless – never aspire to fame – never have done, not if their ambitions of wealth, power, tribal longevity could be secured by alternate means; safer means. Throughout history, the truly powerful have never wished to be “front-men” – kings, generals, presidents – the existence of who was always perilous, high-risk, and prone to being struck, like a lightning-conductor – but, rather to be those who have held the front-man’s leash. And to control your “front-man”, you need – you have always needed – “influence” – “leverage” – of one sort – or another. That is how power works.
Which is why, still today, even in the democratic era – perhaps especially in the democratic era – so many of our leaders, our politicians, are axiomatically unethical, unintelligent, low-calibre and inadequate? Leverage – dirt – income – every kind of “filter” – is so much more easily utilised – not least by corrupted and conflicted media-barons – in the modern age.
So when we look at those we’re supposed to regard as the most powerful in our society – prime ministers, perhaps – or senior judges – we should always ask ‘just what are the chances – the very remote, to be frank, chances – this person came to “power” – without being “owned” by – without being “indebted” to – some force or another?’
In reality, those chances are vanishingly remote. It would be today – as it has been throughout most of the history of organised society – frankly amazing if people come to power by “accident”.
So we, as a modern, educated, informed people, might wish to develop a clear understanding; knowing what we know – absorbing the lessons of history – we might want to ask ourselves, “ok, so traditionally power has been corrupted, been owned, but in our modern era, we want to see the reality of ‘agency’. So where do we look?”
And taking as a starting-point the present storm over whether former British Prime Minister the late Ted Heath was a child-abuser, we can start to ask the important – the right – questions.
The first – and most important – of which is not ‘whether Heath is guilty of child-abuse’ – but, rather, ‘did the state apparatus act correctly – objectively – lawfully – in response to even the possibility that he may have been so guilty?’ And if it didn’t act objectively – act lawfully – to so much as investigate him, what state agencies made those decisions?
It is when we ask that question – and all the similar questions arising from the British child-abuse atrocity – for example, the similar questions about Savile – that we begin to defeat that which hides in plain sight. Only then do we start to ask the right questions.
I’ve been fighting a war for effective child-protection since 2006. Then, in Jersey, I was the Minister for Health & Social Services, and learnt the hard way how systems fail. I went public with my conclusion that Jersey’s entire child “protection” apparatus had failed when I answered a question in the Jersey parliament in July 2007.
But within hours of me giving that accurate, honest answer, I became subject to an illegal plot by Crown officers and senior civil servants to engineer my dismissal as Minister.
As extraordinary as this scenario may seem, we know it took place, because of a contemporaneous file-note written by the good Police Chief Graham Power QPM, who the crooks were foolish enough to attempt to suborn into their conspiracy. A key part of the Police Chief’s file-note says this: –
“BO (Bill Ogley) and the others were persistent and I was left with the clear impression that they were attempting to draw me, in my capacity as Chief of Police, into a civil service led attempt to remove a Minister from Office.”
But Police Chief Graham Power was, himself, in November 2008, subject to an wholly illegal suspension – an unambiguous criminal enterprise – a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
After that illegal suspension of the Jersey Police Chief was initiated by the Jersey authorities with the full backing and endorsement of the London authorities, a UK Police Force – Wiltshire – was called-in to run what was a manifestly fake, trumped-up, corrupt “disciplinary investigation” against the good Police Chief Graham Power. In spite of taking two years, and consuming about £2 million – the Wiltshire Police “investigation” failed – failed wholly and remarkably – to find so much as one single thing – not even the smallest trivial negative conclusion they could offer-up that had any chance at all of sticking as some kind of “disciplinary / conduct” charge against Mr Power.
When Police Chief Graham Power was illegally suspended in November 2008 – we were in the era of “Pre-Savile” insofar as broad public knowledge of his crimes, and similar crimes of other established child-abusers were concerned. Back in 2008, it still seemed to the British Establishment that if they could de-rail the Jersey child-abuse investigations, they could, somehow, keep the lid down on the whole nightmare decades of state-concealed child-abuse atrocities. They were wrong, of course – just as certain factions of the British state continue to be wrong in believing parts of the cover-ups could / can be maintained.
“In-the-frame” – in that 2008 Jersey Police investigation, were individuals such as Savile and Ted Heath. Let’s be clear – that’s not to say for sure, at that time, enough evidence was known to exist, so as to secure convictions, but those two suspects – and others like them – were “in-the-frame” in the sense that both were very regular and established visitors to Jersey – and against both, rumours and allegations had circulated for years. The strong probability is that year 2008 investigation in Jersey would – sooner or later – maybe in 2009 or 2010 – have closed-in on Savile – closed-in on Heath. And even if the Police hadn’t, I might well have done, working on behalf of my then constituents. But I too, like Graham Power, was illegally oppressed – arrested and prosecuted in 2009 for whistle-blowing and hounded out of the Jersey parliament by the island’s openly corrupt and politicised “judicial” system.
Those year 2008 investigations –by police – by politicians – into child-abuse cases and cover-ups that might have led to Savile and Heath were unlawfully – were illegally – sabotaged.
And – as we now know – sabotaged by a set of public authorities that already knew of the allegations against Heath – against Savile; knew of those allegations – yet wanted them covered-up. That is public authorities such as the Wiltshire Police Force.
This is what the seriousness of the allegations of child-abuse against former British Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath come down to; not the question of whether he may have ultimately been innocent – but, rather, whether the state and its agencies knew of such allegations against him – and then participated in plainly illegal conspiracies to de-rail – and then discredit – investigations into those possibilities.
The Wiltshire Police – following the illegal suspension of Jersey Police Chief Graham Power – became employed by the Jersey establishment to carry-out what transpired to be a fake, oppressive “disciplinary” review of Mr Power’s conduct. Yet the Wiltshire Police Force failed – failed throughout, and till this day – to declare the plain conflict of interest contaminating the Wiltshire Force; those extant conflicts of interest – such as burying abuse complaints involving Heath and intimidating complainers – and doing “deals” with charge / plea bargainers who might have become so uppity as to name abusers and want them brought to trial.
So, you’re wondering if the allegations of child-abuse against Ted Heath are true – are accurate? Actually, there’s a simpler – more basic and fundamental question you can ask first: ‘in the face of such allegations, does it appear that law-enforcement and other state agencies have acted unbiasedly – have acted lawfully – in investigating such claims?’
If the answer is plainly ‘no’ – and it is no, evidencedly, in respect of the Wiltshire Police Force and that organisation’s role in sabotaging the Jersey child-abuse investigations in which the likes of Savile and Heath were ‘in-the-frame’ – then we see an established fact – hiding in plain sight; a fact which does not require proof of Heath’s guilt in order to be damning.
What we see – in plain sight – are the highest and most powerful law-enforcement agencies of the British state being sufficiently terrified of even the possibility that Ted Heath might have been a child-abuser- engaging in illegal conspiracies to sabotage investigations which might have shown him to be so.
In so many ways, the cover-ups – especially at such high, state level – are now more serious – far more serious – for the British state.
Stuart Syvret
