Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    Palace of Discord and Deception. [Updated] Prince William's officials covered-up his uncle's involvement in the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking scandal.

    Buckingham Palace went to extraordinary lengths to cover-up the involvement of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, in the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking scandal. The Royal was supplied with a 17-year-old-girl, Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), who was commanded to have sex with him three times, once in London. Palace officials threatened to blackball ABC, an American TV station which got hold of the story in 2015. The latest development is that Prince Andrew has sold his Swiss chalet which will provide him with millions with which to finance a settlement with Roberts. The case will proceed as the judge in the US has rejected his application to discontinue it. What if it is now to late to settle with his victim having branded her a liar? To make matters worse for the Duke, a witness has come forward who can confirm that Roberts spoke to her about her involvement with the Duke at the time of the abuse. The witness saw the infamous picture of the Duke with Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after it was taken. What will the Metropolitan Police do if he  manages to settle the civil action by handing over five or six million – or even more – to Roberts? An innocent man would fight his corner rather than enrich a liar who has destroyed his reputation, especially to the extent of making her a multi millionairess. The Duke will hardly settle with Roberts without a guarantee from her  that she will boycott any future criminal prosecution brought against him in London. A criminal prosecution would be doomed to failure without her full co-operation and testimony. Surely, Met. Comissioner Cressida Dick would have to resign if a deal on those terms Is concluded. She refused to investigate the case when Roberts was prepared to co-operate fully. The behaviour of the Royal Family has been a shambolic disaster thus far. In 2015 ABC was warned  that Prince William and Kate would shun them in the future if they ran an interview they had recorded with Roberts. She was 17, he was 41. ABC backed down. More details can be found here: Judge a (future) king by his courtiers: Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, pawns in the cover-up of a transatlantic paedophile network. A video of Amy Robach, the ABC reporter can be accessed via the video in the links below: Remember when @ABC dropped the ball on this investigation, because they were threatened by #PrinceAndrew family? #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwell pic.twitter.com/SwDGUaAaDb — Resilient (@KaindeB) January 4, 2022 https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1477687840473554944?t=B8z0BI8jD34n1oEQEfJUcA&s=19 In the wake of the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the Palace is now trying to rewrite its sordid role in the cover-up. So-called ‘anonymous’ sources are pretending that there was no concealment, rather that matters got out of hand because of the arrogance of the Duke. The Duke has enjoyed the  unwavering support and protection of his devoted mother,  Queen Elizabeth. Clearly, he is now being thrown to the wolves by her courtiers. It is not fanciful to speculate that the monarch is  viewed as a lame duck by her senior retainers as she battles ill health, fatigue and great old age. If the control of Buckingham Palace is indeed passing to Prince Charles, it can be inferred that he has decided that his brother’s sexual excesses are not going to ruin his forthcoming reign as king. The latest message from the Palace via The Daily Mail  is that the Queen is refusing the bail out Prince Andrew, her reputed favourite child. It is more likely that she has had her elderly arm twisted than that she has abandoned Prince Andrew out of a sudden disgust at his behaviour. The Daily Mail was the conduit for the new PR line which the Palace began taking last week. It reported last week that: “Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior former royal adviser stressed that while there was no knowledge of the extent of the duke’s friendship with Epstein and Maxwell to anyone outside of the prince’s private office, the ‘Andrew problem’ was a long-running issue for the royal household in general. ‘Anyone who even dared to offer their professional advice that maybe his way wasn’t the right one was met with a decisive ‘f*** off out of my office’,’ the source said”. The account is backed up by other former royal staff, all of whom claim the prince acted as if he “didn’t have to answer to anyone” and was allowed to “go rogue”. Particularly troublesome, it was said, was Andrew’s role as a roving trade ‘ambassador’, which saw him repeatedly criticised for cosying up to highly controversial world leaders and businessmen. A former Buckingham Palace staff member recalled how it was an “impossible job” to persuade the prince or his advisers to take any instruction. “The duke made clear that the only person he answered to was the Queen”, they said. “He wouldn’t take advice from anyone. [He] acted with total impunity and staff were just too scared to stand up to him as a member of the Royal Family. Her Majesty almost always backed him and he fully exploited that. There’s an element of Buckingham Palace sleepwalking into his whole crisis. Andrew would tell his family that it was all untrue and it would all go away”. It would stretch credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the Mail’s primary ‘source’ and the other ‘former’ courtiers have all emerged at the same time with the same deceptive story by coincidence. The sources also appear to have no fear of any repercussion for breaking their duty of silence to the Palace. There can only be a tiny pool of people with this background who have retired in the recent past. It would be easy to identify them. Would they all risk losing a pension just to vent some exasperation at the Duke? Or is this all part of a structured PR offensive? More importantly, why are the Mail’s sources concealing the true history of the Royal

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The covert plan to smash the IRA in Derry on Bloody Sunday by David Burke

    Introduction. The 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday massacre falls next month. The official position of the British Government is based on the 2010 report of Lord Saville of Newdigate, i.e., that a group of paratroopers engaged in the massacre of thirteen innocent people in Derry with a fourteenth dying later, for no reason. Unfortunately, Saville ignored or discounted much evidence that indicates that the soldiers were acting on orders. He paid scant attention to the crucial role played by a deceitful agent run by Military Intelligence and MI5 called ‘Observer B’. He was unduly harsh on Byron Lewis, a paratrooper who blew the whistle on his colleagues. The two companies of paratroopers of 1 Para that went to Derry on Bloody Sunday were meant to be on the same mission, following the same orders. Yet, they behaved as if they were on different operations. The orders followed by Support Company, also known as ‘Kitson’s Private Army’, indicates that a secret mission was assigned to them, or some designated number of them. The ‘Kitson’ referred to here  was Brigadier Frank Kitson, the counter-insurgency specialist who ran Belfast and its environs. 1. Chain of Command The senior British officers present in Derry on Bloody Sunday and mentioned in this article in order of their seniority were: General Robert Ford, Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan of 8 Brigade, which ran Derry. Colonel Derek Wilford, who commanded 1 Para. Major Edward Loden who commanded Support Company of 1 Para. No criticism is made of Brigadier MacLellan in this article. If there was a hidden plan that unfolded on Bloody Sunday, it was conceived and executed behind his back. 2. General Ford foists 1 Para on Brigadier MacLellan In the run up to Bloody Sunday, the Brigadier of 8 Brigade in Derry, Patrick MacLellan, was ordered by his immediate superior, General Robert Ford, to make preparations to prevent a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march from reaching the Guildhall in Derry on 30 January 1972. Ford was based at HQNI at Lisburn. MacLellan was lent troops from 1 Para to assist him on Bloody Sunday, or so he was led to believe. 1 Para was based at Palace Barracks, Hollywood, outside Belfast. They normally conducted their operations in that city. 3. ‘Corking the bottle’ Ostensibly, the plan for 30 January was to prevent the NICRA march from reaching the Guildhall and, if appropriate, arrest likely rioters. The rioters were to be caught by putting “a cork in the bottle”, as Captain (later General Sir) Michael Jackson of 1 Para has described it. This meant encircling and trapping the rioters before arresting them. This operation was to take place at the end of William Street. Please look at the map which accompanies this article. The rioters were to be captured between Barrier 14 (shaded yellow) and the junction of Little James Street and William Street. The Support Company troops who were meant to be behind Barrier 12 (shaded red) could have swung around from Little James Street (red arrow) and blocked an escape route back along William Street or up Rossville Street. The peaceful NICRA marchers followed the line shaded in purple from William Street to Rossville Street. A group of rioters did present on the day. 4. Two Companies which were meant to – but didn’t – perform the same task Two different companies from 1 Para were sent to Derry on Bloody Sunday:  C Company and Support Company. In theory, they fell under the temporary command of Brig. MacLellan. (Their brigadier in Belfast was Brigadier Frank Kitson). Although both groups were allegedly assigned the same task by their commander, Col Wilford, Support Company behaved in a completely different manner to C Company. C Company was put behind Barrier 14. Support Company was sent to a yard at a Presbyterian Church on Great James  Street which was much further away from the area where the rioting was expected to take place. 5. Differences in preparation and deployment There were a number of differences in the deployment of the two companies  [C company and Support Company], which include the following: Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) Use of rifles instead of batons; Application of war paint; Use of vehicles; Discharge of shots. {i} Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) C Company’s FUP was behind Barrier 14 which is shown on the map that accompanies this article. This makes sense in terms of MacLellan’s plan. They were well positioned to block the march should an attempt have been made to break through to the Guildhall. It also left them strategically placed to rush forward and encircle any potential rioters. Support Company would have been well advised to have formed up as close to the junction between William Street and Little James Street as possible. Barrier 12 should have been moved up much closer to the junction. They should have been behind it in light clothes ready to swing around to ‘cork the bottle’. The two companies could have infiltrated the side roads as well and thereby blocked any attempts to escape through them. Yet, Support Company – based at the churchyard – were not within running distance from the likely rioters whom the army termed the ‘DYH’ [the Derry Young Hooligans]. There was little chance that Support Company could ‘cork the bottle’ from a starting point at the Presbyterian Church on Great James Street. The rioters would have seen soldiers running at them from Little James Street in plenty of time to make an escape by sprinting up Rossville Street. The deployment of Support Company at the church was guaranteed to defeat the purpose of MacLellan’s arrest plan. {ii} Primary use of rifles instead of batons; C Company wielded batons or kept their arms free to grab, wrestle and tackle the rioters when they went into action. Some may have used the butts of rifles strapped over their shoulders to strike the rioters. Crucially, they did not deploy with fingers on

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    BBC Blackout on 50th Anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre?

      By Ciaran MacAirt. Family campaigners on legacy cases in the north of Ireland learn not to be precious about media coverage, especially when the British state is involved in the murders and subsequent cover-ups. On any other occasion, there are many reasons why a media outlet will not cover a story. In the fast-moving environment of the media, they may run out of time to report it or may miss it altogether. The outlet may not even consider it news, or it could be bumped by another article. If an article does not appear, it may even just be down to human error or misjudgement; on our part, it could be poor timing or media management. We all make mistakes. Last week, for example, our families were busy media-managing new evidence, a protest against police withholding evidence, and the build-up to the 50th anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre. 15 civilians including 2 children were murdered in the no-warning Loyalist bomb attack on 4th December 1971. Our families’ grief was compounded because the British state and its media blamed our loved ones for the bombing, so before we buried our loved ones, the British state buried the truth. Our Campaign for Truth began the moment the bomb exploded as first we had to prove the innocence of the victims. Since then, mostly through our own legacy archive research, we proved that the British armed forces knew that McGurk’s Bar was attacked, but instead colluded to blame the victims to suit the British state’s own narrow, sectarian, political agenda. In general, the British media followed suit and published the lies. Our Campaign for Truth began the moment the bomb exploded as first we had to prove the innocence of the victims. Since then, mostly through our own legacy archive research, we proved that the British armed forces knew that McGurk’s Bar was attacked, but instead colluded to blame the victims to suit the British state’s own narrow, sectarian, political agenda. In general, the British media followed suit and published the lies. Fast forward nearly half a century and the week before the 50th anniversary. We had a lot to tell the public in the run-up to Saturday 4th December and we launched our new website especially. We used a mix of web content, social media and press release. PR to the media specifically included: A complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in London against the Cabinet Office and its failure to investigate new evidence we found – the first complaint of its kind in a legacy case we believe [link] New archival evidence recorded by the British armed forces within minutes which was completely at odds with the lies told to the press by the British armed forces about McGurk’s Bar [link] A protest two days before the anniversary at the Policing Board against the Police Service Northern Ireland’s deliberate withholding of evidence relating to police collusion with the British Army in creating the McGurk’s Bar lies and blaming our loved ones. We even named a key architect of this secret agreement as we have archival proof – it is the infamous General Sir Frank Kitson, former Commander-in-Chief, UK Land Forces and Aide-de-Camp of the British Queen [link] The subsequent snub by the Chief Constable at the Policing Board of our families two days before the 50th anniversary of the atrocity [link]   Now, we were conscious that this was a lot of information for the press and public to manage but the families wanted me to press ahead and release. Each press release staggered throughout the week highlighted the fact that the week led to the 50th anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre. All of our other key local media outlets, including UTV, Belfast Telegraph/Sunday Life, Irish News and North Belfast News picked up on these press releases during the week, as did the Morning Star and The Canary in Britain and the Irish Times and Village Magazine in the capital. All of our other key local media outlets, including UTV, Belfast Telegraph/Sunday Life, Irish News and North Belfast News picked up on these press releases during the week, as did the Morning Star and The Canary in Britain and the Irish Times and Village Magazine in the capital. I spent most of Friday – the eve of the 50th anniversary – engaging with these outlets in time for the following day. I did not submit another press release on the day as we did not want to snowstorm the outlets and we had already drawn attention to the anniversary throughout the week. Nevertheless, nowhere on BBC NI News was the 50th anniversary marked in the week before, on the day or thereafter. I believe one of the religious ministers marked it during his Thought for the Day on Radio 4 which was very welcome, but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on BBC Northern Ireland TV, Radio or Web was the 50th anniversary of the murder of 15 civilians marked in any way. I believe that we are diminished by the death of every victim and our loved ones are no more special than another family’s loved one, but the McGurk’s Bar Massacre is notable [unfortunately] if only for its ferocity and the death toll in a single bombing – 15 souls including 2 children. Another 16 could have perished but survived. The McGurk’s Bar Massacre remains the greatest loss of civilian life in any single murderous attack in Belfast since the Nazi Blitz in 1941. The McGurk’s Bar Massacre remains the greatest loss of civilian life in any single murderous attack in Belfast since the Nazi Blitz in 1941. The families’ Campaign for Truth is very much live and driven in the most part by the our own intensive legacy archive research which has been missed or buried by historical police investigators, academics, lawyers, and journalists over the last half century. So, history, death toll, human interest, notable anniversary could make for interesting

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Harry Kernoff, The Little Genius.

    By David Burke. The Liffey Press has just republished Kevin O’Connor’s 2012 gem, ‘Harry Kernoff, The Little Genius’, the only  full-length biography of the painter. The original edition became impossible to acquire years ago. The reprint is lavishly illustrated with hundreds of Kernoff’s pictures, made possible by years of detective work on the part of O’Connor, who managed to track so many of  them down. A few dozen are reproduced in colour. Kernoff’s family fled from Vitebsk, Russia, during the 1890s. The artist was born in London in 1900  and moved to Dublin in 1914. He spent most of his life without the recognition he so richly deserved, yet continued to paint the world around him.  O’Connor captures the essence of the man thus:  “He lived among and studied [Dublin’s] people, recording them in their infinite variety and was rivalled only by James Joyce in bequeathing a narrative of the city. As Joyce departed shortly after turn-of-the-century, Kernoff was left with the clear palette to record Dublin’s complexion as it changed with the century. By birth a Londoner, by family Russian, by religion Jewish, his paintings show iconic respect for those who impacted upon history in revolutionary times leavened with warm affection for the ordinary people who suffer the history”. One of his works, Misery Hill (1943), depicts the “despair of man who props his arse against the wall, a common posture of the time, his entire demeanour one of defeat”, as O’Connor puts it. “Other men, no better off, are followed by Kernoff’s cheerful poodle, a common whimsey in his work. Another man carries a sack of coal while a woman pushes a handcart of offal stew, another woman passes a poster Vote Labour. The area known as Misery Hill was on a long stretch of road faced by men from the slums hoping for a day’s work unloading ships. Unusual for the time, its realism was of a poverty largely ignored by most of his contemporaries, with the exception of George Collie. Indeed, it may be seen as another iconic painting, given the official denial of such poverty. Those that lived on state salaries were consoled by the emigration of males, a safety-valve on civic unrest. These particular paintings by Kernoff did not prove popular. In time, the district of Misery Hill would become so painful to urban planners as to be raised during the Celtic Tiger boom years of 2000, replaced by a New Dublin of hotels, walkways and desirable apartments with sea views-modelled on the Wall Street area of New York. But even that became fatally prescient as a model in the financial downturn of 2008, when the grandiose schemes were abandoned as the country coped with bankruptcy”. Kernoff began to receive recognition for his talent towards the end of his life. O’Connor’s book plants him among the greats of the 20th century.  Harry Kernoff died in 1974.      

    Loading

    Read more