SECOND WARNING OF CRIMINAL ABUSE

Subject: Your bias? Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:30:18 +0000 From:[editor perceptions.couk.com] To: Nicky Campbell <campbell@bbc.co.uk> CC: "vlc@bbc.co.uk" <vlc@bbc.co.uk>, Sybil Ruscoe <ruscoe@bbc.co.uk>

Dear Mr Campbell

You question most people cleverly, and normally extract the facts. But on today's programme you again failed to question "the establishment" - personified several times, first by Richard Tilt, then by several policemen.

Your bias is the same as theirs and can be illustrated by a small statistical example.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<EXAMPLE STARTS

The majority of black and working class people in jail were jailed for trivial offences.

But all rich, privileged people in jail were sent there for very serious offences - pedophile / hard drugs / big fraud / other sex crimes / money murders.

Does this mean that the rich and privileged are more wicked or evil than black or working class people?

No - it merely means that judges routinely send black and working class people to jail for trivial offences.

And that judges only jail the rich and privileged when forced to, by public opinion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EXAMPLE ENDS

I now see why you failed on another occasion - here it is

(By the way IF YOU DON'T HEED THIS - WHEN YOU ARE OLD AND GREY (if you make it that far) YOU WILL KNOW YOU'VE FAILED AT THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IN YOUR LIFE.

So don't say I didn't warn you)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<QUOTE STARTS (edited email)

: [ sent 16 March 1998]

> Dear VLC and Nicky Campbell

> You all missed a good programme on Monday, the one Nicky could have had.

> A policeman (Chief Inspector I believe) made some incredibly foolish (and some untrue) statements on Nicky's show and was not called to account.

> 1) To justify police not chasing white aggressors and instead pestering the black victims, the Chief Inspector said "we normally let anyone get away if they are running away, what we do is concentrate on those who remain at the scene"

> But we normal people know that the guilty run - the innocent are more likely to stay to talk to the police.

So our Chief Inspector has just given out a very nasty message. "The police are not interested in the justice of a situation, only in easy arrests - if necessary of innocent people" (the logical interpretation of what the C.I. said).

> 2) He also said "Any racism, sexism etc. in the police force is only that which exists in society". Untrue! Why? - three reasons:-

> Statistical fact - The policeman is personally and financially motivated to create aggression. In a quiet rural area a policeman has lower career prestige and lower financial rewards, in a riot-torn inner city a policeman gets higher career prestige and higher financial rewards. Just as bored and greedy fireman light fires, so our present policemen are motivated to create aggression and unrest in society.

> Statistical fact - Put any group of youngish males in uniform and they will always look for a collective enemy - and the first choice will always be youngish males in a different uniform i.e. youngish males who are easily identifiable as say black or biker or nomad or student etc. (roughly in that order too). [Not mere academic speculation - that is also my personal life experience]

> Statistical fact - The street police force is mainly male and aged 18 ish to 40 ish - precisely the group that is more sexist, more racist, more aggressive and more easily tempted to misuse power (physically, financially and sexually) than any other large segment of Society.

> The sad fact is, per capita there will always be more corrupt bullies, more racists or indeed more rapists, within the present male dominated police force than in Society as a whole, because, unlike other male 18 - 40's, police MEN are free to isolate themselves from society and free to justify their antisocial actions - (as the C.I. did in 1 above ).

[ Later "Perceptions" note:- that last observation has been confirmed by 2001 English police refusal to give DNA samples. It seems the police themselves are aware they are harboring a high number of rapists and murderers in their ranks - and are voting for cover-up

R J-D Aug 2001 ]

nter">

> The Cure? - Get rid of our present MALE police force of course - it is hugely expensive and it is doing the opposite of what we want it to do, as you can see from the above, in all three areas, roads - local crime - national crime.

Here is the Cure:-

> Roads

> Most efficient countries have a separate road traffic police. I suggest ours should be formed from people, equal male/female ratio, who have served five or ten years with the AA & RAC. That way we would get an intelligent and efficient road traffic police, which we do not seem to have at the moment.

> Local

> Let local authorities organise their own all female police forces. Females are more aware and more intelligent in their actions; they have more than twice (2 times) the social cognition of men.

Females are also less attached to expensive toys, gimmickry and weaponry. ^[link]

An all female police force would be less costly and much, much more efficient.

(Also a female would not shoot dead a black baby in bed, as I think a panicky gun loving policeman did a few years ago.)

> National

> The police do an abysmal job w.r.t. national crime and corruption. You can now see why.

> Let the Home Office recruit a small group of intelligent women and men who were born and raised outside of the home counties. Problem solved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QUOTE ENDS

Mr Campbell, your bias is also BBC bias and is a danger to our society,

here is another example - Sibyl Ruscoe seems to be notorious (to me anyway) for soft interviews with the establishment, giving the impression that all is well. The problems are hidden, to crop up much later and very tragically - here is an example from late 1997:-

AGAIN THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO AVOID FAILURE ( I don't expect principles from Sibyl - after all I think she's only a weak woman trying to please the boss)^[link]

Sibyl had interviewed a senior Social Services or Police person and seemed happy to accept his assurances that "it can never happen again so everything is all right".

QUOTE STARTS (edited email and HTML)

Copy of MESSAGE sent 1997

To: Sibyl Ruscoe ruscoe@bbc.co.uk Subject: Misleading reassurances.

Dear Sibyl

Misleading reassurances seemingly endorsed by you re organised / institutional pedophile activities.

Data re institutional pedophile corruption are available in public domain.

Media do not seem able to access or recognise this data.

Data on organised Pedophile abuse (and murder)

a) Independent 3rd country targeted investigations DO arrest / prosecute / punish senior pedophiles from Britain - diplomats, civil servants, politicians etc.

b) British targeted investigations NEVER arrest / prosecute / punish senior pedophiles - only thugs and "brothel-keepers".

Tentative conclusion> :- Senior pedophiles have the power to prevent prosecution within Britain.

Suspects in :- Govt., Whitehall, Police, CPS (or previous equivalent).

a) Every generation fresh revelations are made (organised abuse- "visitors" to Homes or Institutions) , then assurances given that new and effective controls are now in place.

b) Only social and care workers prosecuted - no organisers prosecuted c1900, c1950, c1997.

Tentative conclusion:- Senior pedophiles have the power to circumvent "controls", and to prevent prosecution in Britain.

Suspects in:- Local Govt., Govt., Whitehall, Police, CPS.

a) Only senior pedophiles caught in Britain (1 x High Court Judge and 1 x Senior Diplomat) were caught by junior policemen and junior Customs men respectively, in "trawl" operations out of reach of control by senior officers.

(Later the pedophile High Court Judge, never held in custody, was allowed to walk free - unpunished, by a fellow High Court Judge).

Tentative conclusion:- Senior Police & "Security" do not wish to catch or punish senior pedophile organisers.

Suspects as above.

[LATER INSERTION - 9June 2000 - Judges are asking that Customs officers be denied the right to prosecute!

"Perceptions" speculates that if the prosecution decision is left to CPS (Crown Prosecution Service ie. LAWYERS) - then pedophile diplomats and judges will be completely safe again.

The lawyers mafia does not encourage the prosecution of judges - especially not pedophile judges.

See independent.co.uk/news/UK/Legal/2000-06/drugs090600.shtml

QUOTE" Yesterday the Attorney General, Lord Williams of Mostyn, ordered a review of the role of Customs and Excise." UNQUOTE

"If you would like to see root causes of this and other problems try "Altruist Survivor" (all of it). Yours- RD.

QUOTE ENDS (never acknowledged)

[ apropos the above - wouldn't you like to know what senior Home Office and senior police officials were really doing on that trip to the Philippines - try analysing the facts, if you know them!] ^{see warning.html#Later}

So now you know, Mr Campbell. Again, don't say I didn't warn you.

I hope you do make it, by the way - to that "old and grey" scenario.

regards RD

TEXT ENDS

UPDATE:- February 16 2000 Yet another 'report' on yet another British pedophile institutional scandal - from Sir Ronald Waterhouse - a former High Court judge and member of the English elite - reads all too predictably:-

From the "Guardian" - "Rumours of a ring of abusers, including prominent public figures, have been rife. But the report says there is no credible evidence of any such network. It also dismisses suggestions that freemasonry was implicated in what went on."

From "The Times" - "The report names many of those convicted of abuse in the scandal, but stops short of revealing the identities of those against whom no convictions have been secured. Despite persistent rumours that paedophile activity led straight from the Welsh care homes to the door of the English Establishment, the report concludes that there was no evidence to confirm the existence of "a wide-ranging conspiracy involving prominent persons". (our stress)

Well, after reading laworjustice.html ie. real facts as compared to English judges' versions, we can estimate how much those statements are worth.

NEWS "Attack on Straw over extension of secrecy"

Freedom of information: special report

David Hencke, Westminster Correspondent Monday January 17, 2000

" Jack Straw [ British Law and Order Minister in charge of the Home Office ^{see
promise}] has been severely criticised . . . . for using the new freedom of information legislation to extend secrecy to cover up some of the worst scandals which hit the monarchy this century"

CLICK for BALANCE