Those who seek power almost always covet it for themselves The very idea that people in power can be representatives of those who are powerless is absurd on its face. Has any religion, race, nationality or philosophical belief ever been discovered on this planet that describes a group of people who do not make decisions in their own self interest? You might say that certain religious organizations or non-profits are engaged in such selfless behavior, and you’d be right in a few isolated cases. But for the vast majority of organizations — including most non-profits — their aim is to increase their own size, power and influence.
THIS is the moment a TV builder charged with assaulting two police officers appears to be dragged out of his car and beaten by a cop with a “metal bar”.
Huntley Thawe, 40, says he was punched and pepper-sprayed by cops as he sat in his Citroen van with his two kids over the weekend.
The video showing some of the incident had gone viral last night with more than 41,000 people watching it online.
Huntley, who regularly featured on the Channel Four show Renovation Game, was involved in a domestic dispute when he was filmed being hit with the baton.
His young children, aged just six and nine, are also said to have got pepper spray on their clothes following the police brutality.
West Mercia police confirmed that Mr Thawe had been arrested and charged with willing obstruction of a highway, obstructing or resisting a constable in the execution of their duty and two counts of assaulting a constable in execution of their duty.
No officer in the video footage can be seen to be hurt in any way, the only person that appears to be at harm is Mr Thawe.
Last week’s report from the Associated Press revealing the bust of a child sex ring run by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti was far from the first time the United Nations has been associated with child-abuse rings. The U.N. has for decades been rocked by accusations of sex crimes ranging from rape and abuse of women and minors committed in war zones to participation in human trafficking, prostitution and even production of child pornography involving senior U.N. officials and members of foreign governments. The horrific acts often go unpunished as the result of an overly bureaucratic investigation process, with many perpetrators being sent home where they in many cases do not face prosecution in their own state.
I. Abuses in Haiti
On April 12th, 2017, Associated Press (AP) reported the breakup of a child sex ring that was being run in Haiti by Sri Lankan U.N. Peacekeepers between 2004 and 2007. The report revealed that at least 134 peacekeepers abused nine children and that in the wake of the incident, 114 were sent home. None of the abusers were ever charged in connection with the event. AP found that found that some 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation had been reported in Haiti alone between 2004 and 2016, with perpetrators coming from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay and Sri Lanka. Public Radio International reported that victims of Pakistani peacekeepers included victims who were mentally disabled. Reuters mentioned that only two of the abusers from Pakistan faced sentencing at home, and were given a mere year in prison for the crime once it was finally investigated by the Pakistani military.
II. Abuses In The Central African Republic And West Africa
Stories similar to those emerging from Haiti have also plagued the U.N.’s missions across Africa. On February 27th, 2016, the Washington Post reported that they had interviewed seven underage victims who claimed that they were sexually abused by peacekeepers from the U.N. MINUSCA mission in the Central African Republic (CAR). The Post also cited reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International which documented additional cases of child rape and murder committed by U.N. troops stationed in the CAR.
The shocking incidents first surfaced after an official from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Anders Kompass, leaked documents and testimony to whistle-blowing organisation AIDS-Free World and French prosecutors. Kompass revealed that the abuse had been ongoing since before MINUSCA began in 2014, when French troops were sent to the CAR as part of Operation Sangaris. The abuses included cases of forced bestiality. The leak was just one of many instances which Kompass had heard about from coworkers and contemporaries in other parts of the U.N. Foreign Policy reported in April 2016 that more than 150 accusations of sexual misconduct had been filed by women and children with the U.N., though the true number of victims was likely much higher, with at least 108 cases reported in a single province alone.
Babacar Gaye, the Senegalese head of the U.N.’s mission in the CAR, was fired in the wake of the scandal. Although Anders Kompass was ultimately exonerated for leaking documents and information about the abuses, he resigned from the U.N. in June 2016, citing a total lack of accountability among U.N. officials and his frustration at the impunity with which they had ignored the allegations of misconduct. AIDS-Free World also published additional documents which outlined reports that had surfaced in 2001, revealing additional cases of sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
III. Involvement With Human Trafficking In The Balkans
On February 2012, The Guardian interviewed Kathryn Bolkovac, a whistle-blower who outlined abuses committed by U.N. peacekeepers from the U.N. mission to Bosnia. The allegations included revelations that U.N. peacekeepers had abused underage victims in brothels and were also helping to facilitate sex trafficking, torture and rape committed by organized crime groups in the Balkans. In some cases, U.N. personnel themselves were buying and selling girls around Bosnia.
Bolkovac joined the mission after signing up with Dyncorp, a private military contractor who had supplied the U.N. with manpower for the mission. In the aftermath of her revelations of these crimes, Bolkovac was fired by Dyncorp, who claimed she had filed erroneous time-sheets despite a ruling by a British employment tribunal in 2002 to the contrary.
III. UNICEF Child Pornography Scandal
On June 1987, the New York Times reported that the Belgian headquarters of UNICEF was discovered to have been used to produce and store child pornography. The secret photographic studio was located in the basement of the Brussels building where the committee’s offices were housed. Belgian police reported that the studio was being used to take pornographic photographs of children, many of whom were of North African origin. Belgian police said more than 1,000 such photographs were seized, along with a mailing list of some 400 names in 15 European countries that had been prepared on the UNICEF office computer. A 45 year old UNICEF employee was arrested after police said he was hosting evening computer classes for children in the organization’s offices and making them pose for pornographic photographs. Police also discovered cowboy outfits and costumes which they stated were being used to stage sex games with minors.
Report from the Daily Mirror on the scandal, 20th June 1987
Numerous individuals from multiple European countries were charged in connection with the discovery, including Jos Verbeek, the director of UNICEF in Belgium. The scandal led to 14 arrests in Belgium and others in Switzerland, France and Britain. The Guardian reported that former British Justice Ministry official Phillippe Carpentier was one of the individuals arrested in the United Kingdom, along with what it termed “a close associate, a top government official working on highly sensitive anti-terrorist legislation.”
Report from the Daily Express, 26th January 1988
It was reported at the time that UNICEF’s Belgian committee was linked to a criminal organisation producing pornographic photographs of children and distributing them throughout Europe, and that the cell was thought to have ties to similar organisations in the United States and Japan. Images previously found during law enforcement operations in several other European countries appeared to have been taken in the UNICEF office in Brussels, according to investigators. Belgian police also raided the Research and Information Centre on Childhood and Sexuality, which had been founded four years earlier and had additional branches in Switzerland and France.
IV. Reasons For U.N. Failure To Adequately Address Abuse
The United Nations has been rightfully blasted for its apparent unwillingness to take action and prevent repeated instances of the sexual abuse and exploitation of both women and minors. A 1996 U.N. study, The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, noted that in half the cases examined, the arrival of peacekeeping troops to war torn areas was associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution on those states. In almost all cases, perpetrators are never prosecuted for their crimes. This is partially a result of the way in which the U.N. functions: peacekeeping forces enjoy immunity from prosecution in the state they are deployed to for policing, which can only be waived by the U.N. secretary-general to assist the flow of justice. Before that can even happen however, investigators must be sent to establish that a crime did in fact take place, making the U.N. the judge, jury and executioner in many of the reported cases of abuse. This effectively results in an almost complete lack of convictions, such as in the case of the Haitian ring reported on by AP this year.
AIDS-Free World maintains a set of guidelines updated yearly by the U.N. in a lame and futile attempt to prevent sexual abuse and exploitation by its personnel. But these guidelines do not address the systemic problems resulting from the legal status of peacekeepers and investigative methods which contribute to the situation. Similarly, it does nothing to address the top-down corruption in the United Nations that was highlighted by the 1987 UNICEF child pornography scandal, which gives troubling context to the apparent disinterest of officials in dealing with allegations reported by whistleblowers such as Anders Kompass. Until the United Nations takes a serious approach to combatting sexual abuse committed by its officials and peacekeepers, repeated instances of this behavior will more than likely continue unabated.
In their initial article Mail Online refers to an Infowars.com article (dated January 28, 2013), that’s where they probably found the information on the leaked e-mail and other documents.
CapitalBay (who published the wrong areal pictures of the school in Sandy Hook), Mail Online, Infowars, Yahoo News India, News Track India, Whale.to, Philippine Times, Uganda News, LiveLeak, Truth Media TV and others all claim in their mirrored articles that the alleged e-mail from Britam’s David Goulding to Philip Doughty was dated December 25, 2012.
Whether the content of the alleged e-mail is correct, that’s open for debate. Fact is that PressTV has an article online which supports the claims in the alleged e-mail. And RT‘s article from last year (June 10, 2012) still claims that “Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons,” to then blame Assad for it. Those weapons came from Libya, according to RT. This begs the question: Did Christopher Stevens know about those weapons when he died in the CIA villa in Benghazi last year?
But why was the article pulled by Mail Online?
Why do there exist at least 2 versions of the same alleged e-mail?
And what about Britam admitting that they were hacked, according to Ruvr.co.uk (The Voice of Russia)?
But there’s also this, according to Mail Online it was a Malaysian hacker who got to the alleged e-mail(s), while Infowars claims that the e-mail was “obtained by a hacker in Germany.”
Either way, whoever initiated the Britam e-mail escapade did a good job at fooling both mainstream and alternative news outlets because it’s a real mess and few know what really happened and why.
Yet it’s ironic that Mail Online did not delete their other article where they wrote about the UN’s Carla Del Ponte who claims that Syrian rebels are responsible for “sarin gas attacks, which had been blamed on Assad’s troops.” The same rebels who now receive resources from the EU and the U.S., since the EU is buying oil from those “rebels” and the US is arming them for a proxy war as the Washington Post describes it.
Earlier it was reported that Israel had granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy who’s shareholders include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild.
DREW’S NEWS: This site does NOT own copyright for images/photos presented here.
These pages are not meant to break copyrights or any laws!
All images shown within this site are the copyright of their respective owners.
Philip Gardiner, 40, was billed as a ‘High Court enforcement officer’ despite criminal record barring him from bailiff work.
Gardiner, has appeared in the hit Channel 5 series evicting a mother-of-six from her home and was billed as a “High Court enforcement officer”.
He has appeared alongside the show’s silver-haired father figure Paul Bohill, 72, a business partner and one of his closest pals, as he carried out court orders.
But in August 2014 Gardiner pleaded guilty at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to a charge of possessing an extreme pornographic video depicting a sex act with an animal.
He was fined £500 with £85 costs and a £50 victim surcharge.
In his first appearance on Can’t Pay? after the conviction, he appears with former West Midlands Police detective Mr Bohill as a luckless woman and her two young children are evicted from a flat in Wandsworth, South London.
The same team plus a third officer later on in the series are present when a mum-of-six is thrown out of a house in Biggin Hill, Kent, for non-payment of rent.
In the third series, Gardiner’s features are pixellated and he is referred to simply as “a back-up colleague” while travellers are turfed off a car park in Luton – but his face is briefly clearly seen when he hangs-up a court notice.
The law states a bailiff must be a “fit and proper person” with no criminal record. Despite the fact Gardiner was referred to as a High Court Enforcement Agent the programme makers have claimed that was a mistake and that he was really a “non-qualified colleague”.
But property company director Gardiner, of Dereham, Norfolk, does not appear in any official register of bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers.
A source at Brinkworth Films, which makes Can’t Pay?, said: “Philip Gardiner is not, and never has been, a High Court Enforcement Agent. He does not appear on the programme in that role.
“Under the terms of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 63.2 (c), a certificated bailiff enforcing a High Court Writ can be accompanied by a non-qualified colleague.
“He was referred to as an agent in Series 2, episode 1, in error on first transmission of this episode in September 2014.
“When this error came to light, the commentary was re-recorded and amended to reflect that. On repeats of this episode, and all broadcasts of Series 2, episode 7, he is referred to as a colleague of the agents.
“The stories he appears in Series 2, episodes 1 and 7, were both filmed before his conviction.
“The story in Series 3, episode 10 in which he is pixelated is not the enforcement of a High Court Writ.
Who is Delroy Anglin? Bailiff on Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away! and ex-cop booted out police force for drugs…
The former detective constable was found guilty of possessing class B substances
HE is the star bailiff on the Channel 5 TV series ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!’.
But Delroy Anglin has been exposed as an ex-cop who was booted out of the profession for a drugs convictions. Here’s all you need to know…
Who is Delroy Anglin?
Delroy Anglin, 55, is a former detective constable who appears on the Channel 5 show ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away’.
Anglin has been seen in the Channel 5 series since 2014 repossessing cars and demanding money from struggling folks who can no longer make ends.
He is from Croydon, south London and during his time as a police officer was on the executive committee of The Met’s Black Police Association.
Who does Delroy Anglin work for?
Delroy works for London-based company GLA Enforcement Solutions
The married dad is billed at CLA’s business consultant manager.
CLA boasts on its website: “Delroy has been a certificated High Court Enforcement officer for 6 years.
“Prior to this he spend 22 years working for the Metropolitan police force (which may give you a clue as to where his detective skills came from).”
What convictions does Delroy Anglin have?
Delroy was found guilty at crown court of possessing class B substances and dumped by The Met in London in 2002 after 22 years of service.
He was arrested in 2001 over a cannabis factory in his home and three weeks later he was again apprehended by colleagues with three other men suspected of dealing class B substances in nearby Norbury.
He was booted out by police after conviction.
Anglin then apparently hoodwinked regulators to become a financial adviser offering know-how on investments and mortgages.
However, the Financial Services Authority launched a probe in 2008 and banned him from practice.
It concluded in a report: “The FSA is not satisfied you are a fit and proper person.
“You failed to disclose the conviction and dismissal from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Office of Fair Trading (and) the FSA – you were embarrassed by it (and) believed it was not relevant.
“Your failure causes the FSA to have very serious concerns about you.”
How is Delroy Anglin controversial?
The law states a bailiff must be a “fit and proper person” with no criminal record, but a judge at
Brighton County Court in 2015 granted him his latest certificate.
Anglin’s current bailiff licence was issued in November 2015 and lasts for two years.
Applicants must submit proof they have no criminal record, no debt and are a fit and proper person to the government’s Disclosure and Barring Service before a judge issues a certificate.
Neither he nor the company responded to requests for a comment.
Brinkworth Films, which makes Can’t Pay?, said: “Del Anglin became a certificated bailiff in 2012 after being passed as a fit and proper person by a judge as part of a strict protocol.
“He went through this process again in 2014. All the agents who appear on Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away also go through a number of other background checks.”
The Ministry of Justice failed to respond when asked if Anglin had declared his history to Brighton County Court.
He is the second employee of GLA Enforcement Solutions exposed
TV STAR KILLER’S CHUM
TV bailiff ‘Fat Brian’ from Channel 5 show Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away was best pals with Milly Dowler murderer Levi Bellfield
The Channel 5 star befriended the serial killer when he worked with him as a doorman.
THE star bailiff of TV’s Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away! was the best friend of Milly Dowler murderer Levi Bellfield.
Brian O’Shaughnessy, 39, was also once quizzed over a joint sex allegation with the serial killer.
The two who met as doormen were “thick as thieves for five or six years”, a source said.
Brian, who repossesses debtors’ goods and money for courts on the Channel 5 show but was exposed as having been chased over not paying a bill of almost £5,000 for a new bathroom himself , also worked with Bellfield for a wheel-clamping firm.
Known as Fat Brian, he was quizzed in 2005 as a result of inquiries into Bellfield, 48.
There is no suggestion he knew about his crimes.
A source said: “Brian became Bellfield’s number one sidekick.
“As Levi did with lots of people, he got Brian in his thrall.
“When Brian was arrested he wanted to get his life sorted out.”
Debt recovery worker O’Shaughnessy, of Camberley, Said: “I was an associate of Levi Bellfield.
Director, producer and cinematographer Laura Poitras reveals her interviews with Edward Snowden after being approached by him when Snowden sent her emails under the name Citizen Four and this disturbing documentary about the whistleblower who shined the light on the NSA and its illegal and nefarious spying on the public in the film. There may be someone in the world who has not heard of Snowden, or Julian Assange or the NSA or the FBI but it is unlikely unless said individual has been living under a rock or in outer space. Snowden is the American who now lives in Russia, until further notice, and is “the world’s most wanted man.”
Poitras knows quite a lot about “being wanted” the documentary filmmaker learned about government surveillance first hand after her film, the 2006 made-for-television film My Country, My Country was aired, she was placed on the Department of Homeland Security list for monitoring and Laura was told by airport security that her “threat rating” is the highest that the DHS gives out. All this before her Citizen Four documentary focusing on the National Security Agency (NSA) and the recorded conversations of Edward Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald and MacAskill in a hotel room in Hong Kong.
Whether one believes in any other post 9/11 conspiracy theories or not, the documentary Citizen Four is disturbing and chills run down the spine of the viewer as a piece of history appears on camera. This interview took place before any of the world players got involved. Certainly Julian Assange has a small part in the film, not at the beginning of this tale, but towards the end. Snowdon contacted Poitras almost anonymously at first but after she learned who he was, the entire set of interviews were “hidden” from public view.
It is fascinating to see the story unfold and to see the whistleblower realise that despite his best intentions, the story becomes about him. Before earning his notoriety and getting placed on the world’s most wanted list, Snowden and Poitras reveal just how “un” private the average citizen’s lives are. Viewers also find out that the NSA have never been above lying about their activities and just how much information this government organisation has access to and how much it retrieves.
Perhaps more disturbing is the knowledge that the NSA uses social media, like Facebook, to gather information about people on their lists and Mr. and Mrs. Public.
The world learned about PRISM and how companies like AT&T, Microsoft and Facebook, et al, willingly gave the government access to people’s private information on a regular basis. Equally disturbing is the apathetic and lethargic response by Mr. and Mrs. Average. While one would have thought that citizens would be outraged at this information, this has not happened. Only a portion of the population are disturbed and presumably the mainstream denizens of the United States will view this documentary with the same lacklustre interest that they gave PRISM and the NSA revelations.
Citizen Fourshows history “unfolding” before the viewers eyes in this disturbing documentary and at a time where cyber terrorists forced a major Hollywood studio to pull its release, watching Laura Poitras’ film is proof that the Internet, along with other computerised forms of communication, is a dangerous place for everyone, not just Sony Entertainment, but for every person who uses the world wide web for any reason.
Prepare to be horrified at just how much privacy the average citizen does not have.
More cops, more weapons and more powers to use them and detain people. That’s what cops and commentators are demanding after Khalid Masood’s attack on parliamenton Wednesday.
There have already been calls to arm more police after the attack, including by Tory MP Theresa Villiers. Armed cops have been seen patrolling in towns and cities across Britian. And the Met has deployed huge bombproof vehicles on the streets of Westminster.
It comes as newspapers whip up suspicion against Muslims, and areas with large Muslim populations.
Yesterday, Saturday, former Met Police commissioner Ian Blair said cops should be get powers to monitor encrypted messaging services such as Whatsapp.
Masood had been active on the mobile messaging app two minutes before the attack.
“The police and intelligence services should have that power,” Blair said. “This will become a crucial part of all intelligence efforts to defeat Isis.”
But the changes aren’t about defeating Isis. They’re about stepping up surveillance on ordinary people and giving more power to the cops.
The British state has consistently used attacks like Wednesday’s to increase its repressive powers. Blair’s calls echo similar demands after the London bombings on 7 July 2005.
Just over a week after the bombings the government announced that “armed police officers could be given more aggressive shoot to kill orders, telling them to fire at the heads of suicide bombers”.
Seven days later armed police fired seven bullets into the head of innocent man Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station, killing him.
As Met commissioner at the time, Blair misled the public over the circumstances surrounding de Menezes’s death. He claimed Jean Charles was acting suspiciously before he was shot at point-blank range.
Blair has since been given a knighthood. The officer in charge of that operation, Cressida Dick, now has his old job at the top of the Met.
Giving cops more powers today will lead to further racist scapegoating and political harassment.
The number of black people stopped and searched under anti-terrorism laws rose by at least 322 percent after the 2005 attacks. The number of Asian people stopped under the same laws has rose by 277 percent.
And since 2001 a slew of “anti-terror” legislation has increased the state’s ability to lock people up without trial.
The 2001 Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act allowed detention without trial of foreigners suspected of terrorism. It was later declared illegal.
The Terrorism Act of 2006 gave cops and security services the power to detain people suspected of terrorism for up to 28 days without charge.
Looking back even further, the government responded to the Birmingham pub bombing of November 1974 with a Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
This effectively made all Irish people suspects. By 1993 some 7,000 people had been rounded up, the majority of whom were released without charge.
Although the 1984 Prevention of Terrorism Act nominally shifted the focus to international terrorism, the real target was still Irish people. 96 percent of arrests made under the legislation were in relation to Northern Ireland affairs.
One of the people detained under act said at the time, “It’s quite obvious that what the authorities are using the thing for is to simply to keep an eye on political opponents and they keep an intelligence dossier on all sorts of people who are involved politically.”
Increasing police powers does not prevent terrorist attacks. But it fuels the racism which leads to them—and it gives the state more power to harass spy on and brutalise ordinary people.