SAY IT IN hashtags: #childsnatchuk leads to #paedobritain since the PIE Manifesto

Twitter

Twitter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time, we used to write letters to each other. Now we tweet. Or at least some of us who love our computers. And Twitter is being taken seriously by mainstream media and official organisations, mainly for ‘risk management’, especially since the plane landing on the Hudson River had been helped so substantially by people tweeting.

Hashtags categorise ‘tweets':

But the policy was set up by the PIE Manifesto in 19 pages in November 1975:

  1. Evidence on the Law relating to and Penalties for certain Sexual Offences involving Children – for the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee – by the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) 
  2. Abstract: abolition of ages of consent and removal of consensual sexual activity at all ages from the criminal law
  3. Sources of Harm and Suffering: no evidence for sexual experiences being harmful for a child
  4. The Weight of the Law and Public ‘prejudice’ remove all possibility of redress
  5. Principles
  6. Concept of an ‘age of consent’ is quite false
  7. Evidence for Abolishing Ages of Consent
  8. Erections and orgasms in children
  9. Child Victims of Sex Offences, Sexual Deviation Research and The Phenomenon of Paedophilia
  10. True ‘innocence’
  11. The Effects of Relationships between Adults and Children
  12. Victims-precipated Paedophilia Offences
  13. The homosexual minor
  14. Abolition of the ages of consent should be a central part of the revision
  15. Proposals
  16. Doubt exists for only some children between the ages of 4 and 9
  17. It is important to have machinery which can be brought into action other than by the parent or guardian or next of kin
  18. Attitudes to Ages of Consent in Holland
  19. Final paragraph
About these ads

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter.
This entry was posted in Twitter and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to SAY IT IN hashtags: #childsnatchuk leads to #paedobritain since the PIE Manifesto

  1. Incredible as this may sound, this might actually be true.

    I am about to issue an emergency application against the Director of Public Prosecutions, amongst others, alleging that he has deliberately pursued a policy that has allowed 2,406 children to be sexually exploited by groups and gangs over a 14 month period recently.

    I will post details later.

  2. I am sure that you will have a lot of support and I for one will look forward to the details and be very interested in the result. Have you or will you contact the NSPCC? I am sure many would be interested in their response.

  3. Pingback: HELPLESS and Powerless? Web bullets for courageous hearts and minds | Victims Unite!

  4. tony tootle and charlene tootle says:

    tomorrow i am going to pick my daughter to go on a 200 miles trip to see her 2 kids for her monthly visit for 30 miniutes IS THIS WHAT THEY CALL THE BEST INTERESTED FOR THE KIDS NO.NO.NO she would have been better going to prison the get 2 visit a month 2 hours. a time well her only crime was to ask for HELP that is all it was HELP AND HER 2 KIDS STOLEN FROM LIVERPOOL SOCIAL SERVICERS TO BE PUT UP FOR ADOPTION

    • Too terrible to be true!

    • “her only crime was to ask for HELP that is all it was HELP AND HER 2 KIDS STOLEN “,

      Have a look at my previous post on this thread,
      “Ill always be with them keeping them safe the people who are supposed to help us just tell lies and try to take my babies away”.
      In respect to this case,

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-22164089

      “WHAT THEY CALL THE BEST INTERESTED FOR THE KIDS”.
      As Adolph Hitler observed in Mein Kampf,
      “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

      In a democracy the family decides on the best interests of the child and then imposes them on the state. NOT the other way around. We need to start aggressively imposing it.

      If you want to take a highly aggressive approach then let me know. It involves taking out an emergency protection order, removing the children into your care for two weeks and issuing a private prosecution against Liverpool for child cruelty. It is untested and untried. If it fails you will never see the children again.

      Alastair

      • “Highly aggressive” indeed, Alastair!

        All my hats off before you and your ideas!!!

        I follow EXACTLY!!!

        There’s David Jenkins in Wales who’d be up for that, I think!

        But maybe the Tootle Family will be up for it, too!? Liverpuddlians are the best of the ‘real people’ after all!!!

        • As ever, I must make some freedom of information requests. However, I think that we are close. The Oxford case of child sex trafficking. The kids were in care, subject to a care order under section 31 Children Act 1989.

          This means that both the local authority and CAFCASS are also criminally liable for what happened, for the reasons set out here,

          https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/prosecutions_for_child_cruelty_i#comment-37653

          You will notice the lack of response.

          After three months haggling over the paperwork, I have the Crown Prosecution Service in court over this.

          Alastair

          • Most remarkable how you manage to fight with criminals, Alastair!

            When and where is the CPS in court?

            After our experience in the RCJ yesterday and the day before, I can only call it farce, charade and masquerade…

            • You prosecute privately. I am currently working on it, but I think that we can instigate private criminal prosecutions against CAFCASS and the local authorities.

              • Well, that would be some victory, wouldn’t it!!!???…

                • Anonymous says:

                  Private prosecutions are all very well but there is the law that allows it and judges that don’t.
                  The right of a private individual to bring a criminal prosecution is a “constitutional safeguard” against the failure or refusal of the authorities to prosecute offenders. Although you may comply with the procedural requirements designed to prevent the misuse of the right of private prosecution the Director of Public Prosecutions may decide to take over private prosecutions (whether for the purpose of continuing or discontinuing them).

                  So here again are the political barriers to private prosecutions. You may ensure that your case passes the DPP test and have the clearest and most verifiable clear and compelling evidence, and yet be faced with the DPP taking over the case and discontinuing it – and or the Judge himself refusing it.

                  My private prosecution or attempt to bring one on substantive documentary evidence indicting a solicitor for perverting the course of justice was unlawfully prevented by the District Judge. The DPP had seen the papers and had allowed the case to continue. The defendant had appeared in court charged with an indictable only crime.

                  Instead of this the District Judge refused to issue summons!!! and this makes no logical sense, and is unlawful, as the facts are that the defendant appeared in court. He was also legally represented by a barrister (who just like the District Judge, the Clerk to the Court and the Defendant Solicitor) knew the law, ( and in any case ignorance is no excuse). The charges had been read out and under the Crime and Disorder Act Committal Proceedings had been abolished.

                  Statute requires that an adult appearing in court charged with an indictable only offense is sent forthwith to the Crown Court for trial. Any applications for abuse of process follows the procedure set out in law, and the applications are to be made to the Crown Court. But the District Judge with the defendant having no right to a hearing was given a hearing– but even so the Judge has to comply with statute and did not.

                  I was refused permission for Judicial Review and refused again at an Oral Hearing. I produced documentary evidence of the solicitors lying to the court, and was warned that I may become liable for vexatious proceedings.

                  It is interesting to observe; “The criterion for selecting a judge is that he should be a gentleman and it will do no harm if he knows a bit of law” (former Lord Chancellor)

                  JAC has identified the following five core qualities and abilities which are required for most judicial office.
                  1. Intellectual capacity
                  2. Personal qualities, Integrity and independence of mind, Sound judgement, Decisiveness, Objectivity, Ability and willingness to learn and develop professionally
                  3. An ability to understand and deal fairly
                  4. Authority and communication skills
                  Efficiency

                  The center of infection lies at the feet of the Judiciary who have breached their Oath of Office. The Contract between the Public and the Judiciary is that they are granted the authority to administer justice according to the law as it is written. Not how they or anybody else would wish it to be.
                  The definition of this “discretion” shows the crossroads; “The discretion of a judge is said to be the law of tyrants. It is always unknown. It is different in different men. It is casual and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is sometimes caprice. In the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable.”

                  The Oath to administer justice according to law is granted on trust. ….. Trust demands the judge has the honest integrity “to determine the contents of the legal norm” consistently …….. as stated by Lard Halesbury ” Discretion means, when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour. It has to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his office, ought to confine himself.”

                  Parting from this in any way is a corruption, once corrupted… the trust or contract is breached and the authority to administer justice cannot be met. Judges that continue with authority after breaching trust are acting a fraud. Breaches of law are divided into civil and criminal acts or omissions, it is a question of law for the Judge and a question of guilt for the Jury. There are procedures… But where is the “Honest” Judge?

  5. Pingback: STOP Forced Adoptions – stepping stones for criminal Social Services & paedos in Britain | Victims Unite!

  6. Pingback: HOW MANY PEOPLE know about the scandals of child ‘care’, supposed ‘protection’ and forced adoptions? | Punishment without Crime

  7. Pingback: ABOLITION of Adoptions without Parental Consent – our Petition to the European Parliament | Punishment without Crime

  8. Principle29455 says:

    That Organisation should of been Banned on Day 1

    It Takes the Biscuit that it was Not

  9. Pingback: On Awareness and Action re the worst scandal in Britain: #childsnatchbritain leads to #paedobritain | Victims Unite!

  10. Pingback: FCK U SOCIAL WORKERS – I’m calling Grandma! It’s about time kids can go where they WANT and BELONG! | Punishment without Crime

  11. Pingback: OUR ‘child protection’ system is an international scandal: House of Commons and Nigerian Standard Newspaper | Victims Unite!

  12. Pingback: COMING OUT – despite all gags – against all odds – outside Downing Street – and in Nigerian papers | A Nigerian Family – Destroyed by Haringey Council – Gagged from Reporting

  13. Pingback: ARE social services complicit in UK child-abuse networks? | Punishment without Crime

  14. Pingback: UK COPS bungle sex ring probe – no investigation for 18 months for #paedobritain leads to #childsnatchuk | Victims Unite!

  15. Pingback: ENDING ‘preoccupation with rights of biological parents’? Our response to Michael Gove MP | Victims Unite!

  16. Pingback: #LSEJackson: unique tweet opportunity after “It’s safe NOT to dispose of the matter”! | Melissa Laird

  17. Pingback: ADOPTION SCORECARDS – to speed up the process – with or without Parental Consent??? | Punishment without Crime - Bereavement without Death

  18. Pingback: VISIT IN HMP CARDIFF on the 10th Day of a Hunger Strike - Latest News

  19. Pingback: HOW CAN ONE take this charade seriously? When judges deliver “justice” by covering each other | A Nigerian Family – Destroyed by Haringey Council – Gagged from Reporting

  20. Pingback: BATTLE NEWS Part 2 linking #childsnatchuk with #paedobritain | A Battle for Britain's Children and others' Human Rights

  21. Pingback: 10-YEAR-OLD: 6 times in care, 6 times abused, back to Social Workers not Parents! | No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!

  22. Pingback: CHALLENGES for another non-UK family destroyed by a Local Council, Police and UK Court | Audrone Barkauskiene trying to protect her son

  23. Pingback: ENDING secret family court hearings or STARTING an inquiry into child abuse, what’s the priority? | Victims Unite!

  24. Pingback: EXPOSURE TONIGHT: Don’t Take My Child – ITV – 10.40 – 11.40 | No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!

  25. Pingback: OPEN LETTER to the Met regarding internationally protective paedophiles – at the cost of a Lithuanian boy | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  26. Pingback: CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL raises disturbing questions about UK establishment or how #childsnatchuk leads to #paedobritain | Victims Unite!

  27. Pingback: APPEALING to the Home Affairs Committee: evidence of Child Sexual Exploitation and localised grooming | Victims Unite!

  28. Pingback: GOOD NEWS: Merton Council dropped Adoption Order due to Ambassador, Supporters & Publicity | Laila Brice

  29. Pingback: FEEDBACK to Commitments to Victims from McKenzie Friends and Victims Unite! | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  30. Pingback: CHILD SEX ABUSE – 02/09/14 – Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) – Theresa May (Home Secretary) | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  31. Pingback: WHO CARES when foreign children are #abused in #fostercare? | A Nigerian Family – Destroyed by Haringey Council – Gagged from Reporting

  32. Pingback: TIME to replace #corruption with Human and Child Right Panels as a People’s #NationalInquiry | Victims Unite!

  33. Pingback: GET #YourMP to sign #EDM374 on Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry #CSAInquiry | National Inquiry into Organised, Orchestrated & Historic Child Sexual Abuse

  34. Pingback: #LBC investigations into #childsexualabuse #CSAInquiry | National Inquiry into Organised, Orchestrated & Historic Child Sexual Abuse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s