Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    Judge a (future) king by his courtiers: Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, pawns in the cover-up of a transatlantic paedophile network.

    By Joseph de Burca.   Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge and other senior Royals continue to retain a sinister cabal of deeply corrupt officials in their employment at Buckingham Palace. These officials bartered access to William and Kate as a bribe to ABC TV in the US in return for the concealment of a child abuse network involving Prince Andrew which was run by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In the worst case scenario the ABC scandal threatens to recast the popular Royal couple as hypocritical, cynical and uncaring, not to mention accessories after the fact to the criminal concealment of child rape. The best case scenario for them is that they are dupes with little or no control over their own lives. Amy Robach, the ABC TV News anchor, interviewed Virginia Roberts in 2015, three years before the Jeffrey Epstein scandal (Phase 2) erupted. Robach was not allowed to broadcast anything Roberts revealed to her by her superiors at ABC. Roberts had been flown by ABC from Colorado to New York City with her family all of whom were put up at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. She was then interviewed by Robach and her colleague Jim Hill about Epstein. In late August 2019 Robach was captured by a live microphone in her TV studio describing her disappointment to colleagues. A recording of this off-air moment leaked. On it she can be heard complaining: “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts…we would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘who’s Jeffrey Epstein.’ Then the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways… [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton, we had everything.” Robach continued: “One of the reasons an interview with Roberts was not broadcast was because, “We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, so I think that had also quashed the story.” After Robach’s outpouring was broadcast online by the Project Veritas website, an ABC ‘source’ claimed that the company had “never stopped investigating the story” and that: “A lot of broadcasters can probably empathize. We do have to run everything past standards and practices and there are times when interviews can’t air. We needed time to corroborate details, and we were unable to verify a lot of Virginia’s claims.” There cannot be a village idiot anywhere on the planet who believes this drivel from ABC. The company did not let one of the most important stories of this century slip through its fingers because it was unable to back it up. Absolutely nothing changed over the next three years when the story finally broke. The claims made by Roberts have since been corroborated by a number of witnesses. Roberts knew a great number of them. She even set up an organisation to support them long before the scandal erupted whereby there was a cohort of available witnesses with corroborative stories, documentation and photographs. As the world now knows, Prince Andrew has been shamed and pushed out of the Royal spotlight, Jeffrey Epstein has died in suspicious circumstances in his New York prison cell while Ghislaine Maxwell is facing a criminal trial. The ABC top brass is simply lying when they claim they ever had any intention of letting their journalists pursue the story in any shape, form or manner. ABC’s excuse simply does not hold water. There is something deeply sinister about this scandal. Robach was undoubtedly telling the truth when she raised the prospect of a boycott of ABC by Buckingham Palace. Nonetheless, while the top brass at ABC may be hard boiled and ruthless, it is difficult to believe they would allow children be raped indefinitely just to secure a few minutes of footage with the Royal couple. So why did ABC really protect Epstein? Robach issued a statement after the ABC leak was broadcast online which was less strident than her off-the-cuff outburst in the TV studio. It is reproduced in full below. You can make your own minds up whether it feels authentic or reeks of coercive pressure from above. It is difficult to believe that Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge were consulted in advance about the threats which were made in “a million different ways” to ABC. Yet, unless they are helpless pawns hermetically sealed from what is going on around them at Buckingham Palace, they surely know by now about the threats issued by their courtiers. Surely they have at least one friend who has alerted them to what Robach let slip in the ABC TV studio. Assuming this is so, they cannot be happy that media access to them was bartered to protect a child abuse network, even if it was not the sole or decisive factor in the cover-up at ABC TV. Despite the Royal couple’s presumed discomfort, no one at Buckingham Palace has been dismissed nor disciplined. The threats from the Palace enabled Epstein and his associates to groom, traffic and abuse young girls for a further three years. Not a single Royal correspondent has asked the future King to confirm that he was unaware of the threats made by his courtiers back in 2015. Nor is anyone asking him {i} when he became aware of the ABC suppression scandal; {ii} what he has been told by the staff at Buckingham Palace about it; {iii} what he believes to be the truth of the affair and {iv} what, if anything, he is doing about it. Most remiss of all, no one is asking him if he has demanded sight of the ABC file kept by his courtiers. There must be a string of emails and memos. One suspects Robach has copies so it would be a brave pursuivant at the Palace who would destroy them. The couple, viewed as a royal breath of fresh air, are clearly hard working and have helped bring some

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Media failed in its duty on Covid

    Government should focus on the elderly, as it should have done in March; Varadkar and Martin both outrageously breached the lockdown. By Michael Smith Perspective The Covid-19 infection rate of Irish healthcare workers at 32% of total infections is the highest in the world. Nursing homes account for nearly two-thirds of deaths, while the international average is just 25%. Yet those who predicted swamped ICUs, scandalous shortages of equipment and overflowing morgues were utterly wrong. 1800 deaths though tragic, is at the extreme benign end of the predicted spectrum. Annual deaths in Ireland from the flu are 200 to 500. Nevertheless, we are actually a shocking eighth worst in the world for deaths per million people, a key indicator of incompetence, and indeed of misery, though admittedly we peaked early in global terms and otherswill surpass us. It seems a major reason for this is we simply applied the lockdown a week later in the cycle than many other countries. Media failed If you haven’t realised all that, nuanced as it is, you weren’t following. Ireland’s media in general failed in their duty to keep the public aware of the evolving pattern of Coronavirus cases in Ireland over the last four months. There was a pattern of reported cases it is just that the media did not follow it. Their job was not to convey this as a certainty but as the probability, based on the curves – the data. They failed the most vulnerable in society– the very elderly in nursing homes. Instead, all their energy went into plying pictures of improvised morgues, invitations to submit stories about deceased love ones, pieces about our nonexistent devastating shortages of PPE and ventilators, and of rockstars organising emergency imports of it. It was implied healthcare workers were dying on a serious scale when seven have died in a sector that employs 120,000 – a rate lower than the average rate for the population and around the same number as that of healthcare workers likely to die in road fatalities and drownings this year. Figures from the INMO showed that up to the end of May, a total of 8,018 cases of infection of healthcare workers were reported. Some 66 percent or 4,823 remain out sick. New Scientist reported in late June that one in five of those who need ICU treatment may suffer permanent lung damage but that suggests no more than 100 patients in total. Non-mortal infections, evenon a disturbingly large scale, do not constitute catastrophe. Ireland’s misplaced healthcare-worker catastrophism was enabled by the fact that many countries and in particular the two countries from which we draw most of our external news, the US and the UK, genuinely faced shortages of equipment and facilities and rampant deaths, as well as base, brutal, science-defying incompetence from the very top. The authorities Some credit is due to those who imposed the lockdown efficiently (and of course those who observed it – and the healthcare services). The reality The rates of infection and indeed of death worldwide have been really quite small (around 360 deaths per million in Ireland; 400 in the US; 700 in Britain, the ignominious world leader, after dysfunctional Belgium). In Ireland, 65% of cases have come from three sectors: healthcare workers, nursing homes and residential institutions like Direct Provision centres. The incidences of people outside particular hotspots of this type catching Covid-19 have been low. As to deaths, nursing homes alone account for 62%. And 92% of deaths have been of people over 65 (who comprise just over a quarter of cases; with the median age of death 83), mostly (nearly 90%) with underlying health conditions, “comorbidities”. Many of these people would have died within a few years anyway. On the one hand, it is the case that it is far worse for younger people with a long life expectancy to die, but on the other, it is extraordinary that it was allowed to happen, with so little real interest in covering the experiences of those in the homes or addressing the predicament of the elderly generally while the virus rages. The priority for journalism now should be to analyse and draw lessons from what happened in the nursing homes and ensure the most vulnerable, especially the elderly, are better protected against a likely second wave of the pandemic. Whistleblowers That is not to say even outside the care-homes all was above board. Village understands there were cases where whistleblowers about potential PPE shortages in hospitals were pressurised to remain silent. An organisation called WhistleblowerAid Ireland has been established to investigate possible corruption surrounding the handling of the Covid-19 crisis. It is affiliated to the charitable legal aid firm which recently advised the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment of Donald Trump. There should be an inquiry into what happened and major public concern at apparent failures. Guarding a realistic perspective does not mean we should not investigate incompetence. What happened? Inertia then catastrophism but mainly inadequate regard for nursing homes Let’s start by looking at the sequence of what happened in Ireland. There was a very bad start. The Department of Health oversaw a system underprepared for a pandemic and then specifically underestimated the dangers from China – on 20 February the Chief Medical Officer TonyHolohan ineptly faced a camera and said: We don’t expect to see anything more than individual cases occurring that we believe we’ll be well-positioned to manage within the next couple of months. Within a few weeks, however, the official view had flipped the other way and by 8 March Paul Reid, CEO of the Health Service Executive (HSE) was endorsing a report in the Business Post which quoted the health authoritiesmassively overestimating cases. The lead story in that newspaper on that day, apparently teed up with the health authorities, predicted 1.9 million infected cases for Ireland which would have implied 68,000 deaths, since the death rate given by theWHO at the time was 3.4%. The report did not say there “might” or

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The Plague, Ecocide, Thanatos and Gaia.

    Coronavirus shows that our self-destructive civilisation is fragile. But the earth may be on our side. by Michael Smith. This article argues that self-destructiveness including neo-liberalism facilitates twin scourges: plagues and environmental catastrophe (“ecocide”). In reacting, as you would expect, against ecocide Gaia, the force that regulates the earth’s environment, also attacks plagues and those that cause or facilitate them. I’m going to take you on a journey through plagues; humans’ self-destructiveness; neoliberalism as a manifestation of that self-destructiveness; how countries have performed on both Coronavirus and ecocide in ways that reflect their self-destructiveness; and how ultimately Gaia is responsible for the Coronavirus and is a warning to us to take better care of our exhausted earth. Plagues Coronavirus and plagues Coronavirus is not the first plague to bring civilisation to a standstill. But looked at from the perspective of the planet forcing a standstill is a cry for help that, rather than bringing down our civilisation, affords us the chance to reflect on our selfdestructiveness and maybe save it. Particular human civilisations – as opposed to humanity itself – assailed by plagues have not always had that chance.   Historical Plagues In 430 BC during the Peloponnesian War typhoid crossed the Athenian walls as the frugal Spartans laid siege, killing two-thirds of the population of the cradle of democracy. The first appearance of the bubonic plague in 541 AD stopped the Emperor Justinian from saving the Western Roman Empire and expedited the ascent of Goths and Vandals and the so-called ‘dark ages’. In the fourteen century bubonic plague put an end to England’s feudal system with its moribund social rigidity. In 1520 the death-worshipping Aztec empire was destroyed by colonists’ smallpox. So…plagues are dangerous to the very survival of particular civilisations. Human Ecocide Human driving of species loss and climate change is self-destructive. In the last fifty years humans have damaged the earth so much that most life forms are under existential threat. Humans have wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles and threatened a million species with extinction to the point where we are facing the sixth Great Extinction. Since 1906, the global average temperature has increased by more than 1.1 degrees. A further .4 of a degree rise may put 20-30% of species at risk of extinction. Climate change generates rising seas, hurricanes, floods, droughts and desertification. Self-evidently it is self-destructive to have manufactured a future of this. It is, then, extraordinary that we are currently accelerating towards probably 3 to 4 degrees and perhaps, in places, 10 degrees centigrade of warming by the end of the century. A quarter of a billion years ago, a rich and wonderful world was annihilated in the end-Permian extinction when the world warmed the same amount, 10 degrees. It is a simple truth that most humans have not synthesised that this bears on our civilisation. We’ve known about climate change since the 1860s. We’ve really known about it since around 1988. Yet since then global emissions have risen by 50% and continue to rise, causing and threatening all this, to the point that over the last dozen years it has become a clear and overarching existential threat. Society has failed to recognise, still less control, this momentous threat. Some countries are worse than others in their approach to climate change. So…ecocide is dangerous to the very survival of the whole of human civilisation. We have discussed the dangers of plague and ecocide. But human self-destructiveness compounds the dangers of both plague and ecocide. Self-destructiveness Self-destructive societies are open to plague and ecocide Societies that are self-destructive tend to make mistakes. They open themselves to predation, to attack – to plague, to ecocide. Already-self-destructive societies are more likely to generate plague and ecocide. Societies that are underprepared, licentious, self-absorbed, intolerant, arrogant, profligate, reckless, short-termist, greedy, laissez-faire, uneducated, anti-scientific or ignorant. That, in Freudian psychoanalyticalterms, have clinched Thanatos – the death wish. Self-destructiveness. Humankind has always had a destructive side but it really lost its existential caution, and became self-destructive from, at the latest, the beginning of the twentieth century after which it fought two ‘world wars’ and entered an epoch of nuclear and now environmental threat to the continuation of the human species. But some societies and some people within those societies are particular vectors of self-destructiveness – and of plagues and ecocide.   Neo-liberal self-destructiveness: Britain, the US, Brazil The most self-destructive, though of course certainly not the most evil, ethos to have arisen in the history of humanity is globalised capitalism, market-deferential laissez-faire that I shall call, denigratingly, neo-liberalism. It originated in Thatcher’s Britain and Reagan’s USA forty years ago. It promoted capital over humans. It stopped those countries investing in their populations, including in their education. It promoted irresponsible laissez-faire. It celebrated inequality. It was a form of death worship. Aftera while society and many citizens became self-destructive. After a generation of social, environmental and cultural decay countries that had been beacons for much of the twentieth century turned to populist authoritarianism, xenophobia, racism and narcissistic leadership: the UK elected hedonistic Brexit Boris; and the USA racist, sexist Trump. A similar but accelerated process threw up proto-fascist Bolsonaro in Brazil.   Self-destructive leaders and Coronavirus Boris Johnson is so self-destructive he did not even protect himself or, apparently, his heavily pregnant partner, against Coronavirus. He nearly died. His chief advisor, Dominic Cummings, who advised a lax approach to the disease, then discovered he had it and travelled and picknicked half way across England risking multiple infections in search of law-breakingisolation. Trump’s deathly instincts have helped make the US the worst mortality victim of Coronavirus. They spawned his initial denial of the disease – a “Democratic hoax” and his subsequent obsession with prematurely reopening his country. He believes Coronavirus can be cured by applying light and injecting disinfectant. On a personal level he continues to shake hands, does little to social distance, ingests insidious malaria drugs, and refuses to wear a mask. Reflecting this puerile vanity, Vice-President Pence

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The UK’s constitutional ‘crisis’ over the Union, rights, minorities, the judicial role and European law is dangerous for Northern Ireland.

    The Conservative Party’s view of the role of the judiciary in politics won’t work in Northern Ireland.  By Christopher Stanley. This piece looks at the dangers for Northern Ireland of ‘Cummings-Type’ tampering with the British Constitutional settement. For readers of Village Magazine it is offered as a supplement to my recent post, Contempt in the Rose Garden, on the travels and travails of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s eminence grise Dominic Cummings. it is written in response to a paper by Richard Elkins: “Protecting the Constitution: How and why Parliament should limit judicial power” (Policy Exchange Protecting the Constitution, 2 December 2019) which focuses too much on Britain.  In general for Britain read England. This distinction has become particularly acute during the current pandemic crisis.  The UK’s devolved administrations reacted in different ways to the control of Covid-19.  This post is offered as a warning to those elsewhere – in Dublin for example – who may be curious about the recent proposals from London to reform the unwritten constitution and to review how Executive authority-power is exercised. It is a view from that ‘Narrow Ground’ described by Sir Walter Scott in 1825. “I never saw a richer country, or, to speak my mind, a finer people; the worst of them is the bitter and envenomed dislike which they have to each other. Their factions have been so long envenomed, and they have such narrow ground to do their battle in, that they are like people fighting with daggers in a hogshead”.  The narrow ground in Northern Ireland is unfortunate but forced on it.         [I] Conservative Manifesto The problem originated with the Conservative Manifesto published before the recent General Election in the UK which stated: “After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people”.  “We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital National Security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing  state while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays” (Conservative Manifesto 2019 page 48). The Queen’s Speech 1, which gives sovereign expression to the Conservative Party Manifesto and therefore a democratic mandate to govern, states:  “My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom”. In the accompanying Background Briefing Notes, the Cabinet Office  expatiates on this statement: “Examine the broader aspects of the constitution in depth and develop proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. Careful consideration is needed on the composition and focus of the Commission” Queen’s Speech 2. In 2020 Manifesto Commitments are unusually important.  This is because many of them are likely to find their way into the Queen’s Speech and from there into action. The current UK government has a majority in Parliament of 80 seats. This constitutes what Lord Hailsham described in 1976 as an Elective Dictatorship. Julian Petley recently commented:  “At a time when the powers of Parliament are under severe threat from government, it might not seem an opportune moment to recall Hailsham’s lecture, but the crucial point to bear in mind is that his phrase refers to the fact that Parliament’s legislative programme is determined by the government, whose bills virtually always pass in the Commons thanks to the majoritarian, first-past-the-post electoral system and the imposition by the whips of party discipline on the governing party’s majority. Thus there is a strong tendency towards executive dominance, and this is compounded by the constitutional inability of the Lords ultimately to block government initiatives. We are closer than ever to Hailsham’s Elective Dictatorship” (30 September 2019). [ii] The mood is majoritarian Policy Exchange is ‘the UK’s leading think-tank’. Richard Elkins is Head of the Policy Exchange Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government in the University of Oxford. His paper ‘Protecting the Constitution: How and why Parliament should limit judicial power’ has a foreword by former Conservative Home Secretary and Leader of the Oppositon Lord [Michael] Howard of Lympne CH QC in which he offers his own insight into the British constitution by way of a question:  “Who should make the law by which we are ruled? Should it be elected, accountable politicians, answerable to their constituents and vulnerable to summary dismissal at elections or by unaccountable, unelected judges, who cannot be removed?”. This is a politician’s question in that it points to the questioner’s own answer. Lord Howard then posits a further ‘drain’ on democracy as he sees because not only is law apparently being made by judges, but these judges are applying and making the law from the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) at Strasbourg through judgments which apply the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its abstract jurisprudence (obviously infected by pernicious Continental legal systems) as opposed to the pragmatic Common Law.  [iii] That majoritarianism pays little attention to Ireland Fog in Channel – Continent Cut Off. Irish Sea nowhere to be seen.  Policy Exchange is a (Neo-Conservative) Think-Tank. It is part of The Stockholm Network(‘The Stockholm-Network.org is the leading pan-European think tank and market oriented network’). Policy Exchange therefore articulates and promulgates an ideological position which underscores a political mandate. Who Funds You? The English constitutional settlement is an unwritten set of conventions, principles and practices forming  an ideological construct balancing competing interests. As a constitution that is unwritten, save for the Bill of Rights 1688, there are both implicit and explicit consitutional conventions – for example the contested sovereignty of Parliament.  Note: most European countries are republics, the UK is a monarchy. While European states have citizens, the UK has subjects.  The UK’s constitutional ‘strength’, as commentators such as Dicey noted, is that the system is flexible and can accommodate change. This

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Fractious and prolonged post-election volatility difficult to avoid.

    A reply to Conor Lenihan looking at the convoluted practice in Belgium. By John Vivian Cooke. In his article in Village, (¨Risks of high political instability are being underestimated¨, 30 May), Conor Lenihan outlined the factors threatening Irish politics with continued instability. He detailed the calculations of electoral advantage that, in the end, led to an interval of 140 days between the general election and the formation of a new coalition. However, the insecurity caused by this dithering is mild in comparison to the frustrations and anxieties regularly endured by Belgian voters. When Yves Letreme, tendered his resignation as the Belgian Premier on 26 April 2010, federal elections swiftly followed in June. But Letreme`s successor, Elio Di Rupo, was not sworn into office until 5 December 2011. Letreme thereby set an unenviable record by serving the longest term in office as an acting head of government in a modern democracy. 589 days.   Ireland and Belgium use their own forms of proportional representation in national elections. Proportional representation has a tendency to create multi-party systems in contrast to plurality voting that has a propensity to two-party systems. The consequence of this is fragmentation in parliament, which, in turn, has necessarily led to a history of coalition governments. The last single-party government in Belgium was Aloys Van de Vyvere`s short-lived administration in 1925, while, Ireland last elected a single-party (minority) government in 1987. In fact, the last Dáil in which a single party commanded a majority was the 21st Dáil, elected in 1977.  If Ireland and Belgium both reliably expect their elections to result in coalition governments, why does it take so long to agree their composition? If both countries reliably expect their elections to result in coalition governments, why does it take so long to agree their composition? In both cases, the proximate cause resides in the mathematics of the election outcomes. However, an explanation based on contingency does little to explain the deeper causes of these delays. In the case of Belgium there are two forces in operation: one social and the other structural.  Deep divisions in Belgian society jam up the cogs of its politics. In broad terms, the Francophone southern regions of Wallonia are distinct from the Dutch-speaking communities in the northern Flemish districts. This historic, linguistic divide always gave rise to a degree of friction between the communities. In recent years, political relations between the two communities have grown increasingly rancourous as existing language rights and the share of the federal budget are guarded jealously, all the while resenting any gains made by the other community. Unfortunately, some nationalist parties have sought electoral profit by stoking outright enmity and suspicion. Their incessant tugging at the thread of greater regional autonomy threatens to unravel the fabric of the country itself.  The political expression of this is not limited to nationalist parties advocating greater regional autonomy.  Although some parties have an electoral appeal that bridges the linguistic divide, many parties representing the same ideological position have separate and distinct Flemish and Walloon versions. As a consequence, Belgian voting patterns cleave along both ideological and linguistic lines. Imagine if each of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit had an English and Irish version in the Dáil. After the 2010 federal elections, 12 different political parties won representation in the Chamber of Representatives.  Although such cultural factors are not present in Irish voter behaviour, the salience of voter loyalty as a determinant of voting behaviour is in long-term decline. Fianna Fáil, and, more recently, Fine Gael have had success at individual elections in attracting uncommitted voters. But these gains have proven to be ephemeral and disguise the underlying pattern.  As Lenihan noted, the result of the last election ¨threw up an indeterminate result and an intractable three-way split between Fianna Fail, Sinn Féin and Fine Gael. Beyond these medium-sized parties, are a number of smaller parties of varying sizes and ideologies and of course a plethora of independents¨. Neither of the traditional parties looks to be in any position to re-establish its previous electoral dominance on any lasting basis. The Belgian customs of forming new governments are very much the Heath Robinson of constitutional arrangements. The day immediately after balloting in federal elections, the outgoing Premier is invited to form a caretaker administration until a new government can be appointed. Following wide consultations among leading political figures, the King appoints an Informateur whose role it is to take soundings from all parties and identify the candidate in the best position to put together a parliamentary majority. The Informateur need not report the exact terms of the basis of government as there is no expectation that they will be the new Premier themselves, they merely nominate a Formateur. It is the Formateur`s responsibility in turn to undertake the tortuous detailed work of agreeing policies and dividing cabinet portfolios.  Following a political crisis in 2007, it was felt that the system was not sufficiently complicated and the position of Royal Mediator was created. After elections in 2019, a Preformateur assumed the functions of the Informateur with the intention of becoming Premier. These positions are intended to speed up the process of government formation, but, surprisingly, it has not worked out that way. Moreover, in order to hold together the existing governing coalition, the positions of Clarificateur and Negotiateur were added to the mix in 2007.  If insufficient progress is not made, the process can regress a step with a fresh set of appointees. The frequency with which this happens can make Place des Palais seem somewhat of a roundabout that politicians circle until it is their turn. All the while these Informateurs, Preformateurs, Formateurs, and Royal Mediators go about their business, the previous Premier hobbles along in office a caretaker capacity.  Uachtarán na hÉireann rightly holds a constitutional position above party politics and, thus, is denied the role of encouraging parties into government that is reserved for the King of the Belgians. The royal role is a relic from when

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Trump’s mentor: another sociopathic paedophile child-trafficker in the mix; from Roy Cohn to Epstein and Maxwell.

    By David Burke. Introduction. Law-enforcement agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have been – and continue to be – adverse to making inquiries into VIP child sex-abuse. This has been the position for decades. Donald Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn, was a paedophile who abused boys on both sides of the Atlantic, including one from Kincora Boys’ Home, Richard Kerr, whom he selected in Belfast and had taken to him in Venice for sexual abuse. The mere fact of the trip to Venice demolishes the findings of a series of official inquiries  into the Kincora scandal. The cover-up continue to this day. Richard Kerr had been prepared to supply all of the information in this article – including the photographs and financial records – to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in London but it was not interested. There is a common thread between the Kerr case, Cohn’s activities and, in more recent times, those of Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell: a disturbing refusal by British and American authorities to investigate their cases properly. Cohn may have been part of a sexual blackmail network with Mafia and intelligence links which was later managed by Epstein and Maxwell. Cohn was so corrupt that he was eventually disbarred from practice as a lawyer after which Trump dumped him. He died from AIDS in 1986. Trump then let Epstein and Maxwell into his life. In the US, the FBI has covered-up for an ‘intelligence’ agency for whom Epstein and Maxwell ran ‘honey traps’. Their victims should brace themselves for another round of betrayal by the FBI which has acted deplorably thus far. Ghislaine Maxwell may be thrown to the wolves but the intelligence agencies involved in the scandal will escape justice. In August 2019 the Metropolitian Police in London anounced that it was not going to investigate Prince Andrew for having had sex with a minor. A spokesperson for the Met announced that it had investigated allegations he had “had sex with Virginia Roberts Giuffre aged 17 in Ghislaine Maxwell’s bathroom” in London and confirmed that while they had received “an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation” that “no further action is being taken”. It is doubtful Met officers even spoke to Prince Andrew or Ghislaine Maxwell. As far as they are concerned, the matter is “closed”. Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to ignore the fact that the notorious paedophile and friend of the Royal Family, Lord Greville Janner, introduced a teenage male prostitute to Prince Andrew. Roy Cohn was a cheating, corrupt, tax-dodging, cocaine-snorting New York lawyer linked to the Mafia who persecuted homosexuals. He acted for Donald Trump and was the driving force behind Trump’s book, ‘The Art of the Deal’ which was published in 1987 shortly after Cohn died. With the election of Trump as US President, Cohn’s primary historical significance is that he imbued the younger Trump with his ruthless, amoral and deceitful approach to life. Cohn was a paedophile with connections to the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring in London. The link to it may have come through a Texan living in London called Fred Ferguson who was also a paedophile or Dr Morris Fraser, a Northern Ireland psychiatrist who was a key figure in the network. In any event, in 1977 he and Ferguson were able to gain access to a boy from Northern Ireland through the network. The boy was part of a group of 14-year-old boys who had been residents of Williamson House in Belfast until they were transferred to Kincora Boys’ Home in 1975. Up to this point, Kincora had mainly catered for 16-18-year-olds. Some, if not all, of the Williamson boys had been subjected to horrific abuse, violence and intimidation by one of the staff at the home, Eric Witchell and his associates from outside of it, so much so they had become fearful and compliant child-sex puppets. Witchell now lives in London. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) in London has shown no interest in making any form of contact with him despite his key role in the Anglo-Irish vice ring, a paedophile network that – as this story will demonstrate – overlapped with abuse rings in the US. Village magazine has published an 80,000-word online book entitled ‘The Anglo-Irish Vice Ring’ which outlines the history of the Irish branch of this egregious paedophile underworld as well as its connections to, and exploitation by, MI6 (attached to Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and MI5 (attached to Britain’s Home Office). https://villagemagazine.ie/https-villagemagazine-ie-anglo-irish-vice-ring-online-book/ The abuse of the children at Williamson House, Kincora and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, was carried out with the knowledge and connivance of both MI5 and MI6. At the time of the transfer of the boys from Williamson House to Kincora, MI5 was the dominant UK intelligence service operating in Northern Ireland. It was commanded by Director-General Sir Michael Hanley. His key officer on the ground in Northern Ireland was Ian Cameron who was mooted in the media as a contender for the position of Director-General of MI5 in the late 1980s. Cameron might well have ascended to the post but for the Kincora scandal which erupted in 1980, and a fear that MPs such as the redoubtable Ken Livingstone might have raised the issue in the House of Commons. It is deeply disturbing that Livingstone was booed and jeered by Tory MPs when he raised this type of matter in the Commons. One of the boys transferred to Kincora will be familiar to Village readers, Richard Kerr. He was transferred in August 1975. The other boys were:     − ‘F’, who is still alive;     − ‘B’, who later shot himself;       − ‘S’;      − Steven Waring, who had not been in Williamson House, joined a few months later. He committed suicide in November 1977. He had been abused by Lord Louis Mountbatten the previous August; (See the online book for further details.)   − Another young boy, ‘D’, would be consigned to the hell of this existence

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    THE BATTLE FOR ST MATTHEW’S, JUNE 1970: THE UNPUBLISHED PAMPHLET. The British Army left the area defenceless; someone had to step in.

    Introduction by Kieran Glennon. In the immediate aftermath of the violence that erupted in Belfast in August 1969, Citizens’ Defence Committees (CDCs) were formed in many nationalist areas; barricades were hastily erected and patrols of vigilantes armed with clubs were organised to ensure that loyalist mobs, the B Specials and the RUC were all kept at bay. Within days, a co-ordinating group was established to link the individual CDCs, the Central Citizens’ Defence Committee (CCDC); its first chairman was Jim Sullivan, who was also Adjutant of the IRA’s Belfast Brigade. Jim Sullivan, Adjutant of Belfast IRA and first chairman of Central Citizens’ Defence Committee (CCDC) By early 1970 Sullivan had been deposed and replaced as chairman by Tom Conaty, a fruit and vegetable merchant from west Belfast. Conaty’s closest ally on the CCDC was Canon Pádraig Murphy, the administrator of St Peter’s Cathedral in the Lower Falls. Paddy Devlin MP had remained the CCDC’s secretary since its inception. Fifty years ago this month at the end of June 1970 the Provisional IRA made their first appearance on the streets of Belfast, in conjunction with armed members of the local CDC, in what came to be known as the Battle of St Matthew’s. In Ballymacarrett in the east of the city, more commonly known today as the Short Strand, three people were killed in the worst night of violence since August 1969. At that time, Tom Henry – a nom de plume – was self-employed as a researcher and was commissioned by Conaty and Murphy to write a history of St Matthew’s church for the diocese of Down and Connor. Also at that time, Conaty and Murphy were welcome at Army HQ Lisburn as representing the Bishop of Down and Connor, Doctor William Philbin. Canon Padraig Murphy and Major General Tony Dyball Henry was given access to parish records at St Matthew’s as well as written statements from witnesses who were present there during that night. However, despite their central involvement in the battle, Henry did not knowingly interview any members of the IRA or their local auxiliaries. Fearful of the police scrutiny that would inevitably follow the pamphlet’s publication, he took the view that what he didn’t know couldn’t be got out of him, even under torture. So, while there is one reference in his text to “armed defenders”, the initials “IRA” are not mentioned. Henry completed his pamphlet in April 1971 and concluded that on the night the British Army had failed to honour written agreements given to the Ballymacarrett CDC for the defence of the area if attacked. In view of this conclusion, he believed the pamphlet would not be well received. This conclusion did not suit Conaty and Murphy. At the time, they were trying to position the CCDC as the spokesmen for moderate nationalists; their efforts to develop a close relationship with Army HQ in Lisburn would receive a frosty response if they were to publish an account of the debacle that was critical of the Army. Tom Conaty, Chairman of the CCDC: commissioned the pamphlet but its conclusions would have threatened his relationship with British Army HQ, Lisburn. I have known Tom Henry for many years and know him to be a man of impeccable integrity: he was not about to change his conclusion to suit the positions of Conaty and Murphy. A copy of the manuscript was shown to Henry Kelly, then northern correspondent of the Irish Times whose opinion, as he informed Henry, was that the pamphlet would never see the light of day. That remark turned out to be prophetic. It is notable that while the confrontation became known as the Battle of St Matthew’s, Henry entitled his pamphlet the “Battle for St Matthew’s”; the distinction is subtle, but probably reflects more closely what happened on the night. Historian Andrew Boyd had a copy of the manuscript and donated it to the Linen Hall Library in Belfast, considering it to be an important historical document. Although it was referenced in the book Belfast and Derry in Revolt, by Simon Prince and Geoffrey Warner, the full text has never before been published. Included as a prologue, as they form an essential foundation for Henry’s conclusion, are the verbatim texts of the documents supplied by the Army to the Ballymacarrett CDC in September 1969; also included are excerpts from written responses to the Army and RUC by the CDC and their legal advisor. Taken together, these constitute the “Joint Military and Police Security Plan for Ballymacarrett.” Like the pamphlet itself, they have never previously been published. The early chapters of the pamphlet provide context for the events of June 1970. Chapter 3 outlines previous attacks made on St Matthew’s in the course of the pogrom of 1920-22. Chapter 4 recounts the opposition to the planned building of a Catholic church elsewhere in east Belfast in the 1930s, illustrating that sectarian hatred was directed, not just at St Matthew’s in particular, but at Catholic churches in general. Chapter 5 details correspondence between the Bishop of Down and Connor, William Philbin, and the chairman of the Sirocco Works at Bridge End, near St Matthew’s, concerning the extent of religious discrimination in employment at the firm – overturning such discrimination was one of the key objectives of the Civil Rights movement, to which unionism took such violent exception. What happened during the Battle for St Matthew’s undoubtedly flowed from what had happened before – but what ultimately transpired was not inevitable. Kieran Glennon is the author of From Pogrom to Civil War, Tom Glennon and the Belfast IRA. Although he is not from the area, two of his great grandparents were married in St Matthew’s. In 1920, his grandfather, as a member of the IRA, did picket duty at the church to protect it from sectarian attack. Prologue: September 1969 On 12th September 1969, the Ballymacarrett Citizens’ Defence Committee (CDC) met with the British Army and RUC to discuss security in the area; the next day,

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    EXTINCTION REBELLION IRELAND (XRI) STATEMENT ON PROGRAMME FOR GOVERNMENT

    Extinction Rebellion Ireland rejects the proposed draft Programme for Government as being “full of fluff, and not good enough” to address the climate crisis. In a statement, a representative of Extinction Rebellion Ireland said: We in Extinction Rebellion believe it is our role to always tell the truth as backed by science, and the truth is that this programme for government is not good enough. As young activists, it is not good enough for our futures. As parents, it is not good enough for our children’s futures. As citizens we do not believe it is good enough for Ireland’s future or the planet. The PfG is a textbook example of spin, jam-packed with fluffy aspirations, but lacking in substance. Paying lip service to environmentalism should not be used as a cover for austerity. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to dealing with the climate crisis and a lack of understanding of a just transition. The UN Environment Programme has been clear that we need a MINIMUM of 7.6% emissions reductions every year till 2030. If we do not achieve those reductions we will trigger irreversible runaway climate change. The PfG fudges the question of how to achieve a 7% reduction, essentially kicking the can down the road to a future government, which all but guarantees we will not meet our 2030 targets. We believe that the climate and biodiversity crisis should be treated as an emergency, and that this programme does not do so. We urge members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, and the Green Party to consider this when voting on the Programme for Government. A half-hearted, delayed approach to solving the climate crisis is not good enough. Net-zero by 2050 is not good enough. The Programme for Government is not good enough. Appendix: Extinction Rebellion Ireland have pointed out the following as examples of some of the specific shortcomings in the Programme for Government: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The PfG makes no concrete pledge about how much greenhouse emissions will be cut over the lifetime of this government, instead making a target for the decade, and saying the “strong climate action” will be left to the next government, outside the scope of this PFG. According to Professor John Sweeney stated, ‘backloading the 7% commitment to the second half of this decade is not good, and runs the risk of repeating the experience of the past, when aspirations and commitments were not realised’. Full of fluff – The PfG uses the word ‘review’ 127 times, ‘examine’ 68 times and ‘consider’ 44 times. It also promises a dozen different commissions. This is clearly politics as usual, promises little solid progress, and will not deliver the systematic change we need. Agricultural emissions – The PfG refers to “The special economic and social role of agriculture and the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane” which, as John Sweeney has pointed out, is nonsense. Methane is methane and it traps heat at 72 times the rate of CO2. Eco-Austerity, not Climate Justice – The PfG plans to quadruple the Carbon Tax from its current level, re-introduce water charges by the back door, and will guarantee more austerity in the later years of the government. This stands in contrast to the climate justice advocated by the school strikes, XR, global movements, etc and directly contradicts the idea of a real just transition. Fracked Gas and LNG terminals – The PfG does announce withdrawing the Shannon LNG Terminal from the EU projects of Common Interest in 2021, but makes no reference to the possible Cork LNG Terminal. On the broader issue of importation of fracked gas, it promises to “develop a policy statement” opposing it, but includes no guarantee it will be banned. Biodiversity – Nature is dying and the PfG offers nothing concrete to address this. One example of this is in the lack of commitment to Marine Protected Areas. This is absolutely crucial in the fight against climate change. Ireland is signed up to the Convention on Biological Diversity committing us to 30% of our marine water being Marine Protected Areas (MPA) by 2030 with 10% by 2020. We are only at 2.3% now and there’s no mention of this in the PfG. — 

    Loading

    Read more