Saturday, May 31, 2008


I've just been there today for the first time.

The message was what I expected; war is a terrible thing and it should never happen again.

Some of the stuff is very interesting, e.g. a T34 tank and the original writings of soldiers, civilians etc.

But the one person who stood out for me was Nurse Edith Cavell. Due to a special exhibition on WW1 Cavell had two walls dedicated to her in different rooms. The IWMN tells you (twice) that Cavell was executed by Germany for helping 200 British soldiers escape back to Britain.

But what the IWMN fails to tell you is that Cavell had discovered that funds and aid raised supposedly for Belgium were being channeled to Germany to help continue the war. It was then that Cavell was shot. Apparently MI6 chief William Wiseman asked Germany to arrest her. The head of German Intelligence was Max Warburg, who arrested Cavell. The normal punishment for the 'crimes' that Cavell had committed was several months in prison, but Cavell was sentenced to death!

Wiseman later played a role in releasing Trotsky from detention in Canada and took up a top post with Schiff's Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Warburg sent Lenin into Russia, and played major roles in creating and guiding the Nazi economy, eventually abandoning Germany in 1938, just in time.

Considering the building in which the IWMN is located (a very distinct and harsh grey pile of shards) I was disappointed at the contents within, but I'll probably go back again, even if it's to talk with the director about the real motivation for the wars he finds abhorent.

Saturday, May 24, 2008


This comes as no surprise.

The young man called Nick Reilly, allegedly mentally ill, who was involved in the nail bomb explosions in Exeter recently was under surveillance by the Security Services.


Now Exeter.

It is very disconcerting when the 'Security' Services have men under surveillance, yet those men go on to detonate bombs intended to kill and maim (which can then be exploited for war or oppressive legislation, for example 42 day detention).



Face of the 'nail bomber': Police were tailing Muslim convert before restaurant attack

By Michael Seamark and Colin Fernandez
Last updated at 11:18 PM on 23rd May 2008

Nicky Reilly was arrested at the scene on suspicion of detonating the nail bomb
The Muslim convert held after a nailbomb restaurant attack had been under surveillance by the security services, it was claimed last night.

Counter-terrorist officers suspected mentally-ill Nicky Reilly had forged links with known Islamic extremists at an internet cafe near his home.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008


Another classic from The Jam on The British Empire and its attitude to us all, not just British but all peoples across the world.


Its funny how you never knew what my name was,
Our only contact was a form for the election.

These days I find that you don't listen,
These days I find that we're out of touch,
These days I find that I'm too busy,
So why the attention now you want my assistance -
what have you done for me?

You've gone and got yourself in trouble,
Now you want me to help you out.

These days I find that I can't be bothered,
These days I find that its all too much,
To pick up a gun and shoot a stranger,
But I've got no choice so here I come - war games.

I'm up on the hills playing little boy soldiers,
Reconnaissance duty up at 5:30.
Shoot shoot shoot and kill the natives,
You're one of us and we love you for that.
Think of honour, Queen and country.
You're a blessed son of the British Empire,
God's on our side and so is Washington.
Come out on the hills with the little boy soldiers.

Come on outside - I'll sing you a lullabye,
And tell the tale of how goodness prevailed.
We ruled the world - we killed and robbed,
The fucking lot - but we don't feel bad.

It was done beneath the flag of democracy,
You'll believe - and I do, yes I do - yes I do -
Yes I do -

These days I find that I can't be bothered,
To argue with them - well, what's the point?
Better to take your shots and drop down dead,
then they send you home in a pine overcoat.
With a letter to your mum
Saying 'find enclosed one son, one medal'
- and a note to say he won.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008


A set of half-human, half MP animals has just voted to create more half breeds for scientific research.

This has taken us another step forward to the grotesque world that the New World Order want.

They want to create half human, half beast animals to act dumb and do the work. That's why alcohol and drugs are so cheap and available. That's why there are so many violent computer games. They want us dumb, violent against each other, and incapable of critical thought.

We are growing too intelligent and too numerous for them to control. What did Prince Philip say? That he wanted to come back as a virus to wipe out 80% of us?

I know that this recent vote is only one small step, but we were told decades ago that the computer would make us free, but it is now being proposed that ALL our emails and texts be saved for 12 months!! We were told that genetic modification would save the starving, but the terminator technology has destroyed that.

What the half breeds in the House of Commons fail to understand is that this world is run by the same people who engineered and financed world wars 1 and 2 and all the genocide during and since. They don't give a shit about us!

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Is it just me, or has there been a recent rise in the number of adverts offering credit?

I used to receive offers all the time, but since October last year I haven't received any.

But then last week I received an offer of a consolidation loan, even though I'm over my limit with them.

And I've just seen a TV advert from Capital One.

Where could they have got their new money to lend out to us?


I suppose they had to wait a few weeks to let the furore die down. But it's been several weeks since the Treasury Bills were offered, and most people are too concerned with the end of the football season, or not bothered full stop.

But those bills weren't supposed to be used for fresh borrowing. Well, not directly, but there's always a way to bend the rules where the banks are concerned.

Saturday, May 10, 2008


Today's newspapers and media are accusing Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, of starting a civil war in Lebanon. We know that the USA, UK and Israel are increasingly desperate for a war with Iran and/or Syria, because they set out the plan in A Clean Break in 1996, which I believe was designed to start the third and final war of the three world war plan credited to 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike.

Hezbollah may well have gone on the offensive, but were they provoked?



British Hand Behind New Middle East War

May 9, 2008 (LPAC)--The hand of Great Britain is behind the ongoing bloody crisis in Lebanon. Make no mistake, this is not an internal Lebanese conflict, but the front end of a British operation to throw South West Asia into a conflagration that would involve Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iran and beyond.

Senior intelligence sources told EIR that the crisis has to be seen in the "wider strategic situation," including the ongoing danger of a strike against Iran. He pointed to forces in Saudi Arabia and deep in that country's "Wahabi clerical establishment" as key to the operation, who are acting to widen the sectarian divide between Saudi-backed majority Sunni Muslims throughout the region and Shias in Lebanon, Iraq, and of course Shia Iran.

This points to a source well under the control of British intelligence through such operatives of Prince Bandar, who over decades has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the British, through defense contractor BAE for the purpose of running dirty operations all over the region. This source said that up until only a few days ago, the political discourse in the deeply divided country between the Lebanese government coalition, led by Anglo Saudi agent Saad Hariri, and the opposition, led by Hezbollah, Amal and Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement, had been moving towards a dialogue. Then Saad Hariri, who holds dual Saudi and Lebanese citizenship, returned from a two month stay in Saudi Arabia, where he runs his multi-billion dollar Saudi-backed business empire. Within his two months in Saudi Arabia, British tool U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was in the Saudi capital while on a tour pushing his war schemes against Iran.

Within days of his return to Lebanon, the government coalition launched a campaign of provocations against Hezbollah, painting it as a sectarian militia backed by Iran and Syria. So from one day to the next, government coalition leaders like Walid Jumblatt went from a discourse of dialogue, to vitriolic attacks on Hezbollah. The government then issued an order to Hezbollah to close down their telecommunications network, and dismissed an opposition-linked manager of the country's international airport, triggering protest actions, including by the country's major trade union federation, which linked the protest to demands for relief from spiraling food prices and inflation.

The same intelligence source revealed that Hariri-backed gunmen deployed into the streets of Beirut, provoking gunbattles against the Amal and Hezbollah. The international media played its role, and depicted the violence as an Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah takeover of Beirut. In reality, the Hezbollah moved in self defense, rounded up Hariri's gunman, and turned them over to the Army.

Lebanese sources close to the situation report that Hezbollah and the opposition has gained the upper hand in the street, and have managed to close down Hariri's media headquarters, turning it over to the army. The opposition is moving cautiously in an effort to prevent wider sectarian violence in a country that 20 years ago suffered a civil war, pitting its Christian, Shia, Sunni and Druz communities in a bloody conflict.

Intelligence sources nonetheless warned that there will not be an early resolution to this crisis, because it is being driven from the outside. Already there is talk of western countries preparing military plans to evacuate their nationals. One fear is that the strategic airport could be seized by an EU-NATO or UN force.

Even more dangerous is a potential new war with Israel. The Lebanese crisis began at the same time as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fell under criminal investigation for taking bribes, sparking calls for his resignation. As a rule, it has been weak Israeli governments that have gone to war.

Despite Turkish-mediated peace efforts between Syria and Israel, war could break out anytime. A commentary appearing today, the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, in the mass circulating Israeli daily Yediot Arhonot, forecast in the near term a war with Hezbollah which would immediately involve a massive attack on Syria and all of Lebanon. The commentary stated that, in such a war, "in Syria and Lebanon... the extent of the devastation and casualties would be unprecedented in the history of Mideastern wars." These are not empty words, since for weeks there have been press reports saying that this would be the Israeli military policy in the next war with Hezbollah.

Friday, May 09, 2008


Westlaw cases database cites only two uses of the FSMA 2000 S. 3, one being the insolvent 'boiler room' operation, the other completely unrelated to my argument.

Initial research into the use of the other legislation I believe is applicable is indicating no application of it has been made in the way I believe it could be.

Why is this?

Because most of us, lawyers included, are unaware of the use of fractional reserve banking, and so do not use it in any argument.

The people who do know that fractional reserve banking goes on behind the green door are banking lawyers. And what banking lawyer in his or her right mind is going to expose the scam in court, and lose his or her job?

You see. They know it goes on, but daren't expose the scam by applying legal arguments to refer to it.

This is going to be fun. But not for them.

I have mapped out their possible defences and blocking arguments to not have a case heard, and any Judge who agrees with them will be shown to be a complete fraud, and will be suspected of being a blackmailed paedophile freemason.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

FSMA 2000 Section 5

Westlaw cases database cites only one use of FSMA 2000 Section 5, and that is the same case as supplied for the use of FSMA 2000 Section 4, the insolvency of a 'boiler room' operation.

This is even more encouraging.

FSMA 2000 Section4

Westlaw cases database cites only one use of FSMA 2000 Section 4, and that was a case involving the insolvency of a 'boiler room' operation, and nothing to do with my argument. This is encouraging.



And by one the main hoaxers!

Douglas Feith was intimately involved in the drafting of the aggressive 'A Clean Break' document for the aggressive Benjamin Netanyahu (the same Benjamin Netanyahu who was overjoyed on 9/11 believing that nearly 3000 deaths would be good for Israel-American relations, though in exactly what way he declined to give details). A Clean Break proposed Israeli expansion into and aggression against Israel’s neighbours; Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

Feith was appointed, I assume under orders from Cheney who appointed Feith to advise him on Middle East Policy, to The Defense Policy Board, which was supposed to give neutral advice to the President on American military policy overseas, and The Office of Special Plans, which cherry-picked intelligence on Iraq. Feith appointed a sordid cast of characters to assist him, including Kissinger and Richard Perle, a fellow Clean Breaker of Feith.

Why Feith has done this I don’t know, but he has apparently published a devastating document in his recently released book, War and Decision.

Further details at

That document reveals that the aim of America’s reaction to 9/11 was not to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but was instead to target a number of states in the Middle East for regime change.

And would you adam and eve it, the nations listed in that document recently published by Feith were the same nations targeted in A Clean Break; Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, with Libya and Sudan also targeted. Libya and Sudan have been targeted, but not militarily. Libya was ‘persuaded’ to adopt a different tone in return for investment in its oil production. And Sudan has been in the media recently over its alleged civil war.

But Iraq has been invaded on false pretext.
Syria has been attacked and blamed for a series of assassinations in Lebanon.
And Iran? Well, it’s never out of the news, is it?

This all ties in with the current investigation into Ehud Olmert, the current PM of Israel. Despite the ridiculous and outrageous retaliation against Lebanon in 2006, Olmert is apparently willing to seek peace with his neighbours, Syria and Lebanon, and they too are open for discussion. Olmert is allegedly associated with a number of bribery scandals.

See “Olmert under pressure to quit over link to millionaire in bribery probe

If Olmert goes, which I suspect is the aim of the investigation, there will be a general election in Israel. And Benjamin “I love 9/11” Netanyahu will probably be elected as Prime Minister. If that happens, a strike on Iran and the resulting war will probably occur, and probably before Bush and Cheney leave The White House.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008


This looks like a very interesting and applicable element of law.

Does a bank unjustly enrich itself when it issues a loan?

Let's have quick think.

A potential customer goes to a bank and asks for a loan. The bank agrees, but does not tell the customer that (a) the money does not exist physically, (b) did not exist virtually until the loan was issued, and (c) the bank does not destroy the repayment but keeps it.

Thus the bank has enriched itself by the size of the loan plus interest. The customer may well believe that the bank has enriched itself, but by the interest only, for he or she does not know about fractional reserve banking and trusts the banks and his or government.

At the time the loan was issued the money for it did not exist, and I assume the money for that loan was created by a computer program.

Now the customer goes away, and works to repay that money.

So basically the bank has enriched itself, at the expense of the customer because it does not destroy the money upon its repayment. If it destroyed the capital, there may well be no argument. The thinking here is that the bank can create £10X from £X but needs the customers to create the demand for loans (the bank cannot create the money for itself, I assume), and the customer works for the money to repay the loan, while the bank simply created the money via a computer program but can use the repaid money to buy real stuff with.

The bank did not tell the customer that the money does not exist physically , nor that the money did not exist until the customer entered into a contract and accepted the loan.

So did the bank enrich itself unjustly?

If we add this to the FSMA 2000 and the other acts I believe are applicable, this law of unjust enrichment looks useful.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008


This is true, to a degree.

A more accurate statement should be,

He who makes others think he has the gold makes the rules.

There is only a certain amount of gold.

Assume Bank X has £X in gold, and bank Y has £Y in gold.

Due to demand for loans, bank X can issue £10X of gold, but in notes, while the other bank does the same, i.e. £10Y in gold, but in notes.

NB £X in gold is turned magically into £10X, but in paper notes.

Everyone then believes that bank X has £10X in gold (for they are not told about the magic of fractional reserve banking which by law they should). Similarly for bank Y.

So everyone bows down before banks X and Y to worship, praise and obey them.

Basically, money has become psychology. We have so far believed that the banks have the gold, and have so far obeyed them.

But if you know they do not have the gold, should you obey them?

Are the banks, despite their wealth, perfect? Are their laws perfect? Are their morals perfect? Are their corporate social responsibilities perfect?

Nothing or nobody is perfect. Their law is not perfect, despite their arrogance.


The Financial Services and Markets act 2000 established the Financial Services Authority. According to Section 4, one of the core objectives of the FSA is to inform you of the financial system in the UK. I quote the FSMA 2000;

4 Public awareness

(1) The public awareness objective is: promoting public understanding of the financial system.

(2) It includes, in particular—

(a) promoting awareness of the benefits and risks associated with different kinds of investment or other financial dealing; and

(b) the provision of appropriate information and advice.

(3) “The financial system” has the same meaning as in section 3.

Regarding Section 4 (2) (b), what is the appropriate level of information and advice? And who sets that level, and with whose agreement?

Section 5 states that another core objective of the FSA is the protection of the consumer. I quote Section 5;

5 The protection of consumers

(1) The protection of consumers objective is: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers.

(2) In considering what degree of protection may be appropriate, the Authority must have regard to—

(a) the differing degrees of risk involved in different kinds of investment or other transaction;

(b) the differing degrees of experience and expertise that different consumers may have in relation to different kinds of regulated activity;

(c) the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information; and

(d) the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions.

(3) “Consumers” means persons—

(a) who are consumers for the purposes of section 138; or

(b) who, in relation to regulated activities carried on otherwise than by authorised persons, would be consumers for those purposes if the activities were carried on by authorised persons.

Regarding Section 5 (2) (c), what is accurate information, and who decides the level of accuracy and with whose agreement?

Regarding Section 5 (2) (d), how can we be responsible for our decisions if we are not given complete and accurate advice?

My questions to government bodies regarding this act so far have been;

1. is fractional reserve banking practiced in the UK? Yes. If so, why is no mention of it made on the FSA website?
2. does fractional reserve banking give the banks tremendous power over the consumer? Yes. Why? Because (a) the money does not exist and so can be very easily created, (b) while the bank can simply create the money, we, the consumer works very hard for it just to survive, and (c) upon repayment of a loan, the money, even though it does not exist, is not destroyed, and so a bank can very easily turn £1 into £10 plus interest without lifting a finger, and then that repaid money can then be used as a base for the next credit pyramid to create £100, which can then be used to create £1000 etc.
3. if this information is something we as a consmuer should not know, why is that so?

I have been asking the FSA, Treasury and the Bank of England this for the last two months, AND NONE OF THEM HAVE GIVEN ME ANY REASON OR EXPLANATION WHY SUCH INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE SUPPLIED TO YOU BY THE FSA.

There is no legal exemption on this information, so why do the FSA, Treasury and Bank of England think the FSA should not tell you? I don't know. I have not had any answer to that question.

The law states that somebody party to a contract should be able to access all information related to that contract within a reasonable period of time.

This is only part of my legal argument. The banks are governed by the FSA and finance it. They are therefore party to the withholding of this information which gives them a ridiculous and outrageous advantage which by law should not happen according to at least two other different acts of parliament.

Do you see now what I mean about keeping the biggest secret oh so secret. It is not written into any laws, but it happens, which means there is not just one loophole as wide as the universe, but several.


They most certainly do!

I saw, for the first time, John Carpenter's They Live on Saturday. At first I thought it was going to be just another pro-religion or pro-communism film, but it turned out to be simply a pro-freedom film but with more imagination and truth than some would like us to believe.

The use of a special pair of glasses to transport the ordinary man and woman into another imaginary dimension in which he or she can see the messages hidden in adverts and see behind the human-like exterior of an invading race is simple but effective.

The film was made about the same time as a TV series called V, which also proposed that an alien race was secretly invading planet earth, acting and looking like humans, warming its atmosphere for their benefit, and enslaving and feasting off us. Carpenter took the same thesis but replaced the latex skin of the alien in V to hide the alien form with a secret electromagnetic field that enabled the aliens to hold or project human form, so that when our hero Roddy Piper stopped the signal the human race was able to see their jailers as they really were.

They live? They certainly do, everywhere; boardrooms of banks and multinational corporations, classrooms, government offices, the blogosphere, the military, the judiciary, the police.


Whether they are alien or part-alien is up for debate, but when you learn what has really happened in our history and continues to go on, I would not be surprised if they who live do have a tiny fraction of vicious alien DNA. It would explain why the world has been a violent, genocidal shithole due to their engineered warmongering and profiteering.


It has been two weeks since the Bank of England announced that it would swap dodgy mortgages for top quality Treasury bills. A few days later the banks said they would help people stay in their homes during this difficult period.

So what is this? Repossessions set to soar and continue to rise even during next year!

The banks have had three rate cuts (and will probably get more) but have not passed them on.

They've also had £50 billion in top quality Treasury bills (and will probably get more).

This government and parliament have totally lost the plot.

Who do they work for?


Repossessions set to soar to highest level for 17 years

By Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor
Tuesday, 6 May 2008

The number of properties being repossessed has soared as the effects of the credit crunch push court orders from banks and building societies to record highs, figures will show this week.

The tally of 95,374 repossession orders during 2007 was the highest since the housing crash of the early 1990s – when they peaked at 142,905 in 1991. In the last three months of 2007, the number of home repossession orders climbed by 6.3 per cent to 25,008.

However, that figure did not fully reflect the housing downturn and the credit crisis, which became more acute in March. On Friday, the Ministry of Justice will reveal the repossession figures for the first three months of 2008. The shortage of mortgage finance, particularly for the 1.4 million homeowners needing to renegotiate fixed-rate deals this year, and the general economic slowdown will almost certainly push even higher the number of families losing their homes.

The Bank of England said last week: "Many high-risk borrowers may find they are unable to re-finance expiring fixed-rate mortgage deals and will instead move on to the standard variable rate. This will result in a jump in their average effective mortgage rate of about 2.5 percentage points." However, many borrowers will not be able to afford their new commitments.

While the number of actual repossessions remains low and well below the number of repossession orders, because financial institutions and householders usually find ways through debt problems, the two nonetheless generally follow the same trend. More than 22,700 properties were repossessed in 2007, some way off the high of 75,540 seen in 1991, but three times their nadir in 2005. A large number of repossession orders now could mean a jump in repossessions later this year and in 2009.

Friday, May 02, 2008


Brown was invited to the ultra-exclusive Bilderberg meeting in 1991 and met some very, very, very influential people.

He subsequently went on to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, a power in the International Monetary Fund, and then Prime Minister.

He also promised us a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, but reneged on that promise and signed us over to Europe with a smile. Just like that, such a massive transfer of power. And all with a smile.

That was to be Blair's role, but due to circumstances beyond his control Blair wasn't able to do that, but Blair's Bilderberg Buddy Brown was, and he did.

Only Labour could have signed us into Europe. The Tories are supposed to be anti-EU, and the Lib Dems will probably never get into power, but could play the role of king-makers at some period of time.

Now Labour are third place in the polls.

They lost the Office of Mayor of London.

Who can save Gordon Brown now?

Only the banks can.

Only the banks can, by using the £50 billion in Treasury Bills that we recently gave them to start the economy going again, after they'd cocked it up.

This is why I wanted Mervyn King to use those bills himself, for example giving them to our bank Northern Rock to initiate the sequence. Instead he gave all that precious money to the same coven of high street banks who got us into this mess, and they still refuse to use them, and they still refuse to pass on the THREE rate cuts!


House prices down. Repossessions up. More businesses and individuals declaring insolvency or bankruptcy.

It won't be 1930, but it will be enough to get the Tories back in. Blair was Tory in disguise, that's why he received the support he did after meeting with the same people in 1993 that Brown did in 1991.

The bankers put Brown where is. They can drag him down too. And they are doing so.

Fundamentally, they are Tory. Labour was formed for the workers, but has been infiltrated all the way to the top. What of sort of Labour government would remove a 10p tax band? One whose leaders secretively meet with the bankrollers of the Nazis, the Bilderbergers, that's who!

Write to your local Labour Party and tell them why Brown, and Blair for that matter, came to hold the positions they have occupied and currently occupy.


I believe the path is now clear for a legal challenge to the status of all financial credit contracts in the United kingdom.

The only question now is how do I make it.


Yesterday, the Bank of England claimed the banks were making the credit crunch out to be much worse than it was, and they were hindering the recovery from the crisis that they had themselves manufactured. This shows to you who is really in control; the banks. Gordon Brown got a good kick in the bollocks in the local elections yesterday, partially because of the economy in general, which is currently heavily influenced by the banks and their manufactured credit crisis.

But today we find Citigroup, i.e. Rockefeller, countering yesterday's BoE claim. Citigroup say the crisis is much worse than the BoE thinks.

Oh, really?

What information has Citigroup and the other banks withheld from the BoE?

The BoE can only use the information it is given by the banks.

So is Citigroup withholding information? And if so, what is that information and why are they withholding it?



Bank of England 'too upbeat' on credit crisis, says banking giant Citigroup
By SAM FLEMING - More by this author » Last updated at 00:54am on 2nd May 2008

Comments Comments (28)
The Bank of England was criticised in the City yesterday for being too optimistic about the prospects of an end to the credit crisis.

Citigroup accused the Bank of being 'self-congratulatory' about its efforts to ease the cash shortage in banking.

The banking giant said the pain triggered by the U.S. sub-prime crisis will remain "severe" for some time to come, adding that the Bank was being "too sanguine" about the outlook.

Thursday, May 01, 2008


One good psyop is to focus on the horrific actions of one man in order to smear a country as paedophiles.

The horrific Fritzl case has been covered for days now. The first few days focused on Austria in general, asking how could the whole of Austria not know, rather than the horror of the case itself, and paedophilia in general. In fact, when was the last serious documentary on paedophilia and the attempts to eradicate it? It wasn't last night, was it? I can't remember the last one (however there is currently a series The Age of Terror which paints Britain and Israel as victims rather than provocateurs.)

There are networks of paedophiles everywhere. They serve several purposes. There are genuine paedophiles prepared to kidnap, kill and even kill themselves. There are people/agencies prepared to use these paedophile networks for blackmail. If no network exists, one can be established in a target nation, and then exposed in order to smear that nation. My point is, if someone knows who is involved in these networks, and knows where they are, they can expose one of them in order to smear a nation, controlling the media coverage to smear the nation without seriously investigating paedophile networks in general for fear of exposing the larger networks that reach into the upper echelons of society.

This is a possibility with Fritzl and Austria. The kidnapping and abuse of Natasha Kampusch revealed a cover-up of a network when during an investigation into some bankers (of all people) some photos were found showing Natasha being abused by a group of men, though why an investigation into wealthy bankers produced pictures of a young girl/woman being abused is perhaps the question we should ask. What sort of investigation was it?

There is a strong anti-EU feeling in Austria, and I'm wondering if a group in Austria is planning something.

But let's get this into perspective. Our BBC is keen to focus on Fritzl and Austria, while ignoring the biggest criminals on the planet in The City of London who use the proceeds of the crime of WW2 that they engineered to enslave if not kill us all.