A Paedophile’s Principles

David Aaronovitch sticks up for Harvey Proctor

Perhaps it’s because he works for (crime) bosses Rebekah Brooks, John Witherow, & Rupert Murdoch that David Aaronovitch propagates quite as he does.

Maybe it’s just co-incidence that he consistently pushes the same views as Rupert Murdoch.

Or could it be that Aaronovitch is a gun for hire who long ago gave up the right to deviate from the family line?

Today’s opinion piece in The Times is singularly one-sided.

Aaronovitch refers to Proctor as a “former Tory MP who bravely went public about the allegations made against him” .

But makes no mention of the fact that uber racist Proctor admitted to beating up under age rent boys. That’s why he is a former Tory MP. Proctor also boasted of holidaying in Tunisia – notorious for the availability of young boys for sex.

Aaronovitch clearly doesn’t care about the suffering of the Child Sexual Abuse survivors whose information was contained in the missing Dickinson files.

He doesn’t mention Dolphin Square or Elm Guest House which is in Zac Goldsmith’s constituency which might explain why he has a more informed view on the matter.

Keith Vaz of course worked at Richmond Council while the alleged Elm Guest House incidents were reputed to have taken place. He shut down an investigation into Keith Janner in the early 90s and was head of the Home Affairs Select Committee when Mark Sedwill answered, on behalf of Theresa May, the questions that needed to be asked about what happened to the files that were given to Brittan.

Sedwill’s comments were openly indifferent as to what had happened to the files. He said he didn’t suspect foul play. Very different to how he behaved when he arranged for Gavin Williamson to be sacked for supposedly leaking the government’s Huawei stance to the Telegraph.

Aaronovitch never mentioned Cyril Smith or David Steel’s reluctance to kick him out of the party for being a paedophile. The Aaronovitch view, like Boris Johnson, appears to be that money spent on investigating Child Sexual Abuse is money spaffed up a wall.

Does he suppose we all believe Savile acted alone? Savile, who was well connected, close to the Tory Party, and a Special Friend of Israel, like Daddy Murdoch.

Though Aaronovitch has a go at the BBC for broadcasting Beech’s allegations, no mention is made of the Head of News at that time.

It was none other than James Harding, the former editor of . . . The Times.

I smell a stitch-up.

Pick an obviously disturbed individual. Give them lots of attention. Then reveal they are lying. And everyone can forget about the original large scale, systemic establishment paedophilia. The Catholic Church have been doing this for hundreds of years. It isn’t new.

It looks to me as though the police co-operated with Murdoch and other agencies to allow a “witch-hunt” to take place to then let it die down.

Jonathan King, the pop svengali who was done for paedophilia, is having a field day. Tweeting away. His bail by the way was put up by Simon Cowell. He is spoken highly of by Rod Liddle.

The Beech case, which should never have got to court, is being used to discredit real victims. And police and health spending cuts today mean that real victims of paedophila often never get justice.

But no worries for Aaronovitch and Tom Watson. Not their problem.

They have their paymasters to please.

Establishment bandwagons to jump on or hijack.

The Krays / Boothby model seems to be the template.

They’ve done it before so they’ll do it again.

But what about Jeffrey Epstein? Things get interesting there. Robert Maxwell’s daughter Ghislaine is close to him. Prince Andrew. Trump. God knows who else. Looks like establishment paedophilia again.

They have lots of secrets. And they’re starting to come out. Everyone seems to be blackmailing each other. Things could get interesting.

Roy Cohn (see previous post) worked for Murdoch. And Trump. He died of AIDS in 1986. But they’re both still around. And it looks like they use the same methods. Jared Kushner’s dad does too.

If that means paedophilia, prostitutes, honey traps, kompromat, then that is what it is.

Old school.

And if that is what was used by the Brits in Ireland and elsewhere, then that too.

You can’t change the past. Or the bad habits of today if they’re proven to work.

But for now, we’re being told that all the allegations are false.

Yes, Beech’s allegations may be false.

But that doesn’t mean all these people are innocent.

Also from today’s Times:


Inside the Mind of Tom Watson

Media Democracy

Tackling big tech and democratizing journalism were the main topics I took from this year’s Media Democracy Festival in London this Saturday.

These things are planned long in advance so I shouldn’t expect people who have been preparing talks on structural problems in the media to have an entire programme based on very recent news.

However one thing I felt could have got more attention is the impact of the various reviews and reports that have come out about the media in the last few weeks.

Vanessa Baird of the New Internationalist mentioned the risks that the recent government commissioned Cairncross Review will lead to large corporates cannibalising a newly proposed fund. A fund that’s supposed to support local and public interest journalism.

The thing I worry about is that the recent Anti-Semitism affair is a sign of things to come in a future where politically motivated government backed digital regulators provide additional censorship on top of that already imposed on social media by the likes of Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Natalie Fenton, one of the organizers of the Media Democracy Festival, told me that the small print of the Cairncross Report makes provisions for a digital regulator.

In recent weeks Tom Watson, Labour’s Media and Digital Secretary and member of Labour Friends of Israel, has called for a Social Media Regulator.

Watson recently set up a party within the Labour Party called The Future Britain Group.

Despite having once written a book called Dial M for Murdoch with former Independent journalist Martin Hickman in which they attacked Murdoch, Tom Watson now clearly bats for Team Rupert.

Cairncross’s Report was clearly designed to protect Murdoch and other Press Barons from “big tech” and also from strict official regulation.

Cairncross, when calling for Social Media Regulation , made no mention of Leveson2 – the uncompleted aborted inquiry into phone hacking and rampant press criminality.

The press in this country are above the law.

Damian Collins, the Tory Chair of the Media Select Committee called Facebook “Digital Gangsters” in a recent report but he himself voted to end the unfinished Leveson Inquiry along with the rest of the Tory Party and the DUP.

Murdoch criminality is ok, so long as he is your friend.

Watson himself, though being in receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds from billionaire press regulation campaigner Max Mosley, has remained completely silent on the subject of press regulation since the announcement that the Press Regulation pressure group Hacked Off were to take the government to court over the binning of the second half of the phone hacking inquiry into criminal activity at Murdoch’s News International publications which include the Sun, the now defunct News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times.

Watson’s quote at the time was brilliant though scarcely reported.

He said that the conclusion of the inquiry into press criminality was essential and that Murdoch had gagged several phone hacking victims (and possibly journalists) by settling out of court but that an inquiry would have the legal right to give a platform to those witnesses and victims whose silence had been bought by the Murdoch empire.

Since then, Watson has slimmed down and aspires to be the Labour leader and PM.

Which he can’t do without Murdoch.

So it seems clear to me that Watson is in bed with Murdoch.

Both are staunch Israel supporters. And both backed the Iraq war. So, having bonded over their mutual imperialism and disdain for all things Corbyn, Watson and Murdoch now collaborate.

Captured Regulator

The concern for me is that the new digital fake news regulator will engage in gangland retribution on behalf of Murdoch and the State.

For example, the Canary and Novara have been feeling the Facebook algorithm changes that have led to them getting less traffic.

Social Media is a de facto public utility – so it is bizzare that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter employ unaccountable moderators to use silence ‘bad actors’.

But what rules are the following?

Are they written down?

How different is this to China?

Who controls access to the public sphere?

And how easily can this be captured?

A digital regulator will work for Murdoch, May, and Watson and take out their rivals.

It will also help undermine any call for regulation of anything run by the Press Barons.

Newspapers currently have more online and digital subscribers than hard copy.

And the most popular site of them all, the Guardian, moderates it’s comments section but is also not regulated.

Same goes for the other papers.

So the system is set up to silence dissent while claiming to be free and self-regulated.

The solutions to this problem, as I have been told, are to migrate over to Web 3.0 and the decentralized blockchain.

I have come across Steemit, D-Tube and the soon to be launched Bywire, which is part run by Byline, a new online publication. I know and get on well with the people at Byline.

Byline are also on good terms with Watson and Collins, whom I cannot stand.

I have never been able to work that one out to be honest.

Byline do great work and Peter Jukes, one the driving forces behind Byline, helped break the Cambridge Analytica story and has done excellent work on the far right links in the Conservative movements tied to Brexit and the Conservative party.

I interviewed Peter last year for Real Media and I really recommend the two videos we released!

Far Right

One of the presenters at the festival, a Lithuanian female gamer, I forget her name, talked about 4chan and how there alt-right is strong in gamer communities.

I have heard of Gab which is supposed to be like Nazi twitter but I have never been on it.


Tom Watson also made lots of noise about paedophilila a few years ago and mysteriously stopped talking about it.

He said that Leon Brittan was part of a Westminster VIP paedophile ring.

He talked about Rotherham too. But that all suddenly stopped.

Rotherham was etched into the NZ mosque attacker’s gun.

But like his Tory rival Sajid Javid, Watson has chosen to blame the NZ attack on Social Media and said nothing about the role of the Murdoch press.

Whereas Sajid Javid chooses to grandstand against refugees and compete with Tommy Robinson over who is coming down hardest on ‘Asian paedophiles’ – Watson likes to point his own gun at Social Media and, like Javid, at “anti-Semitic Corbynistas”.

I believe a significant share of the antisemitic allegations that have been directed at the Labour Party are politically motivated. Murdoch himself commissioned Tom Bower to write a book about Corbyn which is full of falsehoods and is itself a racist tome. The book was serialised in the Mail on Sunday and when the author appeared on Sky television (recently sold by Murdoch), he labelled a left wing guest, Michael Segalov, “a self-hating Jew”.

Watson has had plenty of soft interviews with Andrew Marr recently in which he has been allowed to set out his stall. His main problem remains that he has no charisma.

He and Javid clearly don’t mind racist populists so long as they are Islamaphobic.

Like the ex Liberal leader, David Steel, Tom Watson will be sitting on lots of info about child sex abuse in the UK but has chosen to pursue his political career in lieu of obtaining justice for the victims.

Javid, May and obviously Murdoch are awash in paedophile info.

Maybe, like his new friend Murdoch, Watson is having too much fun playing with the possibilities of Kompromat.

In many ways, Murdoch and Watson are the perfect evil double act.

Could Watson somehow take over without winning a Labour leadership election?

Well of course.

All it takes is for Corbyn to die.

The Australian politician that got egged this weekend got more attention than Corbyn did when he was recently attacked in Finabury Park.

Is there any footage?

Why has none of it been shown?

And why has Watson’s twitter feed not called out the Murdoch press for its racism and Islamaphobia?

Feels like everyone else has.

Is Watson really an opposition Minister or is he controlled opposition?

Vladimir Lenin said the best way to control the opposition is “to lead it ourselves”.

I’ve been reading Inside the Mind of Xi Jinping this morning, which is brilliant.

More on that to come..


Ofcom Director denies Collusive Corruption

Ofcom’s Collusive Corruption

Ofcom Director of Communications Chris Wynn got in touch over Monday’s blogpost.

I just assumed this was spam. Later that day I got a reminder: Not wanting to seem rude, I sent Chris a reply:

The next morning Chris took things up a notch:

Chris was now doing to me precisely what he was accusing me of doing to Lord Adonis. Ascribing a meaning that simply wasn’t there.

We were arguing over the use of the word “over”. At least that’s what I thought.

I was still hoping things could stay friendly.

Getting a bit repetitive.


And finally:

I managed a reply:


Can we finish this?

And back to square one:

Let me reiterate:

Chris Wynn has been at Ofcom for over ten years and used to be a journalist. Can’t think why he feels the need to play games.

As Ofcom regulation of the BBC only started in 2017,  there might still be teething issues.

Still doesn’t explain why Ofcom are turning a tiny blogpost into such a big deal.

It’s common knowledge that the BBC is biased and that Ofcom is a toothless regulator.

And Fake News is now part of the lexicon.

Corporatist  voices and organised silence of Carbon Bubble, Clean Air and Climate Change are all classic symptoms of a captured media regulator.

How can Ofcom’s Director of Communications, Chris Wynn, deny that Ofcom, the BBC’s regulator, has a problem with collusive corruption?

The perception of bribery and corruption in UK business has been getting much worse over the last six years according to Big Four Audit firm Ernst and Young’s latest fraud survey.

E&Y Fraud Survey

Screenshot of the Executive Summary

OFCOM ruling on Climate Change

It is the first time Ofcom has found the BBC in breach since taking over regulation of the corporation in 2017.


So Ofcom took more than 7 months to find the BBC had breached their own broadcasting rules. From August 2017 to April 2018

That’s a long time to correct climate denier Brexiteer Nigel Lawson. Why so long?

And what have Ofcom got to say about the way the BBC legitimise deregulation, fracking and war?

BBC silence about the merging of corporate and state interests is consistent with collusive corruption and the dehumanising corporatist dismantling of public services.

BBC’s political presenters attack anyone with an ecological worldview even though it is widely understood our air is not clean and that pollution kills.

Ofcom is ok with Andrew Neil presenting BBC politics programmes while speaking at antisemitic Hungarian think tanks and chairing the Spectator whose assistant editor is racist Rod Liddle and whose culture critic is the openly fascist James Delingpole.

David Goodhart and several BBC commentators dismiss Windrush deportation cases as mere bureaucratic oversights. Imagine saying that about Nazi deportations? It was called a hostile environment. And Ofcom and the BBC did nothing to help report the illegal deportations as they happened

I wonder why.

Some of Ofcom’s top brass are very much on the gravy train. They are mainly ex-Treasury and audit people.  The ones policing the content are mainly ex-BBC. So conformity is scripted. The type of culture change we need to get a progressive agenda at the BBC and other Public Broadcasters just doesn’t exist. There is too much co-operation with the old way of doing things.

This is Lord Burns. Crossbencher in the Lords but obviously a Tory.

Terry Burns aka Teflon Terry, Lord Ubiquity, Lord Fixer (I’m not making this up) is on the Ofcom Board.


Talk about safe pair of hands!

He’s not on the Gravy Train. He is the Gravy Train.

There’ll be no interesting decisions under him.

Then there’s Baroness Noakes.

Jim Waterson of Guardian Media says that though Noakes is a card-carrying Tory, like others on the Ofcom Board,  she can’t be done for bias because there is no business decision that she has taken that can be seen to be influenced by her political position.

This is because Noakes deals with finance and not content. But funnily enough, I can’t find any minutes of what she has actually said in any meeting. So it looks like we can’t know.

Do she, or the other Tory directors,  have any say in choosing who regulates the BBC? .

It’s still altogether wrong that Noakes retweets Brexiteers, Privatisers, the Israeli Ambassador and Climate Deniers while chairing top committees at Ofcom and RBS. She’s also on an EU Lords Subcommittee.

It’s plain wrong to act as though she has no authority. She has. How is she using it? We deserve to know.

It’s a common perception that the BBC is super biased.

How can Noakes get away with being at the top of Ofcom and voting with the Government, but never get questioned over conflict of interest?


And when this government goes?

Ofcom will still be staffed by Lords and Baronesses on the Boards of several other firms.


In 2016 former Minister for Culture, Karen Bradley kicked former editor of the Economist Bill Emmott, off the Ofcom content and main board for being too pro-EU.

But Noakes is allowed to stay because her politics don’t actually affect her ability to be on the board.

What does the rest of the country think? Most people will never know as our media keeps this type of thing quiet.



Even former staff say it’s corrupt at the highest levels.