OU blog

Personal Blogs

Paedophiles

Visible to anyone in the world

it is about time that a boil was lanced over the Dunblane massacre.

It is a fact that Thomas Hamilton killed 16 chlidren and one teacher with a gun. We have even had a similar situation where a man killed adults in our country, randomly bringing terror to the streets of our country. We have had Moat allegedly killing one man, and injuring a former girl friend, and a police man.

So, returning to Hamilton, was Lord Robertson a referee on the shotgun licence granted to Hamilton. If he was or was not is not important, it would be a matter of fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong, or criminal in being a referee on such a licence, so a simple answer to a question, who were the referees on Thomas Hamilton's licence.

Is it true that the Sunday Times has an FBI list of labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for access to internet child pornography. Now I ask this question simply on the basis that it seems to be government policy, both this government and the last one, to give access to everybody to the internet, and people need to know what the internet has been used for.

Finally, is it true that Blair has even gone so far as to put a D-Notice on any publication of details of any paedophile rings operating in this country of ours.

I know, and to a certain degree can understand why there is an injunction against a close family member of mine on the grounds of breach of contract over Iraq, and also why there is an injunction preventing publication of details of a case brought against six SAS operatives. However, with the latest changes to the laws in respect of defamation I would hope that some senior individuals are not hiding from their just deserts by the use of D-Notices, and High Court injunctions.

Permalink
Share post

Oath of Allegiance

Visible to anyone in the world

Andrew, a very good morning,

'I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me'.

Now I am of the opinion, I will not say that there is no doubt, that the above represents the oath of allegiance which our soldiers take when they join the military.

The problem which is not being addressed is that by any interpretation of what has been going on at the Chilcot Inquiry that we were at war in Iraq because of American Foreign Policy. That Bush and Blair connived at the war and subsequent occupation, and that accordingly, no British general or officer had to accept orders, neither did the soldiers. The orders were illegal, I think that it is the reason why a certain General, as was revealed in his book, took legal advice before accepting orders in respect of Iraq.

I think that Military Law has had to be changed to include orders from officers of other States, on the basis that American officers were giving orders to British, and Australian soldiers, to 'detain' individuals, who were then extra-ordinary renditioned, and treated severely by American guards, and suffered enhanced interrogation techniques, or tortured. As Hutton revealed in February previous holders of his post inadevertently misled parliament, over these issues. I look forward to the evidence of Geoff Hoon, and Jack Straw, and wish that Brown will be called to give his evidence before the general election.

Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 85977