Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
comment + criticism welcome

`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit


A newspaper's

COVER-UP of elite tax corruption, elite cruelty, elite sex crimes;

DENIAL of normal humans' improvement throughout history;

EXACERBATION of modern fears of violence, sexuality etc.

- - -

If you've read

violence.html#frame and mediauk.html and unholy.html

that will not surprise you

but Seema1.html might

[Go "VIEW" - "PAGE SOURCE / SOURCE CODE for details].

Review of period in a Newspaper's letters column where seemingly unconnected debates became entangled in a web of deceit and maybe worse

We didn't see the first letters initially, only found them when researching this page.

As you see those are on "fox-hunting." They are shown here so you can note the similar styles of M.M. - the S.S Editor - ANONYMOUS & then M.M. again (all shown on LEFT)

8/27/99 "Sticking to Facts"

"I do hope you will allow me the right of reply to JB G*'s letter. Firstly, as your correspondent has declined to challenge my response to the claim that draghunting is a suitable alternative to fox hunting, am I at liberty to presume that I have ascertained the facts correctly?

Secondly, your correspondent quotes the Master of Foxhounds, Robin MacKenzie; stating average hunt breeds six litters with six pups each year, continuing (after the subtle use of a full stop) with numerous "facts" and a complex calculation to support a previous claim about the number of hound deaths caused by hunting.

I am happy to admit that I have not heard or read every fact, figure or calculation disseminated by the experts and consequently make a point of exercising caution when quoting statements made by them. Perhaps you would grant JB G* the opportunity to clarify whether he / she does as well.

I am sure that impartial followers of this debate will be interested to know whether the calculation regarding the rate of foxhound births and deaths was the work of Robin Mackenzie; or a presumptuously self contrived exercise by your correspondent, which in the absence of real facts is unsubstantiated.

I assume the latter, as according to the Countryside Alliance, there were 194 registered packs of foxhounds at the last count and not 300 as inferred in JB G*'s letter.

This fundamental error has blown your correspondent's laborious effort out of the water and consigned the argument to the litter bin.

Finally if your correspondent can seriously define a depraved and sick urban society in which many Britons are forced to live as being "civilised" and having "moved on", then I am glad and proud to be one amongst a million plus strong fraternity that is firmly entrenched in the past.

M.M. of Kidderminster

leftThis was awarded a positive title, yet this letter has no quotations and only one supposed "fact." It relies on verbosity, false innuendo and misrepresentation.

rightis awarded a negative title even though the letter is apparently factual and positive.

rightLetter seems to have been "edited" by newspaper - see the unexplained gaps * in grammar where reference may have been censored.

[This deceit remained unsuspected by `Perceptions' until our factual references were censored by the same newspaper later; see below]

8/30/99 "Excuses of the hunting fraternity"

"Firstly Mr M*, as I try to keep my correspondence succinct, it is not possible to answer every accusation.

This does not mean that I agree with your claim that drag hunting is not a suitable alternative to fox hunting especially as a Countryside Alliance leaflet * claim, Drag hunting is an exciting noncompetitive cross-country equestrian sport, guaranteed to provide a lot of galloping and jumping. Isn't that what hunters claim to love, after all, it isn't the kill you go for - is it?

Regarding the calculations in the number of hounds shot by hunts, which incidentally * published in 1997, if as Mr M claims there are now only 194 hunts it shows that the number of hunts have declined, as has support for hunting as a Mori poll shows that only 12 per cent of people are opposed to a ban on hunting with dogs compared to 23 per cent in 1997.

There have been a number of letters on this from the proponents of hunting in the last few weeks, here are a few more, shall we say honest statements from the hunting fraternity.

"Pain and suffering is inflicted on animals in the course of sport. Nobody who has seen a beaten fox dragging his stiff limbs into the ditch in which he knows he will die can doubt this proposition" `In Praise of Hunting', Reginald Paget QC.

"I don't hunt foxes to control them and neither does any hunting person..." Chris Ogilvie, Huntsman, Coniston Foxhounds.

Trapped foxes held captive in milkchurns and in bone bins, then on hunting day put into bags and dragged across fields. "A Brush with Conscience".

The hunting fraternity has hundreds of excuses for hunting but not one justification.

J.B.G. of.Bridgnorth

Only here did `Perceptions' see the next copy of the newspaper and innocently send them a comment on a misleading editorial phrase (you know how keenly we check accuracy). We strolled into a pre-laid minefield.

We had not read these letters on fox-hunting. One might as well debate bear-baiting, ritual murder, human sacrifice - or similar 'elite' practices (see our answer to a reader from a USA uni., and also genes5.html#fox).

We would not normally discuss foxhunting in Britain, partly because the hunting debate tends to run into the sand of British party-politics: a non-subject.

`Perceptions' does not waste words on politics.

So we only found the fox-hunting letters later, when researching this review.

When the NEWSPAPER censors words or phrases they are shown as [**word**]

Editorial in the "Shropshire Star 27 August. '99 contained the phrase:-
"Harking back to days when things were more ordered and safer"

`Perceptions' note
You should know - if you have read the page /violence.html#frame - that no safer times ever existed - the phrase is a falsehood

It is a media ploy to use a proverbial sounding phrase - to appeal to our prejudices - while making an untrue statement. Our note to the Newspaper is shown to the right. right

But it was almost immediately followed by the apparently anonymous 'letter' below.

- - -

09/01/99 "A better society"

Re: The letter... from R.D. [ `Perceptions' ] protesting about press misinformation. It certainly was safer, living in this country 50 or even 40 years ago.

No-one needed to lock their doors then. Murders were far fewer than now, `road rage' and `joyriding' did not exist, drug addiction was confined to the upper classes, who did not need to steal to fund their habit. Old ladies did not get raped, and 12-year-olds did not give birth.

To quote Jack Straw, few people then had much worth stealing. Cars were few and far between. Drugs were not available on every street corner; neither was pornography and sleazy sexual imagery thrown at you 24 hours a day.

Convicted murderers were hung, not released after a few years to kill again, and perverts and lunatics were locked up in asylums. Mothers did not go out to work, leaving their children to their own devices. Parents, schools and the Church taught children the difference between right and wrong.

The soft option in use for years has not worked, and we now live in a very selfish, materialistic and dangerous society, where it is not easy to sleep peacefully.

No name and address printed [ANONYMOUS]


`Perceptions' note

- - -

We didn't realize at the time but analysis shows the following:-

Here we have again - but in a supposed reader's letter - the same media ploys, using many proverbial, common-sense sounding phrases - so appealing to our prejudices - to make many untrue statements :-

1) "no-one needed to lock their doors then" - untrue. Consult history - memory is always nostalgic and wrong.

2) "Murders were far fewer" - quite untrue. See /violence.html#frame.

3) "roadrage / joy riding did not exist" - untrue (see "Black Beauty," written in 1877, a protest against dangerous riding and driving of horses by cruel owners.)

4) "drug addiction confined to upper classes" - untrue (remember alcohol? tobacco? and State prescribed 'tranks.' - see medical.html)

5) "Old ladies not raped" - untrue (burglar jokes and true rape facts/statistics go back much more than a hundred years)

6) "12 year olds did not give birth" - untrue

7) "few had much worth stealing" - irrelevant and simplistic

8) "cars few and far between" - irrelevant, of purely historical necessity

9) "Drugs were not available" - untrue (first alcohol, opium, then State doctors' profitably prescribing addictive sedatives for twenty years or so? remember your (British) mothers' being drugged-up on valium or librium? see medical.html#Drugs again )

10) "Pornography and sleazy sexual imagery" - a socio-psychological definition which can be seen at any time in history, anywhere and everywhere, by the obsessed. This can be seen throughout history. See Pompeii.

11) "Murderers and perverts" - quite untrue: see promise.html and centres.html

12) "Parents..schools.Church" - untrue: schools and churches were serving up separate agendas to the parents.

13) "Soft option ...not worked" - untrue: historically only State-sponsored murder actually increases and even then only temporarily (pro rata) - in wars and pogroms - as shown by your TV News today. See /violence.html#frame.

14) "now live in a... dangerous society" - untrue. Statistically our society - that of ordinary humans - is always growing safer- see violence.html#frame.

left An "editorial" in the local newspaper. Seemingly just another example of shoddy, untruthful English media output. See mediauk.html

right `Perceptions' comment was printed but all URLs were misprinted - preventing readers reference. We thought that was accidental - until a little later.

Check the words [**word**] the newspaper didn't like. What do you think?

[**word**] means the newspaper censored - cut - our words.


leftThis "POSITIVE" title "A better society" followed our comment almost immediately

09/04/99 "You CAN sleep easy"


Sep6 Mon

"Tarnished times"

08/30/99 "We're a lot safer now"

Your "Shropshire Star" editorial referred to "harking back to days when things were more ordered and safer". Those days never existed.

The average British man, woman or child is safer today than at any time in history. [See Actuarial Rolls and */violence.html* and links

What your editorial should have said was "harking back to days when thousands of women and children were beaten, abused or disappeared each year - with no media attention; when our police forces were almost totally corrupt - with no media attention; and when VIP paedophiles ruled the Church and the Courts - with no media attention.

In those days only those who lived in privilege could be said to be safer."

I do not expect you to offer to make any kind of correction; or even to publish this.

RD {name and address)

If the replier to my letter (August 30) had the nerve to sign his name I could have sent him full references disproving his obsessions. In (his) order this proof is:

1 Murders are decreasing, and have been for centuries - see Actuarial Rolls and /violence.html#frame

2 Road rage / joy riding have been with us ever since humans began riding oxen and then horses - see / westward.html

3 Drug addiction has always been there for those weak-minded enough - see /laworjustice.html

4 Rape (of old ladies etc) was previously much more common than now; it was even a Music Hall and picture-postcard joke, but many facts were habitually suppressed by the police - see /promise.html and /Seema1.html.

5 Most perverts were NOT locked up. We have records of upper-class paedophile gangs being protected by the authorities. Why? Because the perverts were MPs, Judges, Bishops etc - see * /promise.html *

6 Primarily the Church stood for privilege, oppression and theft, and in so many cases the priest was a practising paedophile - see */genes5.html*

7 Penultimately your replier complains he cannot sleep peacefully. That is his problem. As an ex-soldier I know that hard work, and a (relatively) clear conscience, will give you peaceful sleep in the most hazardous of circumstances - see */mead.html *

[**8 Finally, I understand the natural bias that prompts his obsessions - see /violence.html

Even the Greek and Roman diarists [and many, many since] commonly said "things are always getting worse". They were all wrong.**]

I can only say "Open your eyes and look around".**]

RD (name and address)

|NOTE We used the words 'penultimately' and finally' in paras 7 & 8 to prevent censorship, but the letter was censored anyway. (Perhaps they didn't know what penultimately meant.) But why were they afraid of the words they cut?]

The newspaper held that last one back - so we wrote this next letter which crossed in the post.

Your anonymous complainer blindly repeats media myths about a golden past, all of which I have already disproved. See /answers.html

If he/she cannot accept that evidence (perhaps muttering "newfangled" and "internet" etc ), perhaps he/she would like to refer to:

"The History of Myddle" by the vicar Richard Gough, publisher - Penguin Books 1981 (edited by David Hey) and available in your public library.

It gives the sordid details of ALL the families then living in the large Shropshire parish of Myddle around 300 years ago.

From the book (which is fascinating) one can see that murder was 20 to 200 times more common than it is today.

William Hogarth's "Gin Lane' of 1751 illustrates the horrifying scale of drug addiction of his time which resulted in wholesale abuse of women and children, and widespread violence and murder.

"The Cleveland Street Affair" by Chester, Leitch and Simpson, publisher Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1977 ISBN 0 297 77113 2. (Chester was editor of the legendary Sunday Times' Insight team). This reveals the truth about the paedophile gangs (of MPs, judges, bishops and aristos) which ruled London "Society" as late as c.1900.

Please, Mr/Mrs/Miss Anonymous, open your eyes and look around. Each new generation is made of better people.

RD (name and address)

It seems we'd then committed the mistake - still innocently - of getting in the way of a secret propaganda scheme. We corrected a letter that was inaccurate or just untruthful.

"Arrogant writer is oblivious to facts"

Answering B. H-R's letter of September 1, R B defines country-side "experts" as inefficient and propped up with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

From the general tone of the letter, one must assume this to be a reference to British farmers. This crass outburst is typical of the truly arrogant and, sadly, a predictable one.

R B has not only forgotten (or does not know) where the food came from to feed this nation during two world wars; he appears oblivious to the fact that farmers themselves are tax payers and fails to mention the urban work shy and professional beggars and scroungers who out number them ten-thousand to one.

UK farming and countryside management has always been an efficient industry and the envy of our European neighbours. Farming communities have for generations stood proudly on their own feet but now face the abyss as a result of political expediency by the un-elected beaurocrats of that insidious federal government; the EU.

Since entering the Common Market, we have paid the highest membership levy by far and received the least benefit. Vast sums in the form of subsidies have been awarded to unproductive foreigners; in stark contrast to the set-aside programmes and other inducements to encourage the already beleaguered British farmers to wind down their operations. Your correspondent's head must have been firmly in the sand when French farmers tipped British apples into the sea and during the blockading of British livestock transporters on the continent.

This once virtually self sufficient country is fast becoming largely dependent on others for its food and that, these days, is a frightening thought. Throughout this debacle, not a single British government has demonstrated the political will to defend or promote one of the hardest working and dedicated sectors of its people.

Today, a small tray of meat costs around four to five pounds while our farmers have sometimes not realised a pound for a whole live beast at market. The sub-standard checks on much of the foreign produced meat flooding into this country have been widely publicised. This is not inefficiency it is a political rip off of gigantic proportions, which people like R Blunt can not recognise.

On the subject of fox hunting, the number of lusting, satanic perverts committing vile crimes every day in the UK is well documented. You won't, however, find them following the hunt.

M.M. of Kidderminster


`Perceptions' note

- - -

Again we didn't realize at the time. Analysis shows the following:-

In this, another supposed reader's letter, we find the same media ploys, using many phrases appealing to prejudice to make untrue statements. The letter is full of these phrases and you can have the fun of resolving them - most are noted.

leftThis was printed by the newspaper despite verbosity, racism, and untruthfulness - our answer - "Scrounging landowners" is shown on right









rightwas given the "NEGATIVE" title of "Scrounging landowners" and was heavily censored.

Check the words [**word**] the newspaper didn't like. What do you think?

[**word**] means the newspaper cut - censored - our words.











"Scrounging landowners"

M M's letter generated more heat than light, for he got most things wrong.

"Benefit scroungers" In Britain large landowners take most taxpayer's money per head, and they DO NOT pay net taxes. ref-01 Small farmers pay taxes - a bit. But ordinary workers, pensioners AND the unemployed pay high net taxes of around 60 per cent - 70 per cent. See the analysis at "Cruel & Unjust Taxes" *

"Stood on their own feet" wrong again - see above.

"Common Market" - Germany, not Britain has consistently been the highest net contributor to the EU.

"Efficient farming" - he seems to mean factory farming, with [**all**] its dangers, and fruit and veg soaked in insecticide.

[**One point he almost got right - rip-off supermarkets, but who has allowed them to rip us off for ten years and more?**]

Finally his perceptions of crime are faulty. Most poor people found in jail are there for `victimless crimes' - petty offenses which upset only the bureaucracy. But most rich people in jail are there for serious fraud or for [**horrible**] sexual offenses.

[**In all countries Mr M's "lusting, satanic perverts" come predominantly from the elite, as we see in current world affairs (and in history). See the breakdown at "promise.html" and at "genes5.html". **]

[**I'll be happy to provide any further information to help Mr M**]

RD (name and address)

`Perceptions' note

- - -

[**word**] shows which words or phrases which were censored by the newspaper .

Note the censorship seems mainly intended to protect corrupt cartels and pervert elites. Perhaps last sentence was cut to make us look impolite.

And now the climax.

The inaccurate - and bitchy - letter below is only cunning misrepresentation, but note the shifting attack of those lies.


"Envious mindset"

R.D. should really spend some time surfing reality before entering the fray with daft ideas from cyberspace. His letter (date) clearly depicts a sad, class envy mindset.

The real large land owners and beneficiaries of tax payers' money are principally royalty and the aristocracy, not farming operations as his letter would imply. Further comment is, therefore, superfluous.

He fails to give any credit to the medium and largersized arable and agricultural industry that employs rural folk and supports associated businesses both in and outside the local community; but vents his spleen on small farmers, claiming they pay little tax.

Whatever their earning capacity, farmers are not tax exempt and meet the Inland Revenue's demands under pain of prosecution. Some Welsh farmers with young families made less than £8,00 during 1998/9, due to Government incompetence; not their inefficiency. How much tax would you like to pay on that Mr [`Perceptions' personal name]? He says that ordinary workers, the unemployed and OAPs pay staggering taxes of up to 70 per cent.

Does he think that those outside the aforementioned groups don't pay tax commensurate with wealth and earnings?




`Perceptions' note

A mediaman's letter, a hatchet job (see mediauk.html#research) that would only have been written if the writer knew in advance that any correction from `Perceptions' would be censored or completely banned

Why? Because writer used meaningless pseudo-literate phraseology, relying on false innuendo and misrepresentation. Clearly aware of Britain's corrupt tax laws, he deceitfully & cynically claimed that large landowners and agri-industrialists - most of whom in Britain pay zero tax - were morally pure.

All of which we could easily prove false - if our proof was allowed to be printed (see below).

The shifting ground of the writer indicates that he has read the uncensored letters from `Perceptions', supposedly only seen by the newspaper (and now by you)

UPDATE - Nov 2010 - Review of UK's Waste & Injustice of Tax-Swindles and `Charges'

UPDATE - Sep 2011 - `UK Taxes are Unfair, Regressive, Totally Corrupt' - Delayed I.F.S Report

UPDATE - Nov 2011 - Reason for Political & Bureaucratic Corruption

To correct the lies we wrote a short, concise and polite note.

[** word**] shows which of our words were censored - banned - by the newspaper .

Friday 1st October 1999

[**Mr. M's continued 'errors' :-

1) he now claims to support small farmers, and is anti-Europe: FACT - European small farmers are supported but in England and Wales their grants and subsidies are diverted to the rich estate-owners and to large agro-industrialists - [ Monbiot's evidence & further revelations ]

2) he now claims that the rich pay "commensurate tax": FACT - an inquiry by "The Independent" found that multi-millionaires quite legally paid no net tax at all. [later entry : taxli#2]

3) he now discredits the hidden taxes paid by workers, children, pensioners and the unemployed. FACT - the majority, on less than £40,000 or so, pays net tax at 60%-70% at least. ref-02
The government takes 40% - 45% of GDP in taxation: the rich do not pay therefore the rest of us must pay double

Above noted facts were submitted to the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life by me in 1998. At "Cruel & Unjust Taxes" you can see the full text - see /answers.html. [Also at taxone you can find out which Prime Ministers lied about our taxes]

Mr. M accuses me of an "envious mindset". In the "Altruist Survivor" (at /genes1.html) I have shown why the rich are to be pitied, not envied. And one reason for pitying them is that they inevitably become 'mentally challenged' - incapable of seeing or speaking the truth.


- - -

Yes , the complete letter was banned - not allowed into print !

and the Newspaper continues to refuse to print it!

Why? What are they afraid of?

What all corrupt elites are afraid of:


- - -

We now began to note the clues mentioned above. One was that all of the "replies" - by their shifting misrepresentations - were apparently from someone who had read Perceptions' letters whole and entire: someone at the newspaper.

- - -

When establishment organizations begin to panic we check the legislative and political calender.

Corruption inquiries - upcoming bills - things that will stir up public interest - these tend to make ruling elites rather nervous.

- - -

Did the newspaper conspire to arrange propaganda disguised as readers letters?

And if so, what was upcoming?

The censorship happened during September '99.

The two main UK political parties - Labour and Conservatives - held their party conferences during the last week of September and the first week of October, respectively.

The elite (the so-called Countryside Alliance) who get their kicks hounding a small animal to painful death, began their political lobbying on Sunday the10th of October 1999


the newspaper tried to:-

COVER-UP elite tax corruption, elite cruelty, elite sex crimes;

DENY normal humans' improvement throughout history;

EXACERBATE modern fears of violence etc.,

- - -

If you've read

mediauk and unholy

that will not surprise you

but LaworJustice & Seema1 might

- - -

The "Shropshire Star" showed itself to be editorially dishonest

covering up for privileged liars, tax fraudsters, thieves and perverts

`Perceptions' 1997 WARNING `Perceptions' 1999 WARNING

"organized pedophiles hold secret authority in England"

authority, mediauk

SHROPSHIRE RECORDS & RESEARCH CENTRE Tel 44 1743 255380/ Fax 255383 [ 01743- in the UK] maintains local and national newspaper archives - we found them helpful for facsimile copies.

Later : English "Press Complaints Commission" corruptly supported the newspaper's cover-up of lies, fraud & pervertion in the elite

What does that say about the "Press Complaints Commission" ?

At best PCC is spineless - at worst totally corrupt

In either case PCC takes money by false pretences - thieving

In the meantime

we are tending to conclude that:-

those torturing animals for sport or profit,

would do the same to



Bent Media

BBC Pervs
& Panderers

[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson

this page

Share This