Monthly Archives: July 2016

Comment of the Day – ‘Bonce’



As someone who has come to faith recently from a non-Christian upbringing, and married to a wonderful God-fearing strict Eastern European lady, I have a unique perspective on this.
I have come to the conclusion that the C of E is a corrupted organisation that is highly political, and does not put God and God’s love at the centre of everything it does.
Now any church associated with the C of E, or any church with a minister trained through the C of E, is compromised.
The organised church is collapsing because its a vassal of the establishment (media, government, educational establishment)…and state security services – Ed

“The Church of England smears saints and shields scoundrels” by Rev Jules Gomes

Rev Jules Gomes: The C of E smears saints and shields scoundrels

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It produced the best of bishops; it produced the worst of bishops. One was a saint; the other a scoundrel. One was the spring of hope; the other was the winter of despair. One was going direct to heaven; the other was going direct the other way.

How would Dickens end this tale of two bishops? He would glorify the saint and vilify the scoundrel. How does the Church of England end this tale of two bishops? It smears the saint and shields the scoundrel. It requires a miracle to turn a Dickensian narrative into a Kafkaesque nightmare. The hierarchy of the C of E is used to performing such miracles on a smaller scale—its autocracy, bureaucracy and mediocracy regularly turns wine into water. Just type “Church of England” into that omniscient oracle “Google” and read the results.

This is the tale of two bishops: Bishop Bell and Bishop Ball. Bishop George Bell was the Bishop of Chichester and a great friend and supporter of my hero Dietrich Bonhöffer in his resistance to Adolf Hitler. Were it not for his principled opposition to the blanket-bombing of Dresden, Bell would have been elevated to the See of Canterbury. ‘To despair of being able to do anything, or refuse to do anything, is to be guilty of infidelity,’ he wrote. His words have pricked my calloused conscience when I have been tempted to cower before power. I got to know Bell a great deal more when I read Eric Metaxas’ biography of the German pastor who dared to defy the Nazis—Bonhöffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.

Bishop Peter Ball? Bishop who? I had never even heard the name until newspaper headlines screamed it out in 2015. Only then I learned that Ball was suffragan Bishop of Lewes and diocesan Bishop of Gloucester.

That’s when the story takes a Kafkaesque twist. In the case of George Bell, an unidentified woman, known only as ‘Carol’ first complained in 1995 that Bell had sexually abused her when she was five. Carol is now 70. But it was only when she wrote to Archbishop Justin Welby in 2013 that the C of E went into safeguarding overdrive and its sainted bishop was pronounced a paedophile overnight. Carol received £15,000 as compensation. The Child Protection Gestapo went on a cleansing spree and adopted a scorched earth policy to buildings, schools and other institutions named after Bell.

In the case of Bishop Ball, an identified individual, Neil Todd, first complained in 1993, about the horrific sexual and sadistic abuse he had suffered at the hands of Peter Ball. The C of E went into cover-up overdrive. Leading establishment figures, including senior clergy, colluded to protect Bishop Ball. A BBC report said that ‘another person in the church who helped one of Ball’s victims tried to raise concerns with 13 different bishops who appeared to take no action.’ It was only through the heroic persistence of priests like the Revd Graham Sawyer, one of Ball’s victims, that Ball was sentenced in October 2015 to 32 months in prison for the grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse of 18 vulnerable young men between 1977 and 1992.

If there is one institution that ought to be a beacon of justice it ought to be the church. This is because its foundational text, the Bible, has justice at its very heart. It is the Bible that was instrumental in giving birth to many of the principles of Western jurisprudence.

Most prominent is the principle of equal justice under the law. ‘You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s,’ declares Deuteronomy. Exodus backs this up. ‘You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice’. Leviticus echoes this. ‘You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour’.

Equally important is the principle of evidence. Rabbinic exegesis on the Tower of Babel story in Genesis points to the verse where ‘the Lord came down to see the city and the tower’ which the citizens of Babel had built. Rashi, the great eleventh-century rabbi, used this as a basis for evidence in a trial: ‘And the Lord came down to see—He really did not need to do this, but Scripture intends to teach the judges that they should not proclaim a defendant guilty before they have seen the case and thoroughly understood the matter in question.’

Other legal texts in the Bible take this further when discussing the role of witnesses. ‘A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established,’ states Deuteronomy. ‘Do not admit a charge against a presbyter except on the evidence of two or three witnesses,’ writes the apostle Paul to Timothy.

So why did at least one archbishop and a number of bishops allegedly close ranks and collude in an act of partiality to protect Ball when there were so many witnesses against him? On the other hand, why did the C of E pronounce Bell guilty when a single uncorroborated witness testified against him? Why has the evidence not been made public? Bell could not defend himself from the grave. Has the politics of expediency replaced biblical principles and the ethics of a fair trial in the way the church conducts its legal and disciplinary procedures?

After much pressure from a cadre of eminent lawyers, commentators, writers, and members of the House of Lords, the C of E finally agreed to an independent review of the Bell case at the end of June 2016. A gaggle of incompetent and frightened bishops who have tarnished Bell’s reputation now have to contend with historian Andrew Chandler’s meticulously researched and recently published biographyGeorge Bell, Bishop of Chichester: Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship. Chandler ends on a note that any historian, judge or journalist would be wise to heed when judging Bishop Bell.

‘The allegation of 2015 is anomalous. Indeed, it seems to exist in its own world, evidently uncorroborated by any other independent source. It also remains unique, for apparently no other such accusation has arisen. In sum, we are asked to invest an entire authority in one testimony and to dismiss all the materials by which we have come to know the historical George Bell as mere figments of reputation. The corollary of such a method may now be witnessed in the hasty removal of his name or image from public institutions and commemorations. It may simply be observed here that such iconoclastic activities are not unknown to historians of other, far darker, times and contexts.’

For the Church of England, it is indeed, the worst of times.


Rev Jules Gomes

The Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes is pastor of St Augustine’s Church, Douglas, on the Isle of Man.

Evidence of organised paedophilia implicates the Church. Conspiracy theory?


Friday, 29 July 2016


In my recent article, Suppressed Pedophilia Allegations Reveal Culture of Satanic Ritual Abuse, I discussed the story of the Hampstead child-abuse whistleblowers, 9 year old Hampstead girl Alisa and her 8 year old brother Gabriel, whose testimony of abuse at the hands of their father and the satanic cult had just been leaked to alternative media. The alleged abuses involve a network of paedophiles in positions of public trust, including school teachers (from 8 different schools), priests, social workers, health care workers, child protection agencies and police officers.
However, adding to the complexity of this situation, the more evidence that comes to light the more it appears that those people at the top of our societies most influential social and legal are actively working to protect organised paedophilia and child-trafficking networks, rather than to dismantle them and bring the perpetrators to justice.


Following the initial allegations, the children were examined by a Police Medical Officer. Medical reports cited physical injuries consistent with blunt force trauma that correlated with allegations of physical and sexual abuse. The children gave names and also provided details of perpetrators’ anatomies, characteristics and birth marks etc. However the UK legal establishment failed to begin formal investigations into these allegations, instead appearing to close ranks around the individuals and institutions implicated. Only after the children’s recorded confessions were made public did authorities pursue legal action — against the children’s mother, Ella Draper.
Inexplicably, showing no sensitivity to the nature of these allegations, the children were taken from her custody by UK authorities and entrusted to the same network of social workers, health care workers, child protection agencies and police that these children alleged to have facilitated their abuse.
According to Ms Draper, the children were later asked by Police to retract their statements, in police interviews conducted after the children had already spent 6 days in two separate foster care accommodations. Notably, the children’s initial statements correlated with each other while also being extremely detailed, however, their later retractions (issued after a week in institutional placement) were entirely dissimilar.
This case struck a chord and mobilised many informed citizens and activists. Since February, much more research has been done and many more connections have been made between those working to defend the rights of these children – and indeed, children everywhere. Such networked efforts have helped to create a bigger-picture understanding of this complex situation, lifting the veil on the organised and institutionalised molestation, abduction, trafficking, sale, rape, torture and murder of children.
However, with evidence mounting, activists working to raise awareness of this horrific situation have become increasingly disconcerted by the apparent inaction of high-level authorities in this matter. Volumes of recent and historical evidence indicate that global paedophilia and child-trafficking networks are not only operating within the ranks of our society’s most influential governing bodies and institutions but are also being protected from legal recourse by those same institutions. Implicated by this evidence are countless well-known politicians and officials, educators, entertainers, media heads, and public and religious figures, many of whom appear to enjoy the protections of conspirators within the political, media, religious and justice systems — the systems that are meant to protect our children’s interests, not their calculated abusers.
Let’s examine the evidence.


Allegations of paedophilia and satanic ritual abuse, child stealing and child trafficking are dangerously common amongst the highest ranking members of our society. The recurrence and consistency of allegations involving the powerful elite at the highest levels, coupled with the demonstrably routine suppression of evidence relating to those allegations, raises some difficult yet critical questions. Have the institutions we trust to serve the public’s best interests (including government, technology and media giants) in fact become corrupted, systemically serving more sinister, undisclosed ends?
As you’ll see in the short video below, British MP John Mann delivered a passionate speech to the British Parliament on 23th May 2015, outlining just how extensively paedophilia, child abuse and slavery networks are within the British Government.
There are already over 1,400 suspects involved in just one alleged British paedophile ring alone, with many more cases coming to light in Australia following recent investigations of the Royal Commission Into Child Abuse into the activity of the nation’s institutional bodies.
According to Mann:
“My constituency is no worse, no different to anywhere else in the country. This is nationwide, it’s every aspect of society… I’m expecting other people with other names coming forward from other parts of the country in the near future, others have already done so.
“The scandal of historic child abuse in this country is going to be one of the defining issues of the next five years… It is going to corrode everything over this Parliament because it is so large, it is so huge, it involves so many people… and this Parliament is going to have to deal with it.”


The following broadcast from The Kev Baker Show on Truth Frequency Radio features a 2-hour interview with the researcher, author and broadcaster Chris Everard who presents a detailed and up-to-date report of the situation in the UK. If you don’t have the time to view all the links connected to this article, this one is the one to watch.
For more information on the situation in the UK, please see James Corbett’s article,Paedophiles in Politics: An Open Source Investigation.


As shocking as the notion of paedophilia is the information that actually reaches mainstream media and therefore the common perception of what paedophilia actually is – what it involves, and who – barely scratches the surface of the reality.
Our society is controlled by a Satanic ruling class. They are criminals, hiding behind the ‘respectable’ upper hierarchies of our society. It is difficult to believe such atrocities are occurring in the ‘civilized’ West in the 21st Century, but the evidence has become so overwhelming that we can no longer claim ignorance. We (myself included) have no choice but to put our fears aside and find the courage to seriously examine this cesspit of humanity, and to act on what we find. Ongoing investigations are uncovering unimaginable atrocities and, heart-broken, many of us would rather not pursue the truth any further. It can seem like too much to bear, so we would often rather dismiss it because we cannot endure nor comprehend it, much less believe we can do something about it. Too often, our spontaneous response is one of cognitive dissonance.
Ultimately, the truth cannot be ignored. Our conscience must not let us ignore the facts. This horror is all very real. It is very calculated, and it is happening globally. Innocent children are being raped and murdered on a daily basis, victims of organised abduction and satanic ritual. With so many identical cases worldwide, all avenues of research constantly and consistently lead to the same conclusion. This goes way beyond our common comprehension of child abuse and paedophilia: the culture of ritual abuse is so heavily embedded in our most influential institutions and ‘protective’ agencies, that information is routinely suppressed and censored, protecting their networks, themselves and each other — the perpetrators.
(For example, the videos and research links embedded in my previous article had to be constantly replaced and updated, as they were routinely removed from circulation by supposedly impartial technology providers. This is still a work in progress… )
In my research, I recently came across a 5 part YouTube series that provides similar details of satanic paedophile rings allegedly operating in France and Germany. Outlining a series of horrors endured and witnessed at the hands of satanic cultists, the children speaking here claim to have been subjected to and witnessed acts of slavery, rape, murder, torture, trafficking, as well as rituals involving masks and costumes, injections, underground tunnel systems, blood drinking, cannibalism, and ‘snuff movies’ — films of abuse victims’ deaths, which are said to sell for up to $20,000 Euros a piece.


There is extensive evidence that human baby and fetus trafficking networks extend into Central America and Asia, reportedly for the purposes of ‘black magic’ ritualIn one case in China reported in January, authorities rescued 37 babies and a toddler from an abandoned factory in the southwestern province of Shandong. The children were in poor physical condition and many were suffering from HIV/AIDS and malnutrition. Human traffickers were found to be recruiting pregnant women to sell their babies and hiding them in the factory until they gave birth. Once the women gave birth, they handed their newborns over to the traffickers and left. The babies were then drugged and smuggled inside handbags and luggage to a hospital morgue where they were kept until buyers arrived.
Notably, this kind of cover operation is also in keeping with Satanic principles. In Satanism, war is peace, the restriction is freedom, black is white. This is how they operate. Posing as the protectors of children simultaneously enables their access to victims and provides them with a cover of respectability.
An extensive report containing an interview with a former undercover Interpol agent (Bannon) further reveals just how trafficking networks are set up. Bannon puts those who sexually exploit children into two categories: consumer-traders and producers:
“The consumer-trader is the guy or woman you’ve heard about – maybe the local teacher – who’s abusing children and buying images and selling images of those abuses online… The producer is the one who actually buys and sells the children across international lines, running a multi-billion-dollar business that truly has a global network that has connections all the way to terrorist cells.”
While child trafficking is condemned globally, many countries with laws against trafficking and molestation fail to enforce them. Moreover, such abuses are actually legal in some countries, such as Thailand and Pakistan. In Thailand, selling children is not only legal, it’s big business, contributing an estimated $1 billion to the Thai economy. This level of institutionalisation makes rescuing victims from the system of abuse extremely difficult.
Agent Bannon continues:
“We were able to rescue these [Caucasian] children, but all of the Thai children we had to leave chained to their beds, padlocked behind steels doors… These six children – when we told them, ‘Follow us,’ it broke our hearts to see how quickly they obeyed. No matter what we said, they obeyed silently and effortlessly. And to see young children so broken that any adult telling them what to do they immediately obey is perhaps the most heart-rending aspect of this terrible work.”
“Those images will stay with me. You can’t erase them from your mind.”
Providing further evidence, award-winning independent film director, Bill Maloney released a landmark documentary in 2008 entitled Sun Sea & Satan. The film detailed Maloney’s visits to Jersey in the Channel Islands (between France and the UK) and the ongoing investigations into allegations of abuse at Jersey’s children’s care home Haut de la Garenne.
While these examples are shocking, they are really just scratching the surface of what many understand to be a much wider network operating all around the world, especially given how frequent and consistent these kinds of allegations are — as are their cover ups.
As MP John Mann told the British Parliament in May, “My constituency is no worse, no different to anywhere else… it’s every aspect of society.”
It is realistic to expect that such a well-organized criminal network would, like any other criminal network, utilise whatever influential conspirators or disinformation tactics they had at their disposal to discredit their accusers, suppress evidence and cover their tracks. The only difference between criminals who are protected by institutional veils and those who are not is the extent of their influence, not their underlying psychopathology.
If we truly want to protect our children, we need to put aside our preconceptions of paedophiles, public figures and the agenda of the press, and genuinely try to understand what is happening. Pedophilia IS happening. We cannot continue to assume – as convicted paedophiles have always suggested – that children who accuse seemingly “upstanding” members of our society must be lying to serve some devious end. The facts at hand prove that is simply not true.


Not surprisingly, allegations of deviousness were levelled against Ella Draper following the release of her 9-year-old daughter Alisa and 8-year-old son Gabriel’s testimony of abuse that implicated the children’s father, actor Ricky Dearman, and an alleged network of Satanic abusers. However, when we consider the extensive evidence surrounding this case in totality, and in context, the official narrative portrayed by mainstream media of a scorned ex-wife and her two devious children appears to fail numerous tests of evidentiary scrutiny.
Firstly, a forensic linguistics analysis of the children’s leaked testimony provides a professional’s view as to the validity of the children’s statements. Forensic linguistics (or legal linguistics) is the application of linguistic knowledge, methods and insights to the forensic context of law, language, crime investigation, trial, and judicial procedure. Taking into detailed consideration the linguistic evidence provided by the children’s testimony, expert analysis (performed anonymously, for the protection of his or her identity) did not support claims of conspiracy in the children’s testimony, nor therefore of coercion or duress on the part Ms Draper.
Furthermore, initial Police medical examinations of both children showed clear evidence of physical and sexual abuse. The children’s testimony includes explicit details of violent and sexual satanic ritual, and the children described identifying physical markers on the bodies of their alleged abusers. The children’s recollections also bore similarity to countless other cases of abuse reported around the world (which, as MP John Mann reminds us, is only the small fraction of victims who come forward to tell their stories compared to those who stay silent or are no longer here to speak at all.)
We must also remember that media silence tells a story of its own. Although it thrives on the scandal (particularly in the UK), mainstream media did not cover these developments when the story initially broke in alternative media in early February 2015, instead maintaining a deafening silence on the matter. That was until the High Court ruled in late March that Ella Draper (the children’s mother) and not Ricky Dearman (the father and alleged abuser) had mistreated the children. Raising many questions in the wider community, it was only after Mr Dearman received the protection of a High Court ruling that the mainstream media reported any details of this complex story, publishing a string of sensationalised headlines that were all staunchly sympathetic to Mr Dearman:
Pictured: Mother who tortured her two children to lie about satanic child sex cult… [20th March 2015]
The yummy mummy, a ‘satanic sex cult’ and the smears that terrorised a very swish London suburb… [23rd March 2015]
Police hunting runaway mother who tortured her two children into inventing fantasy claims about a satanic sex cult… [27th March 2015]
Father falsely accused by his own children of sexually abusing them [reveals]… his horrific ordeal [21st April 2015] (*this article also included photographs of the actor crying to camera.)
The degree to which any such case is covered by the mainstream media, and seemingly covered over by government agencies, inevitably leads one to wonder — just how deeply embedded is the culture of abuse within the hierarchies of these institutions?
Posing as the protectors of children while hiding behind celebrity, formality and (apparently) corrupted legal and media institutions, simultaneously enables paedophiles access to victims while providing them with an effective cover story. Convicted paedophile Jimmy Savile is a perfect example of this; renowned as a flamboyant former presenter of the UK’s Top Of The Pops, Savile posed as a philanthropist, working with children and young people and visiting schools and hospital wards, which enabled his access to vulnerable children and a cover of institutional respectability.
In a disturbing irony, Savile played the role of the ‘Child Catcher’ in the 1968 movie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, catching children for the town’s elite.
Speaking of Savile’s apparent decades of criminality, Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, wrote in 2012:
”Can it really be the case that no one knew what he was doing? Did some turn a blind eye to criminality?… Did some prefer not to follow up their suspicions because of this criminal’s popularity and place in the schedules? Were reports of criminality put aside or buried?”
Providing further insight into the apparent cover-up of Savile’s past by the BBC, UK Telegraph Chief Reporter Gordon Rayner revealed in his article 2012, Dark Side of Jimmy Savile Glossed Over at BBC, that:
George Entwistle, the former director-general, was told by one manager that he was “queasy” about the “real truth” of Savile’s past…  Danny Cohen, the Controller of BBC One, and a third executive were given a further warning, which went unheeded… 
When an ITV documentary exposed Savile’s paedophilia, the BBC was accused of a cover-up because of its decision to drop the Newsnight film…
[Investigator, Mr Nick] Pollard, a former head of Sky News, said… that senior people within the BBC knew about “the unsavoury side of Savile’s character” at the time… 
On Dec 2, at an awards lunch, Ms [Helen] Boaden [BBC’s Head Of News] says she told Mr Entwistle that “Newsnight were doing an investigation into JS [Savile] … it is probable I did mention it was about sex abuse.” Mr Entwistle’s reply was: “Thanks – keep me posted.”…
The report recommends that the BBC’s news and editorial management is reviewed, and questions whether the director-general should also be editor-in-chief.
According to Pollard’s 185-page report, The BBC’s decision to abort the Savile investigation:
“… started a chain of events that was to prove disastrous for the BBC… one of the worst management crises in the BBC’s history”.
At the heart of Savile’s story are two interlinked forms of violation – the abuse of children and the abuse of power. The victims were betrayed not only by the BBC hierarchy but also by the Surrey police, who failed to prosecute; by the DJ’s colleagues, who never spoke out; and by all those in awe of a star whose fame and bogus virtue shielded him from scrutiny until (no thanks to the BBC) his secrets emerged and the current wave of horror broke…
Jimmy Savile was given the glory, the freedom and the immunity to do as he wished.
So, with clear conflicts of interest embedded within its editorial and managerial structures, is the failure of the media to expose the truth of Savile an act of negligence, or an institutional cover-up of the highest order? This is a question that must be answered.
Here we will explore further evidence of institutional involvement in organised paedophilia networks, shed some light on this dark and complex issue.


Statistics from the International Centre for Missing Children (ICMEC) estimate that 8 million children are reported missing each year around the world. Of that number, according to the latest U.S. Department of Justice research, an estimated 800,000 children will go missing in the United States alone — a rate of over 2000 missing children each day — with 466,949 of those cases entered into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database in 2014. With a current child population (aged 0 – 17) of around 74 million in the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice figures equate to around 1 child in every 92 going missing in the United States each year.
These statistics are staggering! 
This is clearly an epidemic of staggering proportions; one we can no longer shrink from or pretend does not exist. And given the robust intensity of U.S. internal, military, informational and border securities, and the nation’s world-record incarcerated rate, this statistic is completely incomprehensible.
That is until we begin to look internally for the root cause.
To account for such widespread childhood disappearances, which (for some context)outnumber cancer deaths in the United States by one-third, we must fully comprehend this epidemic is both well organised and orchestrated. It is, therefore, no stretch of the imagination to acknowledge that the many thousands of young children whose faces have peered out from ‘missing’ posters and milk cartons across the United States, over many decades, may, in fact, have fallen victim to a global child trafficking and slavery trade.
While child trafficking and abuse networks tend to be concentrated most highly in relatively peaceful areas with large foreign business and military interests, this problem does not appear to be isolated to western nations. Even larger, unknown numbers of children in Third World countries are disappearing each year, without a trace, with countless reports from around the world indicating children are being routinely sold by their families to make ‘ends meet’, sold by orphanages, and kidnapped by gangs who make their living by supplying ‘stock’ for the child trafficking trade. Some reports suggest these gangs including highly organised militia and private “security” companies, and networks operating under the facade of human rights workers funded by Governments and the United Nations.
A 2004 report from the UN’s Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO)outlined the seriousness of this issue, however, it seems to have had little to no impact on UN operations over the decade since its release.
“Human trafficking is a form of serious exploitation and abuse that is increasingly present in the UN peacekeeping environments. Trafficking exploits human beings for revenue through sex, forced labour and human organs. For peacekeeping (UN and other) there is a crisis of perception in relation to trafficking and the linked issue of sexual exploitation and abuse, which sees peacekeepers branded as more part of the problem than the solution, along with criticisms that the issue is not taken seriously by peacekeeping institutions.”
Today, the “crisis” outlined by the DPKO has not been formally addressed, and yet many would still rather believe that all of this is just another crazy ‘conspiracy theory’. In reality, the dismissal of such theories is at best a moral failure of our children to act on their behalf, and at worst, a conspiracy of global proportions.
Mounting evidence suggests that government-sponsored military contractors have utilised ‘peacekeeping’ positions (which provide both access and trust) to facilitate systemic abuses, and all under the legal impunity afforded to peacekeepers who operate these systems of abuse under the guise of freedom, liberty and philanthropy.
contract_to_tortureWell known examples include the 2003 Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse case (pictured left) in which U.S. military officers subjected prisoners of war to extreme acts of abuse and humiliation, taking ‘happy snap’ photographs as they did so. The systemic corruption of so-called “peacekeeping” forces was further demonstrated by a leaked video of Blackwater military employees who proudly videotaped themselves helicoptering around Iraq, shooting civilians for target practice and their own personal amusement. You can learn more here.
In more recent developments, a report from the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) released last month revealed that UN “peacekeepers” working in Haiti have been found to have raped Haitian women and children, citing 231 claims from Haitians of sexual violation at the hands of peacekeepers, often in exchange for food and other emergency relief supplies.
“For rural women, hunger, lack of shelter, baby care items, medication and household items were frequently cited as the ‘triggering need,’” the report said, adding that UN workers coaxed women and girls into sexual activities with “church shoes, cell phones, laptops and perfume, as well as money… In cases of non-payment, some women withheld the badges of peacekeepers and threatened to reveal their infidelity via social media,” the report said.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that UN workers have been accused of these types of atrocities. Following the entry of UN “peacekeepers” into Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, Sudan and Kosovo, authorities in each region reported sharp increases in allegations of sex trafficking and abuse. Meanwhile, earlier this year, the United Nations was caught trying to suppress details of their aid workers raping starving and homeless boys in the Central African Republic.
Notably, this kind of behaviour (and cover-up) of so-called peacekeepers is not unique to the modern “War On Terror”. In the late ‘90s, military contractor DynCorp was hired by the U.S. State Department to provide “peacekeepers” for the United Nations police force in Bosnia, just as in Haiti now. Subsequently, two well-respected employees, Ben Johnston, a former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, and Kathryn Bolkovac, a U.N. International Police Force monitor, independently alleged that UN officials and employees of DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior, including the purchase of women, illegal weapons, forged passports, and other criminal and immoral activities.
According to a 2012 report, What The UN Doesn’t Want You To Know:
[Kathryn Bolkovac] signed up with DynCorp, the private contractor providing American personnel for the UN mission in Bosnia.
The first of several nasty shocks came before she’d even left: among the recruits at DynCorp’s training week in Texas was a man from Mississippi. He’d been to Bosnia before and, and he told them all how scenic it was, adding, “and I know where you can get really nice 12- to 15-year-olds”. Bolkovac was baffled, believing she’d misheard…
[While running] a pilot project on violence against women… She found stacks of American dollars and foreign passports in a safe and, behind a locked door, seven girls. ‘Sheer terror,’ says Bolkovac of the looks on the girls’ faces. ‘It was exactly as you see in the film: ‘they’re huddled, they’re holding each other, they’re on these bare, stained mattresses’…
“They didn’t expect [the police] to help them,” says Bolkovac.
In her role as U.N. Police Force Monitor, Bolkovac also claims to have observed numerous individuals in the Bosnian and U.N. police forces who were not only using trafficked prostitutes but were also on the “traffickers’ payroll”. According to Bolkovac, members of the peacekeeping forces were routinely paid to give warnings on raids, and to return children who escaped from their abusers so they could be ‘recycled’ back into the system.
The more Bolkovac investigated, the more her U.N. colleagues turned against her, she says. Notably, four days after her claims were formally raised, Bolkovac was demoted, and a few months later fired by DynCorp outright. However, adding further weight to the validity of her claims, Bolkovac filed a lawsuit for unlawful dismissal against DynCorp in Great Britain following her dismissal — and won. The tribunal that heard her case maintained that, by whistleblowing, Bolkovac had made a ‘protected disclosure’ and should therefore have been protected, not persecuted, for her actions. (You can learn more here.) In closing comments, the tribunal remarked of DynCorp:
‘It is hard to imagine a case in which a firm has behaved in a more callous manner.’
Similarly, Ben Johnston, a former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, is another employee who claims that he witnessed his supervisors and fellow employees buying and selling minors as sex slaves, abusing them and/or selling them to gangs involved in child prostitution, slavery and paedophile rings.
It is obvious when it comes to the UN that corruption is ingrained. The UN was created much like the IMF, World Bank, etc (at around the same time) as a facility of globalist expansion and this is its underlying goal, not the other empty phrases that swirl around its “mission.”
Within hours of the [Bolkovac] ruling DynCorp settled a second whistleblowing case against it, offering an undisclosed sum to an aircraft mechanic from Texas called Ben Johnston, who had evidence of UN personnel buying and selling girls elsewhere in Bosnia. Johnston signed a gagging order.
‘It was very disappointing,’ says Bolkovac with a sigh.
Although disappointing, Johnston’s decision is understandable. A report fromCorpWatch.orgUS DynCorp Disgrace, explains the circumstances around Johnston’s apparent concession:
According to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit filed in Texas on behalf of the former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, “in the latter part of 1999 Johnston learned that employees and supervisors from DynCorpwere engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in other immoral acts. Johnston witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.”
Rather than acknowledge and reward Johnston‘s effort to get this behavior stopped, DynCorp fired him, forcing him into protective custody by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) until the investigators could get him safely out of Kosovo and returned to the United States. That departure from the war-torn country was a far cry from what Johnston imagined a year earlier when he arrived in Bosnia to begin a three-year U.S. Air Force contract with DynCorp as an aircraft-maintenance technician for Apache and Blackhawk helicopters.
Clearly, Johnston’s treatment and the final issuing of a gag order is contradictory to the fundamental principles of truth and freedom these so-called “peacekeeping” bodies claim to represent. While it is disappointing that Johnston ultimately submitted to the non-disclosure terms of the gag order, the fact that such terms were offered or even contemplated by authorities reveals a great deal about the level of knowledge and intent operating behind those institutional walls.
Moreover, the allegations against DynCorp are not isolated, and Johnston wasn’t the only DynCorp employee disturbed by what he saw during his tenure. Along with Johnston, another employee Tom Oliver also lodged similar claims with Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), once Johnston had decided to take formal action outside of the DynCorp chain of command. (You can learn more here.)
Organized Pedophilia and Child-Trafficking Implicates Governments, Media, Churches and Charities - Trafficking
These examples aside, the DynCorp company has a history of allegations relating to systemic corruption, including claims of waste mismanagement, fraud, human trafficking and drug-running whilst working under a United States Government contract to train Police Forces in Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq. In 2010 The Guardian in the UK reported that DynCorp had been accused of providing Afghan police with drugs and child prostitutes.
“A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young “dancing boys” to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and “quash” the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.”
There are many other cases and eyewitness accounts that raise questions about the legitimacy and agenda of the DynCorp operation, some of which can be followed here and here. Yet, it is evident that both corporate and government institutions prefer to ‘close ranks’ around such allegations, obscuring the chance of accountability, and in the process, raising further questions about the extent of corruption within these peacekeeping forces.
With mounting evidence of organised paedophilia and child-trafficking networks implicating high-level government, church and charitable institutions, many informed members of the community are left wondering: Are the world’s taxpayers unwittingly be used to fund organised crime? The kind of crimes that taxpayer-funded ‘War On…’ campaigns purport to combat? How do we bring criminals to justice if the criminals themselves control our justice and information systems?
As one of the top three U.S. Defense Force contractors receiving money from the United States Government, it is unfathomable that, for the most part, this story was ignored by the mainstream media in the U.S. With evidence and allegations mounting in relation to pedophilia, as well as drug- and slave-trafficking, the United States Government has a moral and legal responsibility not just to the U.S. people but to the people of the world — in whose backyards they wage their wars — to investigate DynCorp, and indeed their own internal regulatory systems. After all, this is the mechanism through which police, military and U.N peacekeeping forces are trained in countries around the globe.
Inexplicably, this situation appears to be of little concern to global authorities. Dyncorp is still being awarded large-scale contracts by several western governments and the United Nations, and despite mounting evidence that the corporation has committed and/or protected those who have committed human rights abuses, the U.S. continues to employ DynCorp to supply military personnel to U.N, forces such as those deployed in Haiti.
This situation did not go unnoticed within the U.S. Congress. In 2005 U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney questioned then-Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over the Dyncorp scandals:
“I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?”
Following Congresswoman McKinney’s statement, Rumsfeld admitted on the record that the allegations were credible, but wrote them off as the actions of a “few bad apples”, refusing to investigate the potential that such abuses are in fact institutionalized, and as evidence suggests, not merely the actions of a few “rogue” employees. Today, 9 years on, DynCorp remains unaccountable to these accusations.
You can watch Ms McKinney’s exchange with Mr Rumsfeld here.
This all begs the question:
Is the U.S. Government’s apparent willingness to overlook allegations of misconduct against its contractors simply because the conduct of DynCorp’s employees was exactly as they it was contracted?
While this situation seems to be of little interest to the United States Government, notably, it is of no interest to other international legal and regulatory agencies. Protected by international law, ‘Peacekeepers’ and ‘Humanitarian Aid Workers’ are indemnified against criminal charges whilst working in foreign lands on behalf of Government Military or the United Nations. This loophole creates the undisputable opportunity for such positions to be abused for criminal means, and in the context of child abuse and trafficking allegations, provides a ‘safe’ mechanism through which global operations can flourish.
Therefore it is a sad reality that none of the accused in these cases are ever likely to face criminal charges under the current systems of governance.


In considering the breadth of evidence at hand, the extent of corruption implicated by continually emerging child-trafficking and abuse cases goes well beyond what we typically perceive of “corruption”. Such abuses do not just reflect corruption of processor power, but a corruption of the human spirit.
The testimonies provided by the children in the Hampstead case, and so many other cases the world over, detail stories of babies been trafficked for the purposes of Satanic ritual. To summarise this portion of the children’s accounts:
  • Babies are supplied to the UK from all over the world, including the United States, South Africa, Portugal, Spain, Guyana, China, India and Hawaii.
  • Babies are either purchased, drugged and transported by international courier service, or the parents (cult members) bring them from other parts of the world.
  • A high-level member of the network – a real estate agent – provides empty properties for ritual and sexual abuse of children to take place.
  • The rituals they described involve child rape, sodomy, orgies, torture, cannibalism and human sacrifices. These activities were also filmed and sold.
Central to the children’s testimony was the involvement of their father, actor Ricky Dearman, who has known connections to the self-professed spiritual leader, the ‘Supreme Master’, Ching Hai. The children go on to assert that they worship the ‘Supreme Master’. Notably, the Satanic Bible also states that ‘Satan’s ministers will obey all commands of the ‘Supreme Master‘. Objectively speaking, these claims cannot be overlooked, particularly since – in true Satanic style – keeping up a charade of decency and respectability is vital to abusers.
So then, who are Ricky Dearman and Ching Hai?
Ricky Dearman is involved in the film industry as an actor and has affiliations with ‘Supreme Master Television’, a television station airing from 14 satellite platforms and reaching hundreds of millions of households around the world. The beneficiary and focal point of this self-created spiritual hierarchy, Ching Hai is worshipped by followers the world over. Actively involved with child orphanages and schools in third world countries, she also has elite connections, including well-documented links to the Clintons.
In the research community, there have long been suspicions that Ching Hai works for the CIA. Supreme Master Ching Hai is also connected with the United Nations and, under the impunity afforded to ‘Peacekeepers’, is involved in many of the same activities as DynCorp’s contractors — in particular, crisis and disaster intervention, a role that places her among the world’s most vulnerable children.
Former members of the sect say involvement with Ching Hai has proven to be disturbing and dangerous, while allegations against the sect include institutionalising child rape, child pornography, child trafficking, prostitution, mind control, ritual torture and murder involving children and animals. (Learn more here.)
When we objectively examine this evidence, the dots clearly begin to connect. It cannot reasonably be argued that further investigation is unwarranted, and so, the apparent unwillingness of authorities to act on behalf of the victims or to examine (rather than ignore or suppress) issues of fact is increasingly suggestive of a systemic cover-up involving extremely influential, and therefore very high-ranking, members of the institutions involved.
For example, evidence of the British Police and Intelligence Services involvement in organised crime emerged in 2014 via a Metropolitan Police report that was leaked to The Independent:
Famous for its secret handshakes, Freemasonry has long been suspected of having members who work in the criminal justice system – notably the judiciary and the police…
Secret networks of Freemasons have been used by organised crime gangs to corrupt the criminal justice system… Operation Tiberius, written [by Metropolitan Police] in 2002, found underworld syndicates used their contacts in the controversial brotherhood to “recruit corrupted officers” inside Scotland Yard, and concluded it was one of “the most difficult aspects of organised crime corruption to proof against”.
So, with implications of complicity reaching far beyond the doors of our most powerful institutions, what of the grassroots movement attempting to find justice for these children?
Organized Pedophilia and Child-Trafficking Implicates Governments, Media, Churches and Charities - William Wilberforce


It has become apparent to many researchers and activists following the release of the Hampstead tapes that disinformation agents have been strategically placed within the movement that is (supposedly) supporting the mother’s case. I am not alone in suspecting this tactic was employed at recent public protests held outside the Hampstead Church, which resulted in two arrests.
Where confusion and chaos inevitably reigns, so to does disinformation. This tactic is not new; it has been used against truth-seekers by governments, media and intelligence agencies for the past half-century or more.
The disturbing reality is that institutionalised paedophilia and child-trafficking networks are among the most organised and comprehensive abuses upon humanity. It hides in powerful shadows, inflicts horror on the innocent, and demonises their protectors. Then we, the truth-seekers, are attacked and/or infiltrated by agents of the guilty in a campaign of confusion and chaos, all designed to protect the guilty.
So, when it comes to fighting organised crime in the 21st Century, we truly are fighting an information war. If you think this is paranoid or conspiratorial, please understanding that is the same term used by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011, when defending her department’s proposed increase to propaganda funding before a U.S. Congressional Committee.
“We are in an information war and we are losing that war… and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it.”
The information war, she added, is being won by information channels that offer “real news”, adding that the U.S. should get back “in the game” and do “what we do best.”
Infiltrating, opposing or discrediting movements serves a number of purposes in an information/credibility war. Besides gaining inside information, disinformation agents may deliberately leak information, create division, and steer the ‘group thinking’ and activity of support networks away from achieving real outcomes. The controlled opposition also satisfies the casually concerned observer that “someone is doing something”. This is particularly true given the power in this equation of those who control the mainstream media.
Such infiltration also serves to ‘media tarnish’ the reputation of the entire movement and therefore the public’s perception of the cause it stands for – in this case, by fulfilling the extremist Satanic Panic lunatic archetype that the media loves and the public loathe. This simple kind of manipulation is extremely effective if we are blind to it. This is something that dedicated activists need to fully understand and remember in all our dealings, if we are ever to make a dent in breaking open cases such as this.
In an information war, they work both sides. By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we make it easy for them to subjugate, infiltrate, divide and conquer. 
By infiltrating the opposition and influencing people on both sides of any case or movement, the guilty can be made to look like victims and the victims to look guilty, sabotaging the clear passage of truth. And the result? We move further away from justice for the children – our children – and chalk up another win for the twisted cowards who perpetrate these abuses in the shadows.


In the campaign for the truth of the Hampstead case, and of organised paedophilia in general, there are some notable names steering the ship. But, as many researchers and truth-seekers are beginning to find, the ship has been steered in the wrong direction.
This kind of cover-up tactic also appears to have been employed in Canada after claims of Satanic ritual abuse and murder of indigenous people were lodged with the Canadian Courts. Kevin Annett, a former minister of the United Church of Canada, founded the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) in 2010 to support and bring justice to the victims of institutional abuse. According to the mandate:
Our Mandate: (1) To lawfully prosecute those people and institutions responsible for the exploitation, trafficking, torture and murder of children, past and present, and (2) To stop these and other criminal actions by church and state, including by disestablishing those same institutions.
Since its inception, the ITCCS has achieved no such result, and Annett has been accused of double-dealing by those working closely with him. Explains author and former colleague, Alfred Lambremont Webre:
By the evidence, it appears the ITCCS is a fabrication. Some investigators think Kevin Annett is a globalist operative. In that case the ITCCS is a globalist fabrication to displace, scatter and retard community and self-sovereign restoration of authentic society. Our working hypothesis is that one of the functions of ITCCS is to displace and discredit any genuine [efforts]…
In the course of following through on due diligence we have been attacked and distorted by Annett and followers… [We have] yet to receive verification that ITCCS Brussels personnel or the court exists…
Incredibly, Kevin Annett recently told UK activist and radio show host Andy Preacher that he no longer believes Satanic ritual abuse is even happening. In this startling ‘turn around’ statement, Annett now says he attributes countless reports of Satanic ritual abuse to the planting of “false memories” and “false stories and labels in people’s minds”. This statement is in direct contradiction to his long-held observation that:
“These things happen regularly… They are definitely tied into, not just Roman festivals, but also Satanic calendars. There are certain days of the year that seem to have more significance in terms of human sacrifice. New moons apparently often tie in to those times of the month as well. But the Roman festivals are significant because they seem to be guiding the actions of these cults that operate within or around the Catholic Church.”
Incidentally, child welfare groups agree with the observations Annett now (inexplicably) disputes. Given his sudden divergence from the well-established fact, many activists and researchers now believe the “false stories and labels” are in fact Annett’s.
Concerns have also been raised within activist networks about the role of influential activist Belinda McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Friends. McKenzie is closely associated with Kevin Annett, having publicly supported him throughout 2010 and 2011 while he travelled to the UK to appear at a series of rallies. Rumoured to be an MI-5 agent with links to money laundering and ‘independent’ think tanks, questions about McKenzie’s agenda have been further compounded by her recent call for an ‘amnesty’ for paedophiles — essentially, advocating increasing legal protection for perpetrators of child abuse.
Now, with questions still unanswered about both Annett and McKenzie’s true agenda, it is notable that the organisations they front (ITCCS and McKenzie Friends respectively) were founded within months of each other, and perhaps more notably, both organisations bear a very similar logo – a detail that has not gone unnoticed within activist circles.
Given the historical prevalence of disinformation tactics in “information wars”, many truth-seekers are asking: Have these individuals been strategically placed at the front of the awareness campaign? Are they here only to keep their fingers on the pulse, while steering genuine activists away from the truth, and justice? And what of online awareness campaigns?
As every truth-seeker well knows, the infiltration of organised action groups also extends to the online world, where paid disinformation shills work diligently to distort facts and defame the individuals who oppose the hidden complicity of authorities.
Since January, there have been extensive online efforts to discredit the testimony of the two children involved in the Hampstead allegations, and in particular, the integrity of their mother who first reported the allegations to authorities. These counter-efforts appear to be coordinated from within London, while our technical data suggests our efforts as activists are being monitored closely by members of the Westminster Methodist Hall. It is worthy to note, the Methodist Church has long-standing connections to the United Nations, providing Westminster Methodist Hall as the venue for the very first United Nations meeting held in 1946.
One particular website appears to have been created specifically to undermine the evidence relating to the Hampstead case. Calling themselves Hoaxed Research — and bearing a remarkable resemblance to the Hampstead Research website — the Hoaxed Research site works to denounce the testimony of the children in this case, and to attack any research that hints at wrong-doing on the part of anyone but the Hampstead children and their mother. The tactics employed by Homestead Research are reported by many activists to involve only character assassinations of those involved, and to date, no credible or objective research has appeared on that site. This development has led many in the community to believe this site was created only to enact the tried-and-tested tactic of the guilty — to discredit credible testimony with emotion, chaos and confrontation.
(For more information on the nature of professional trolls, please see the article: Pay for Comments – Confessions of a Paid Disinformation Internet Shill.)
Among the hoax theories that are circulating online, the most commonly believed are (predictably) that the children’s mother, Ella Draper, concocted this story and coached her children to repeat it, in order to gain legal custody of her children. But, despite these attempts to demonise the family, 3 minutes of serious research reveals the simple flaw in this hoax theory: Ella Draper was already the children’s primary caregiver, and so had no need to make false claims in order to secure custody. In 2011, a residence order issued by the court assigned legal residence to Ms Draper, and subsequent claims of disputed access to the children arose after claims of abuse came to light, not before.
You can read the chronology of events as outlined by Ms Draper HERE, which details allegations of violence against Ricky Dearman as well as the events that led Ms Draper to take action on behalf of her children.
While the apparent campaign of disinformation may serve to obscure the facts from casual observers, ultimately, it is an act of desperation, providing further evidence of just how far up the social and political ladder this corruption actually reaches. It seems some people will go to any lengths to remain in the shadows.


For the sake of our children, and their children, we need to accept the facts; where there is smoke, and lots of it, there is fire. As informed and conscientious human beings, we have a moral responsibility to hear these witness accounts, and take the time to analyse and discern the scope of the problem we are being confronted with — no matter how overwhelming it may seem. Yet, to the majority of the public, this kind of information is so horrendous and unthinkable that it is beyond the capacity of many people to believe this could be true, much less contemplate the details. The result is cognitive dissonance, which inevitably leads to inaction.
But our ignorance of this matter is no longer an excuse! Given the weight of evidence at hand, it is no longer acceptable nor is it even logical to write-off each accusation of organised and ritualised abuse that arises as an isolated fiction. There is certainly reason to suspect that many of the 8 million children who ‘disappear’ each year are falling victim to coordinated paedophile networks. A culture built on Satanic ritual, they have the motives, the power and the means to traffic children around the globe, under the guises of “upstanding citizens” and “peacekeepers” and “good Samaritans”, with the necessary influence to suppress the truth through a corruption of the so-called justice system.
So, how do we bring criminals to justice if the criminals themselves control the justice system?
Firstly, we must stop accepting the calculated excuses of the perpetrators of organised crime, and finally take steps to confront and dismantle it.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women-Ed.) to do nothing.” ~ Edmund Burke
As responsible adults in a world seemingly gone mad, who else but us – you and me, here and now – can speak and act for these abused children? Our failure to make a stand in whatever way we can, whatever the cost, would mean a failure of our most basic human ‘duty of care’ to our youngest and most vulnerable. Our children are precious, and they have the right to be children; they are our most valuable investment in humanity’s future. To fail them would be a failure of our society.
It is the, therefore, obligation of the adult world to defend the rights and safety of our precious youth, and hold accountable those who sadistically and methodically seek to harm them. We must call paedophiles out as the organised, institutionally-protected ‘monsters in suits’ they are, and carry out our ‘duty of care’ with all the diligence we can muster.
With so much information, misinformation (non-deliberate) and disinformation (deliberate) surrounding this case, and paedophile networks in general, it is essential that we as responsible members of the community exercise critical discernment of all information, sources and motivations. As history has begun to prove, with information and awareness on our side we can oust these Satanic predators from the institutional evils they hide behind, no matter what their role or rank may be. 
In the words of freelance scholar and author John Lash:
“It’s a horrible crime. But like any other crime, it can be overturned by the proof of the evidence. The only way to maintain that crime is to hide … and suppress the evidence that contradicts the official narrative… It’s my view that the people who have attempted to do that are losing control. They’re losing control of the narrative…
“If you want to see … a life of pleasure and mutual aid on this planet, never perfect… and if you recognize the narrative that is preventing that from happening, you must also recognize that it is not enough to defeat and overcome that narrative. There must be another narrative to replace it.” 
So, on behalf of the world’s children and parents alike, I plead with those employed by government, religious, military, media, and peacekeeping institutions — particularly those in positions of power and authority — to do your job.Blow the whistle. Speak the truth, and stand up courageously for the rights of children everywhere. If you still have a common love of humanity, but until now have been too afraid of potential consequences to come forward, now is the time. While the general public remains uninformed about the true nature of the ‘elite’ and their abuses, the political narrative surrounding these cases will remain the same. But with your help, the momentum of the current public awareness campaign will soon reach ‘critical mass’.


Please add your name to the petition to Justice Anna Pauffley. We are requesting that she:
  • Honour the residence order put in place in 2011 which assigned legal residence of the two Hampstead children, Alisa and Gabriel, to their mother.
  • Order a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the children’s original disclosures, and the handling of the enquiry by the institutional powers implicated.
Research. Discern. Inform others.
We are the victims’ only voices, and together we will be heard.


Please take a moment to watch this powerful and heartfelt speech by Russell Burton at the anti-child abuse rally “Victims & Survivors Unite – Breaking The Cycle Of Abuse” held at Westminster on 27th June 2015.
“WHAT WE ALLOW WILL CONTINUE. We must be the generation that puts an end to this evil because I fear for the sanity of future generations if this filth is allowed to retain its control over us.”


Overview (Previous article by Sonya van Gelder)
Child, baby and fetus Trafficking
Human smuggling and trafficking into Europe
Abuses in Haiti
Organ trading
Behind Satanic Ritual Abuse

Please comment below.

You might also like:
Social Services are a child trafficking programme for …
How the Queen’s Secret Services (SS) blackmail …
Crisis Actors the EVIDENCE
Exclusive: Margaret Hodge is still being investigated …
Margaret Hodge and the Islington Child abuse scandal

“Australian bishop exposes cover-up of serial abuse” – Church Times – July 29 2016

Australian bishop exposes cover-up of serial abuse

by Muriel Porter, Australia Correspondent

Posted: 29 Jul 2016 @ 12:04


Click to enlarge

Ongoing inquiry: the Commission hears evidence at a hearing in Sydney, in February


THE Bishop of Newcastle, New South Wales, the Rt Revd Greg Thompson, has publicly condemned his diocese’s previous handling of sexual-abuse cases, accusing former diocesan personnel of removing documents and covering up serial offending.

Speaking on a current-affairs programme on national television, Bishop Thompson said that “this is what ‘mates looking after mates’ looks like in the Church at times. And that is an appalling thing to say for a Christian person.”

He was joined by two senior diocesan officials on the programme, where they were described as whistleblowers. Both the diocese’s business manager and the director of professional standards said that death threats and vandalism had accompanied their exposure of the earlier cover-up of a paedophile ring involving clergy and lay people.

Bishop Thompson, who became Bishop of Newcastle in 2014, said that he was being criticised “because I am opening the cupboards and we’re finding the skeletons”. He also suggested that some Australian bishops were still part of the “old culture”, and were refusing to accept that it needed to be addressed.

The television programme has also suggested that a former Bishop of Newcastle in the 1970s, the late Ian Shevill, was himself an abuser, and that former bishops failed to take action against abusing clergy: Bishop Alfred Holland, who was Bishop of Newcastle from 1978 until his retirement in 1992; and his successor, the Most Revd Roger Herft, who is now the Archbishop of Perth. The diocese’s now closed theological college, St John’s, at Morpeth, has been named as the place where the abusive clergy were trained.

The Australian Primate, Archbishop Philip Freier of Melbourne, has issued a statement calling the allegations “shocking and distressing”. He has welcomed the “very complete examination” that the allegations will have at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse RCIRCSA) public hearing into the diocese of Newcastle next month.

He has also expressed “solidarity” with Bishop Thompson and his officers, “who have worked diligently to end the culture of abuse and silence within the diocese”.

Bishop Thompson is himself a survivor of sexual abuse in his diocese. He told the programme that he had been groomed and abused by Bishop Shevill when, as a young man, he was seeking selection for ordination in the ’70s. This meant that he was in a vulnerable position, he said.

“The offending affected me significantly, and it still does. It affects the way I see myself. But it’s also galvanised me not to turn a blind eye to these matters.”

“The lack of transparency and even-handedness is staggering” – Church Times – July 15 2016


I survived the abuse, but I’m struggling with the response

IN JANUARY 2015, I made a com­plaint using the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) 2003 alleging sexual abuse I had experienced as a young adult. The decision to make the complaint this way was taken reluctantly, and only after the failure of attempts over the previous four years to have my disclosure handled in a way I considered to be fair and thorough.

The CDM was not designed to deal with sexual abuse, but there is no other way to make an official complaint about a member of the clergy in the Church of England. As good as it is in some circumstances, the CDM is just not adequate for dealing with this issue.

As I reflect now, on what has been the most excoriating of processes, I know that my misgivings about making the CDM complaint were not misplaced. Obviously, I have survived — I am writing this — but the cost in time and emotion has been high, and I shudder at the thought of others experiencing the same as I have.

The CDM Code of Practice is incomplete. While the earlier stages of the process have rules about time limits and a clear code about how it is implemented, the middle and later stages are the sole respons­ibility of the bishop who is dealing with the complaint. She or he is provided with no rule or guidance on time limits for response.

Along with this, the level of in­­vestigation is decided upon by that bishop, with support from her or his registrar. Neither has any guidance on how much of this investigation will be shared with either the complainant or the re­­spon­dent.

As a complainant, I sought and obtained a clear interpretation of the rules and code of practice from the most helpful secretary to the Presid­ent of Tribunals; but where the rules and code are missing, so is any open­ness and clarity.

I have spoken to many people who, like me, say that they are left disempowered when making a complaint. There is no ombudsman to appeal to, and, anyway, in order to raise a concern about a CDM com­plaint, one would have no choice but to use the very same CDM process.

We are left, then, with a com­plaints process which relies almost completely on the capability and will of an individual bishop to drive it forward, implement it and to pass an impartial judgement, with an in­­com­­plete set of rules. In other words, it’s a lottery.

IT WOULD be inappropriate for me to go into detail about my com­plaint, except that, owing to the points outlined above, I was left wait­ing for weeks on end, not know­ing what was being invest­igated and not knowing when the process would conclude.

The most alarming discovery that I made during the year-long process was that, if a cleric is disciplined, the rules do not allow the complainant to see the wording used alongside a penalty entered on the Archbishops’ List. The wording is seen and agreed by a respondent, but can be seen only by the archbishops, bishops, and diocesan registrars — not even the safeguarding adviser or a Church House lawyer. The lack of trans­parency and even-handedness is staggering.

ONE of the most difficult things for survivors of abuse to deal with is the way that their trust has been abused. Perpetrators of abuse use the trust of their victims to control them.

If I, or any other survivor of adult or childhood abuse, begins to feel that there is a lack of transparency, or that the known abuse is being minimalised or diminished, alarm bells ring. Any secrecy and lack of transparency just replicates the abuse of trust, and leads to re-­traumatisation.

It is sad to report that I found the CDM process utterly re-­traumatising, and at most times disempowering. It tested me more than I thought possible, and I only survived it because I have wonderful people who give me their support.

There has to be a better way to deal with complaints of a sexually abusive nature. At a time when the Church of England is working hard to make its churches as safe as possible, and is seeking to improve its response to those reporting abuse, it is time to admit that there needs to be a completely different procedure to deal with allegations of sexual abuse.


Jo Kind sits on the Church of England National Safeguarding Advisory Panel as a representative of MACSAS, the clerical abuse survivors’ group.

The Goddard Inquiry will consider the extent to which the Diocese of Chichester, and the Peter Ball case, were “representa­tive of the Church of England as a whole.” – Church Times – July 29 2016

Goddard Inquiry begins to sift through Church’s evidence

by Gavin Drake

Posted: 29 Jul 2016 @ 12:05

Click to enlarge

Preliminary hearings: the Royal Court of Justice, London


THE Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has begun a “rapid evidence assessment” as part of its investigation into the Anglican Churches in England and Wales, the Inquiry’s Counsel, Ben Emmerson QC, said this week.

Mr Emmerson made his com­ments on Wednesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, Lon­don, where Justice Lowell Goddard was holding a series of preliminary hearings into the Inquiry’s different strands.

He revealed that the Inquiry’s research team was sifting through information and evidence from 114 different sources. Among them was the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England, which had sup­plied over 7000 items of evidence relating to the diocese of Chichester and the case of Bishop Peter Ball, which are being used as case studies by the Inquiry.

”Initial analysis of the evidence so far received is well under way,” Mr Emmerson said. This would lead to “additional requests for informa­tion” being made.

In addition to the Archbishops’ Council, information had been pro­vided by Ecclesiastical Insur­ance, police forces, dioceses, surviv­ors, the Independent Schools Inspect­or­ate, the BBC, and the Church in Wales.

Mr Emmerson said that the Inquiry will consider the extent to which the diocese of Chichester and the Peter Ball case were “representa­tive of the Church of England as a whole.”

The Church in Wales said that it had provided some of the informa­tion requested by the Inquiry and was working to supply additional material as soon as it could.

”Anything we can do, we have done; anything we can do in future, we will do,” the Church’s barrister, Mark Powell QC, told the Inquiry. He explained that the structure of the C i W was “very different” from the C of E, and that the Church’s two-person legal team was “deter­mined to give every assistance it can” to the Inquiry.

The Investigation into the Angli­can Churches in England and Wales is just one strand of a multifaceted Inquiry; and a number of prelimin­ary hearings, specific to each strand, are taking place this week.

In a general preliminary hearing on Tuesday, Justice Goddard set out the importance of the IICSA’s work.

”This Inquiry is about protecting children, here, now, and for the future,” she said. “It is about deliv­ering on a unique opportunity to restore confidence in this nation’s commitment and its ability to pro­tect and respect its most precious asset: its children. And while it is the most ambitious and wide-ranging inquiry ever established under the Inquiries Act, the panel and I are wholly committed to the task we have been given.

”The failures of institutions to prevent abuse from happening, or to respond appropriately to disclos­ures that have been made, has had a profound impact on the lives of the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and has left many of them growing up feeling that society has let them down.

”Those failures have also had an impact on society beyond severe social malfunction, and are having a profound effect on health, justice, penal, and many other public services and systems.

”The real cost to society of child sexual abuse and child sexual ex-
ploita­tion is incalculable, and remains ongoing in many mani­festations, as evidenced by Professor Jay’s investigation into Rotherham and by the increasingly appalling exploitation of children through the internet.”

Mr Emmerson said that up to 36 individuals and organisations have been given “core participant status” for the Inquiry’s Anglican investi­ga­tion. Twenty-four of these have been given access to legal-aid funding.

In a provisional ruling — ex-
pected to be finalised once all of this week’s preliminary hearings have taken place — Justice Goddard granted anonymity to all victims who give evidence to the Inquiry; although it will be open to individ­uals to waive that anonymity.

Nobody accused of child sexual abuse will be identified “unless their identity is very widely known . . . such that the allegations are fully in the public domain”.

No anonymity will be given to any individual who has been convicted of child sexual abuse.

On Wednesday, Ecclesiastical Insurance raised a concern about the Inquiry’s proposed use of cyphers to identify anonymised witnesses in documents and other evidence.

Their concern was based on the “real, recent and direct experience” of dealing with an inquiry into child abuse in Jersey, the company’s barrister, Rory Phillips QC, said.

”Somebody can trace the appear­ance and re-appearance of a cypher in a number of documents, and this can lead to the very thing that it is designed to avoid,” he said.

Justice Goddard said that she would “seriously take on board” the comments made by Mr Phillips before she finalised the order on anonymity and redactions.

In a separate ruling, Justice Goddard said that the Inquiry’s hearings would be live-streamed, with a five-minute delay to allow any “inappropriate material to be edited from the broadcast”.

Under the provisional ruling, anonymised witnesses and core participants would not be filmed, and their voices would be distorted. The press and public would be excluded from the hearing room when they gave their evidence.

No indication has been given about when the Inquiry’s sub­­stantive hearings will begin.

The national safeguarding adviser for the Church of England, Graham Tilby, said in a statement on Wednesday: “We note that the Inquiry has received a substantial amount of material from us and other core participants and the analysis of this is now underway as is the process of identifying possible witnesses.

“As we said after the initial hearing in March we are committed to engaging with the Inquiry in an open and transparent way and believe its work will play a vital part in our commitment to making the Church a safer place for all.”


Sentamu will contest CDM A CHURCH of England priest who says he was raped by another priest when he was 16 has made formal complaints against the Archbishop of York and four other bishops for failing to act on his allegations, writes Tim Wyatt.

The priest, who wishes to remain anonymous and is known only as “Michael”, has begun proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Meas­ure (CDM) against Dr Sentamu and other bishops because he said they did not respond properly or take any action after he disclosed his abuse.

Michael told The Guardian that he was repeatedly raped by a priest in 1984, while he was an “immature and naïve” vulnerable teenager. He said he never told anyone of his ordeal at the time because he was afraid he would not be believed.

The priest accused is now retired, but is still licensed to officiate, The Guardian reported. A West York­shire Police spokesman confirmed that they the force was investigat-ing a report of a historical sex offence, and that a 68-year-old man had been questioned by detectives.

Michael said that he first told the Bishop of Doncaster, the Rt Revd Peter Burrows, about his abuse in 2012, prompted by an unrelated al-
le­gation of child abuse in his parish. “That bishop did nothing,” Michael told The Guardian. “Nothing.”

The same year, Michael reported his abuse to the Bishop of Sheffield, then the Rt Revd Steven Croft; and, in 2013, he told his archdeacon, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, now the Bishop of Leicester.

Both men did not act upon this information, Michael claims. So he wrote to Bishop Croft again, this time copying in Dr Sentamu, Bishop Burrows, and the Bishop of Bever­ley, the Rt Revd Glyn Webster.

”You will never know of the courage it took me to tell you both [Croft and Burrows] and you will never know of the hurt and stress it has caused me that you have both failed to support me in any way,” Michael wrote in his letter.

”It is obvious to me that. . . the abuse I suffered at the hands of a priest when I was a youngster [is] of no interest to you and sweeping it under the carpet or covering it up is much more important.”

Only Dr Sentamu replied to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to assure Michael that he was praying for him.

It is these four bishops, along with Dr Sentamu, whom Michael has filed a complaint against under the CDM procedure. He has also filed complaints about the Rt Revd Roy Williamson, who was Bishop of Bradford at the time the alleged rapes occurred; and also and the retired priest accused of the rapes.

Dr Sentamu and the four bishops have all signalled that they will contest the CDM proceedings, as they have been made after the one-year time limit imposed by the rules. Spokesmen for all five declined to comment to The Guardian because of the ongoing police inquiry.



Christian Today

“Church allowed abuse by priest for years” – Boston Globe – January 6 2002 – Spotlight


Boston Globe – January 6 2016 –

Church allowed abuse by priest for years

Aware of Geoghan record, archdiocese still shuttled him from parish to parish

JANUARY 06, 2002

Former priest John J. Geoghan leaving his family home in Scituate in November.

Read more from the 2002 Boston Globe report on the Catholic Church abuse crisis.
This article was prepared by the Globe Spotlight Team: reporters Matt Carroll, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes; and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Rezendes.

Since the mid-1990s, more than 130 people have come forward with horrific childhood tales about how former priest John J. Geoghan allegedly fondled or raped them during a three-decade spree through a half-dozen Greater Boston parishes.

Almost always, his victims were grammar school boys. One was just 4 years old.
Then came last July’s disclosure that Cardinal Bernard F. Law knew about Geoghan’s problems in 1984, Law’s first year in Boston, yet approved his transfer to St. Julia’s parish in Weston. Wilson D. Rogers Jr., the cardinal’s attorney, defended the move last summer, saying the archdiocese had medical assurances that each Geoghan reassignment was “appropriate and safe.”

But one of Law’s bishops thought that the 1984 assignment of Geoghan to St. Julia’s was so risky, he wrote the cardinal a letter in protest. And for good reason, the Spotlight Team found: The archdiocese already had substantial evidence of Geoghan’s predatory sexual habits. That included his assertion in 1980 that his repeated abuse of seven boys in one extended family was not a “serious” problem, according to an archdiocesan record.

The St. Julia’s assignment proved disastrous. Geoghan was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys. In 1989, he was forced to go on sick leave after more complaints of sexual abuse, and spent months in two institutions that treat sexually abusive priests. Even so, the archdiocese returned him to St. Julia’s, where Geoghan continued to abuse children for another three years.

View Story
‘Spotlight’ triumphs with Oscar for best picture
“Spotlight,” the acclaimed drama about the Boston Globe’s investigation of the pedophile priest scandal, took home two Oscars.
Timeline of key Spotlight report stories
More coverage of the Spotlight report
Other Globe investigations
About the Spotlight team
A revered guest; a family left in shreds

Now, as Geoghan faces the first of two criminal trials next week, details about his sexual compulsion are likely to be overshadowed by a question that many Catholics find even more troubling: Why did it take a succession of three cardinals and many bishops 34 years to place children out of Geoghan’s reach?

Donna Morrissey, a spokeswoman for Law, said the cardinal and other church officials would not respond to questions about Geoghan. Morrissey said the church had no interest in knowing what the Globe’s questions would be.
Before Geoghan ever got to Weston in 1984, he had already been treated several times and hospitalized at least once for molesting boys. And he had been removed from at least two parishes for sexual abuse. In 1980, for instance, he was ordered out of St. Andrew’s in Jamaica Plain after casually admitting he had molested the seven boys.

In 1981, after a year’s sick leave, Geoghan was dispatched to St. Brendan’s in Dorchester, with little chance he would be placed under scrutiny: His pastor for most of his 3 1/2 years there, the Rev. James H. Lane, has told friends he was never warned that Geoghan had a history of sex abuse.

In September 1984, complaints that Geoghan had abused children at the Dorchester parish prompted Law to remove him. Two months later, the cardinal gave Geoghan a fresh start at St. Julia’s.

Law allowed Geoghan to stay in Weston for more than eight years before removing him from parish duty in 1993. But even that decision to recast Geoghan as a functionary at a home for retired priests did not prevent him from seeking out and molesting children, according to the multiple civil suits and criminal charges filed against the 66-year-old Geoghan.

Finally, in 1998, the church “defrocked” Geoghan, removing him from the priesthood.

Geoghan’s criminal defense attorney, Geoffrey Packard, said his client would have no comment on any of the allegations against him. Geoghan’s first trial on sexual molestation charges is scheduled for Jan. 14 in Middlesex Superior Court. The second, more serious set of charges are due to be tried in Suffolk Superior Court in late February. In the civil lawsuits, Geoghan has no attorney, and is not contesting the charges.

The church’s likely legal defense, as Rogers hinted in July, will be that doctors deemed Geoghan rehabilitated. Church records obtained by the Globe note that Geoghan was indeed medically cleared for the St. Julia’s assignment – but not until he had been at the parish for a month.

In 1984, there were still some clinicians who believed child molesters could be cured. But other specialists had long since warned Catholic bishops of the high risk that priests who had abused children would become repeat offenders.

What’s more, specialists in child sexual abuse and attorneys who have represented victims said, it ought to have been apparent to the archdiocese by 1984 that someone with Geoghan’s record of habitual sexual abuse should not have been returned to a parish.

“In Geoghan’s case, the church defied its own most basic values of protecting the young and fostering celibacy,” said A.W. Richard Sipe, a former priest. Sipe, a psychotherapist and expert in clergy sexual abuse, said he has long believed that the Catholic Church has been too slow to deal with priests who molest children.

The Spotlight Team found evidence that one of Law’s top subordinates worried that Geoghan would cause further scandal at St. Julia’s in Weston, where he began work on Nov. 13, 1984. On Dec. 7, Bishop John M. D’Arcy wrote to Law, challenging the wisdom of the assignment in light of Geoghan’s “history of homosexual involvement with young boys.”

Within the next week, two doctors cleared Geoghan for parish duty, according to an archdiocesan chronology that is in court files. It reads: “12/11/84 Dr. [Robert] Mullins – Father Geoghan `fully recovered.’ . . . 12/14/84 Dr. [John H.] Brennan: “no psychiatric contraindications or restrictions to his work as a parish priest.”

The files also contain a poignant – and prophetic – August 1982 letter to Law’s predecessor, the late Cardinal Humberto Medeiros, from the aunt of Geoghan’s seven Jamaica Plain victims, expressing incredulity that the church to which she was devoted would give Geoghan another chance at St. Brendan’s after what he had done to her family.

“Regardless of what he says, or the doctor who treated him, I do not believe he is cured; his actions strongly suggest that he is not, and there is no guarantee that persons with these obsessions are ever cured,” Margaret Gallant said in her plea to Medeiros.

“It embarrasses me that the church is so negligent,” Gallant wrote. Archdiocesan records obtained by the Globe make it clear why Gallant wrote her irate letter two years after the abuse: Geoghan had reappeared in Jamaica Plain, and been seen with a young boy. The records note that the next month, “Another letter from Mrs. Gallant. Why is nothing being done?”

RELATED: More coverage of the Spotlight report

From the Jamaica Plain case alone, the archdiocese’s top officials were aware of Geoghan’s attraction to young boys, and how he picked his victims: The affable Geoghan usually befriended Catholic mothers struggling to raise large families, often alone. His offers to help, often by taking the children for ice cream or praying with them at bedtime, were accepted without suspicion.

That is how 12-year-old Patrick McSorley, who lived in a Hyde Park housing project, allegedly became a Geoghan victim in 1986 – two years after Geoghan’s assignment to Weston.

According to McSorley, Geoghan, who knew the family from St. Andrew’s, learned of his father’s suicide and dropped by to offer condolences to his mother, who is schizophrenic. The priest offered to buy Patrick ice cream.

“I felt a little funny about it,” McSorley recalled in an interview. “I was 12 years old and he was an old man.”

Riding home after getting ice cream, McSorley says, Geoghan consoled him. But then he patted his upper leg and slid his hand up toward his crotch. “I froze up,” McSorley said. “I didn’t know what to think. Then he put his hand on my genitals and started masturbating me. I was petrified.” McSorely added that Geoghan then began masturbating himself.

When Geoghan dropped a shaken McSorley off at his mother’s house, he suggested they keep secret what had taken place. “He said, `We’re very good at keeping secrets,’ “ McSorley said.

For years, McSorley has battled alcoholism and depression. And now, as the plaintiff in one of the lawsuits against Geoghan, McSorley is bitter. “To find out later that the Catholic Church knew he was a child molester – every day it bothers me more and more,” McSorley says.

Many documents yet to be unsealed

The letters from Bishop D’Arcy and Margaret Gallant were among documents found by the Globe during a review of the public files of 84 civil lawsuits still pending against Geoghan. But for all Geoghan’s notoriety, the public record is remarkably skeletal. That is because almost all the evidence in the lawsuits about the church’s supervision of Geoghan has been under a court-ordered confidentiality seal granted to church lawyers.

In November, acting on a motion by the Globe, Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney ordered those documents made public. The archdiocese appealed to the state Appeals Court, arguing that the Globe – and the public – should not have access to documents about the church’s inner workings. But the appeal was denied last month. The records, including depositions of bishops and personnel files, are scheduled to become public on Jan. 26.

The cardinal and five other bishops who supervised Geoghan over the years have been accused of negligence in many of the civil suits for allegedly knowing of Geoghan’s abuse and doing nothing to stop it. Never before have so many bishops had to defend their roles in a case involving sexual molestation charges against a single priest. The five, all since promoted to head their own dioceses, are Bishops Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Robert J. Banks of Green Bay, Wis.; William F. Murphy of Rockville Center, N.Y.; John B. McCormack of Manchester, N.H., and Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans. Law and the five bishops have all denied the accusations in legal filings.

No American diocese has faced a scandal of similar dimensions since 1992. That year, in the Fall River Diocese, more than 100 of former priest James Porter’s victims surfaced publicly with evidence that Porter’s superiors – including, in the 1960s, then Monsignor Medeiros – shifted him from one parish to another as parents learned of his compulsive abuse.

Since 1997, the archdiocese has settled about 50 lawsuits against Geoghan, for more than $10 million – but with no confidential documents ever made public.

Plaintiffs in the 84 pending lawsuits are refusing to settle their claims as easily, and the church’s internal documents are subject to being revealed in the litigation. So the archdiocese has moved aggressively to keep information about its supervision of Geoghan out of public view. One example: When Law was named a defendant in 25 of the lawsuits, Rogers asked a judge to impound any reference to the cardinal, arguing that his reputation might be harmed. The judge refused.

On Dec. 17, Rogers sent the Globe’s attorney, Jonathan M. Albano, a letter threatening to seek legal sanctions against the newspaper and its law firm if the Globe published anything gleaned from confidential records in the suits. He warned that he would seek court-imposed sanctions even if Globe reporters asked questions of clergy involved in the case.

For decades, within the US Catholic Church, sexual misbehavior by priests was shrouded in secrecy – at every level. Abusive priests – Geoghan among them – often instructed traumatized youngsters to say nothing about what had been done to them. Parents who learned of the abuse, often wracked by shame, guilt, and denial, tried to forget what the church had done. The few who complained were invariably urged to keep silent. And pastors and bishops, meanwhile, viewed the abuse as a sin for which priests could repent rather than as a compulsion they might be unable to control.

Even Massachusetts law assured secrecy – and still does. For all the years that Geoghan was molesting children, clergymen were exempt from laws requiring most other caregivers to report incidents of sex abuse to police for possible prosecution. It was only after last summer’s revelations that the archdiocese dropped its long-standing opposition to legislation adding clergy to the list of “mandated reporters.” But the legislation died in committee.

Until recent years, the church also had little to fear from the courts. But that has changed, as predicted in a 1985 confidential report on priest abuse prepared at the urging of some of the nation’s top bishops, Law among them. “Our dependence in the past on Roman Catholic judges and attorneys protecting the Diocese and clerics is GONE,” the report said.

Since mid-December, the Globe has been requesting interviews with Law and other Church officials. But the answer was delayed until Morrissey’s call late Friday, in which she said she would not even accept questions in writing. Asked if that meant the Archdiocese had no interest in knowing what the questions were, Morrissey replied: “That’s correct.”

In preparing this article, the Globe also sought interviews with many of the priests and bishops who had supervised Geoghan or worked with him. None of the bishops would comment. Of the priests, few would speak publicly. And one pastor hung up the phone and another slammed a door shut at the first mention of Geoghan’s name.

After ordination, a record of abuse

There is no dispute that Geoghan abused children while he was at Blessed Sacrament in Saugus after his 1962 ordination. The archdiocese has recently settled claims on accusations that he did, and the church records obtained by the Globe note that Geoghan in 1995 admitted molesting four boys from the same family then. The unresolved issue in the remaining suits is whether church officials knew of the abuse at the time.

A former priest, Anthony Benzevich, has said he alerted church higher-ups that Geoghan frequently took young boys to his rectory bedroom. In news reports after accusations against Geoghan surfaced publicly, Benzevich was also quoted as saying church officials threatened to reassign him as a missionary in South America for telling them about Geoghan. Benzevich told his story to Mitchell Garabedian, who represents nearly all of the plaintiffs in the civil suits against Geoghan and church officials, according to an affidavit Garabedian filed.

But court records reviewed by the Globe show that when Benzevich appeared in Garabedian’s office for a pre-trial deposition in October 2000, he was represented by Wilson Rogers 3d – the son of Law’s principal attorney. Then, under oath, Benzevich changed his story. He said he was not certain that Geoghan had had boys in his room. And he said he could not recall notifying superiors about Geoghan’s behavior with children.

In a recent interview with the Globe, Benzevich said he does indeed remember Geoghan taking boys to his room. He said Geoghan often sought to wrestle with young boys – and liked to dress them in priest’s attire. But he repeated his sworn assertion that he does not recall notifying his superiors.

Before his deposition, Benzevich said, Wilson Rogers 3d approached him, told him the church was trying to protect him from being named as a defendant, and offered to represent him. His earlier statements to reporters, Benzevich said, had been misconstrued.

Garabedian, citing the confidentiality order, refused to discuss the Benzevich issue with the Globe. The church’s financial liability in the pending suits could increase dramatically if there is evidence Geoghan’s superiors knew of his abuse.

Geoghan’s second assignment – in 1966 to St. Bernard’s in Concord – ended after seven months, according to a detailed chronology of Geoghan’s service prepared by the church which does not explain why the assignment was so abbreviated.

The pending lawsuits include accusations that Geoghan again abused young boys from several families in his next parish, St. Paul’s in Hingham, between 1967 and 1974. One of his alleged victims, Anthony Muzzi Jr., said in an interview last week that in addition to his own abuse, his uncle caught Geoghan abusing his son. The uncle ordered Geoghan to leave his house, and complained to the priest’s superiors at St. Paul’s.

That complaint to church officials coincides with the time frame when Geoghan received in-patient treatment for sex abuse at the Seton Institute in Baltimore, according to Sipe, the psychotherapist who was on Seton’s staff at the time. Sipe did not treat Geoghan.

During his assignment in Hingham, Geoghan found victims far afield, befriending Joanne Mueller, a single mother of four boys who lived in Melrose. There too, according to depositions, the priest became a regular visitor, a spiritual counselor to Mueller and a helpmate to her boys, who were between 5 and 12.

One night, she testified, her second youngest son came to her, insisting that she keep Geoghan away from him. “I don’t want him doing that to my wee-wee, touching my wee-wee . . .” Mueller recalled the boy saying.

Mueller, according to her deposition, summoned her three other sons and learned that Geoghan, while purporting to be taking them out for ice cream, helping them with their baths, and reading them bedtime stories, had been raping them orally and anally. Also, Mueller said, Geoghan was insisting they tell no one. “We couldn’t tell you because Father said it was a confessional,” she said one of her sons told her.

Mueller testified that she immediately took the boys to see Rev. Paul E. Miceli, a parish priest at St. Mary’s in Melrose who knew both Geoghan and her family.

She testified that Miceli assured her that Geoghan would be handled by appropriate church authorities and would “never be a priest again.” Mueller also said that Miceli asked her to keep the matter to herself: “Bad as it was, he said, `Just try – don’t think about it. It will never happen again.’ “

Miceli, until recently a member of Law’s cabinet, contradicted Mueller in his own deposition. He said he did not recall her name, and never received a visit of the sort she described. But Miceli acknowledged receiving a call from a woman saying Geoghan was spending too much time with her children.

Miceli testified that the caller said nothing about sexual abuse. Nonetheless, Miceli said he drove to Geoghan’s new parish in Jamaica Plain to relay the woman’s concerns to Geoghan face-to-face.

Family in need was vulnerable

If Mueller had unwittingly facilitated Geoghan’s access to the children in her home in Melrose, the same role was played by Maryetta Dussourd at the priest’s next stop: St. Andrew’s, in the Forest Hills section of Jamaica Plain, where he served from 1974 to 1980.

Dussourd was rearing her own four children – three boys and a girl – as well as her niece’s four boys. In her hardscrabble neighborhood, she said in an interview, she hoped there was a priest the children could look up to. Then she met Geoghan, who oversaw altar boys and Boy Scouts at the parish.

Geoghan, she recalled bitterly, was eager to help. Before long, he was visiting her apartment almost every evening – for nearly two years. He routinely took the seven boys out for ice cream and put them to sleep at night.

But all that time, Geoghan regularly molested the seven boys in their bedrooms, Dussourd said. In some cases, he performed oral sex on them, according to court documents. Other times, he fondled their genitals or forced them to fondle his – occasionally as he prayed.

A 1994 Archdiocesan memorandum, labeled “personal and confidential,” said Geoghan would stay in the Dussourd home “even when he was on retreat because he missed the children so much. He `would touch them while they were sleeping and waken them by playing with their penises.’ “

Dussourd discovered what was happening after the children finally told her sister, Margaret Gallant. Horrified, Dussourd complained to the Rev. John E. Thomas, the pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas, a nearby parish, according to court documents and accounts by Dussourd and a church official who asked that he not be identified.

Thomas confronted Geoghan with the allegations, and was taken aback when Geoghan casually admitted they were accurate. “He said, `Yes, that’s all true,’ “ the official recalled. It was as if Geoghan had been asked “if he preferred chocolate or vanilla ice cream.”

Thomas immediately drove to archdiocesan offices in Brighton to notify Daily. In Thomas’s presence that Saturday afternoon, Feb. 9, 1980, Daily telephoned Geoghan at St. Andrew’s and, in a brief conversation, delivered a curt directive: “Go home,” the official said.

Geoghan protested, saying there was no one else to celebrate the 4 p.m. Mass. “I’ll say the Mass myself,” Daily insisted. “Go home.” The official said Daily drove to Jamaica Plain and said Mass.

The Rev. Francis H. Delaney, who was Geoghan’s pastor at St. Andrew’s, said in an interview that church officials never told him why Geoghan disappeared from the parish.

Several weeks later, Dussourd said, a contrite Thomas came to her apartment and told her that Geoghan had admitted to abusing the boys, but had excused his behavior by telling the pastor, “It was only two families.”

Thomas, echoing a tack common among clerics at the time, later pleaded with Dussourd not to follow through on her threat to go public, she said. He cited the years Geoghan had spent studying for the priesthood, and the consequences for Geoghan if the accusations against him were publicized. “Do you realize what you’re taking from him?” Thomas asked, according to Dussourd.

Thomas, who is now retired, declined to be interviewed.

RELATED: Part 2 of 2: Geoghan preferred preying on poorer children

A 1994 archdiocesan document summarizing Geoghan’s recurrent problems says of the seven children: “Fr. Geoghan `admits the activity but does not feel it serious or a pastoral problem.’ “

Geoghan spent the following year on sick leave, under treatment for his compulsion, but living with family in West Roxbury. In February 1981, he was sent to his fifth parish, St. Brendan’s.

Almost immediately, Geoghan was working with First Communicants, befriending young children and their parents, even taking some boys to his family’s summer home in Scituate, where – parents say they later discovered – he sexually abused the youths.

Geoghan’s free rein was made possible because the archdiocese said nothing to Lane, St. Brendan’s pastor, about Geoghan’s history, according to a teacher in the parish whom Lane has confided in.

The St. Brendan’s teacher, who declined to be named, said that at first, Geoghan’s willingness to spend inordinate amounts of time with children was admired. But over time, some parishioners became suspicious. “We knew something wasn’t right,” the teacher said. “He just zeroed in on some kids.”

After two more years and more allegations of sexual abuse, Geoghan’s tenure at St. Brendan’s came to an abrupt end in 1984, when Lane heard complaints that Geoghan had molested children in the parish.

Lane, the teacher said, was so devastated that he broke down when he told her the news. And, she said, he was incensed that he had not been warned. “Father Lane was almost destroyed by this,” the teacher said.

Lane is now retired. When a Globe reporter went to see him recently, he slammed the door shut as soon as Geoghan’s name was mentioned.

Law denies he tried ‘to shift a problem’

In his own defense last summer, Law wrote in the Pilot, the archdiocesan newspaper, “Never was there an effort on my part to shift a problem from one place to the next.”

The cardinal’s assertion followed his disclosure, in court documents, that he was informed in September 1984 of the four-year-old allegations that Geoghan had molested the seven Jamaica Plain boys. In the court filing, Law went on to say he then notified Geoghan that he was being removed from St. Brendan’s and was “in between assignments.”

The legal response by the cardinal, narrowly drawn in response to the lawsuit against him, omits any reference to Geoghan’s molestation of children at St. Brendan’s in Dorchester.

Despite his record, Geoghan was assigned to St. Julia’s. And in his first two years, he was in charge of altar boys, religious education for public school youngsters and a youth group, according to the church’s annual directories.

Three weeks after Geoghan arrived in Weston, Bishop D’Arcy protested the assignment to Law, citing Geoghan’s problems and adding: “I understand his recent abrupt departure from St. Brendan’s, Dorchester may be related to this problem.”

A copy of the letter contains a redacted paragraph, an apparent reference to the Rev. Nicholas Driscoll, who confirmed last week that he had been removed from St. Julia’s before Geoghan’s arrival – but for alcohol and depression problems, not sexual abuse. So D’Arcy expressed concern about “further scandal in this parish.” If “something happens,” parishioners will feel that the archdiocese “simply sends them priests with problems.”

D’Arcy urged Law to consider restricting Geoghan to weekend duty “while receiving some kind of therapy.” The Globe could find no evidence that Law accepted that advice. Retired Monsignor Francis S. Rossiter, Geoghan’s pastor at St. Julia’s, refused to be interviewed last week. But Church records note that Rossiter was aware of Geoghan’s history.

The civil and criminal allegations Geoghan faces in Middlesex and Suffolk counties suggest that he allegedly abused at least 30 more boys after Law sent him to Weston in 1984 – both before and after the half year’s sick leave in 1989.

After Geoghan’s 1989 return to St. Julia’s, it was another 38 months before Law took him out of the parish. Three years later, Geoghan was still seeking out victims, allegedly including an altar boy donning vestments for a christening ceremony, according to the criminal charges.

The shuttling of Geoghan from one parish to another created a devastating coincidence for one family. One boy he allegedly molested is the son of a man who had been among the many sexually abused by Porter during the 1960s in the Fall River Diocese, according to Roderick MacLeish Jr., the attorney who represented the man and 100 other Porter victims.

MacLeish declined to provide any information about the family, and said a legal claim has yet to be filed over the son’s treatment by Geoghan.

MacLeish, who has had substantial dealings with the Boston Archdiocese, said he remains astonished at Rogers’s assertion that Geoghan’s assignments were deemed safe by doctors. “No responsible clinician would have said it was safe to transfer him to another parish in light of what the church knew about his pattern of deviant behavior,” MacLeish said.

2002 Spotlight Report: Clergy sex abuse crisis
Timeline of Spotlight report investigations
1/6/2002: Church allowed abuse by priest for years (Part 1 of 2)
1/6/2002: A revered guest; a family left in shreds
1/7/2002: Geoghan preferred preying on poorer children (Part 2 of 2)
1/31/2002: Scores of priests involved in sex abuse cases
2/24/2002: Church cloaked in culture of silence
2/24/2002: Hundreds now claim priest abuse
3/14/2002: Ex-Mass. bishop accused of ignoring abuse in NYC
5/12/2002: Scandal erodes traditional deference to church
8/20/2002: Ariz. abuse case names bishop, 2 priests
12/1/2002: Archdiocese weighs bankruptcy filing
12/1/2002: Battle over files intensifies
12/4/2002: More clergy abuse, secrecy cases
12/14/2002: Pope accepts Cardinal Law’s resignation in Rome
Spotlight: the reporters who uncovered Boston’s Catholic child abuse scandal
A Boston Globe investigation into widespread child abuse by Catholic clergy has been turned into a new film starring Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams. The Pulitzer-winning team talk small-town secrets, collective guilt – and whether anything has really changed within the church
Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Michael Keaton and Brian d’Arcy James as the Boston Globe reporters who uncovered sexual abuse allegations against priests.

Wednesday 13 January 2016 18.43 GMT Last modified on Thursday 28 January 2016

On the homepage of the Boston Roman Catholic archdiocese website, next to information on preparing for marriage, is a box labelled “Support, Protection and Prevention”. You have to scroll to see the first reference to children and click a link to find any mention of abuse.

In 2002, the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team, a group of five investigative journalists, uncovered the widespread sexual abuse of children by scores of the district’s clergy. They also revealed a cover-up: that priests accused of misconduct were being systematically removed and allowed to work in other parishes.

The team’s investigation brought the issue to national prominence in the US, winning them the Pulitzer prize for public service. The journalists’ story, and those who suffered at the hands of the clergy, are the subject of Spotlight, a Hollywood movie starring Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams. It is a love letter to investigative journalism and a reminder that, 13 years and some $3bn in settlement payments later, survivors in Boston and beyond are still waiting for satisfactory long-term action from the Vatican.

Michael Keaton, left, with Boston Globe journalist Walter ‘Robby’ Robinson. Photograph: LMK
“The Catholic church often talks about this as pain that’s in the past,” says Spotlight’s co-screenwriter, Josh Singer. “I think the survivors would tell you they’re less interested in the church trying to make amends and more interested in the church protecting children in the future.”

Singer, who was a writer and editor on The West Wing, calls the Spotlight journalists of 2002 a “championship team”. Their player-manager was Boston native Walter “Robby” Robinson. His high school, which was across the road from the Boston Globe’s offices, employed three priests who were later suspended for misconduct. In the film, Robinson, played by Michael Keaton, represents the Globe’s old guard. He’s navigating a community that’s very Catholic and very close-knit, working on a contentious story for a paper that he says at the time was “too deferential to the church”.

“Every major city in the US has two things in common,” Robinson tells me. “They have an archdiocese and they have a major newspaper. I don’t know of a single city where, in hindsight, clues that this was going on didn’t surface way back when. If we’d been more open to the notion that such an iconic institution might have committed such heinous crimes I think people would have got on to this sooner.”
It was this implicit deference by the police, attorneys and, to some degree, the press that interested Singer in the story. In a key scene, a lawyer who represents the victims says: “It takes a village to raise a child. It takes a village to abuse one.”

“That collective looking away was always interesting,” Singer says. “How had the community fostered this? That seemed to have bigger power and resonance, because that is similar to what’s still going on with Penn State or Jimmy Savile at the BBC”.

Spotlight review – Catholic church child abuse film decently tells an awful story

Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams star as Boston Globe reporters investigating accusations against priests in Tom McCarthy’s worthy, well-intentioned journalism drama

“Sometimes we need to question a little more when we are part of an insider group,” he says. “To listen to the outsiders.”

Phil Saviano was battling to get his story heard long before the Spotlight team’s stories were published. Saviano, a survivor who was abused by his parish priest from the age of 12, had sent the Globe information on the Boston clergy that reporters originally missed. In the film, Saviano (played by actor Neal Huff) tells the Spotlight team that, for a kid from a poor family in Boston, being groomed by his priest was like being singled out by the Almighty: “How do you say no to God?”

Brian d’Arcy James and Rachel McAdams in Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight. Photograph: Allstar/Open Road Films
Saviano, now in his 60s, was one of the victims who refused a settlement from the church and retained, unlike others, his right to speak freely about his experience. He’s the founding member of the New England chapter of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. After the Spotlight investigation, Snap’s membership swelled to more than 22,000 as victims came forward, according to its executive director, David Clohessy.

“Before Spotlight’s work, Snap members were usually ignored,” he says. “They were unsuccessfully trying to warn parishioners, parents, police, prosecutors and the public about this massive, ongoing danger to kids. After Spotlight’s work, people started to pay attention.”

‘Reporters talk on the phone, we do data entry, we look at court records. Good luck making that interesting!’
Sacha Pfeiffer
Michael Rezendes, played by Mark Ruffalo in the film, is the only journalist involved in the investigation still working on the Spotlight team. Rezendes describes the experience of having his story turned into a movie as “strange and intrusive”, but he’s a big fan of the finished product.

“We call Boston the biggest small town in America,” says Rezendes. “Everybody seems to know everyone. The film-makers probed that pretty deeply, and were able to make a statement about the collective ability to speak out when you see wrongdoing.”
“I had huge reservations about letting Hollywood fictionalise our lives,” says Sacha Pfeiffer, another member of the Spotlight team, who is played by Rachel McAdams. “We talk on the phone, we do data entry, we look at court records. Good luck making that interesting!”
But there was no need to sensationalise the story, says the screenwriter – the procedure and the scale of the scandal were compelling enough. Still, the film is more All the President’s Men than Broadcast News (“Watergate was a local story, so was this,” says Singer). There is no bitching, little jostling, only the occasional glimpse of ego. Working at the dawn of online news, the team spend hours rifling through giant church directories, begging to use the state legislator’s photocopier. Just as they are ready to print, their editor (Marty Baron, portrayed by Liev Schreiber) tells them to stop and take stock.

The Spotlight team had identified 12 priests who they knew had been implicated in child sex abuse. They wanted to get the names out there, but Baron told them to hold their fire and aim for the bigger target: the Catholic church itself. “Would an editor have that sort of restraint now?” asks Singer. “As opposed to just throwing what you have up on the web? If you’d just run those names it would have been a he-said-she-said with every single one. Instead of talking about the bigger story, which is the system.”

“The internet has forced us to think in short bursts,” says Robinson. “We seldom have time to get a really strong grasp on what the full story is. Everybody’s trying to get morsels out there, instead of the full meal.”

‘We call Boston the biggest small town in America’ Mike Rezends, right, with Mark Ruffalo, who portrays him in Spotlight. Photograph: LMK
The Spotlight story got told because Baron, newly arrived from the Miami Herald, told the locals how to see their city. The Globe’s new editor was an outsider who questioned a norm: that the church was untouchable. That confidence – to follow a difficult story through against the prevailing wisdom – is a rare quality, says Robinson. And the investigative reporting that followed was expensive. “Editors tend to cut it first,” says Robinson, “But ask a daily newsreader what is most important to them and they’ll say investigative reporting.”

Spotlight has been well received by survivors (“It’s re-energised many who have been discouraged by the intractability of the church”, says David Clohessy), and the church itself has been broadly supportive. When asked if the archdiocese of Boston endorses the film, Terrence Donilon, communications officer to the city’s archbishop, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, said the archdiocese “would not discourage people from seeing the film”, but viewing it “should be an individual choice”.

Since the Spotlight investigation, the Vatican has moved to establish a tribunal to hear cases of bishops accused of perpetrating or covering up child abuse. Critics say its remit is foggy and its powers unclear. Pope Francis’s visit to Boston last September was marred by his comments the week earlier that US bishops had shown “courage” in facing the scandal. Survivors responded with anger and incredulity. Generally, it is thought that the church still has a lot to learn about transparency.

“It’s been 13 years since we published our stories,” says Michael Rezendes. “So far, for survivors, there’s been a tribunal that hasn’t taken any concrete action. Over the last 10 years the Vatican has defrocked something like 850 priests and sanctioned maybe 2,500 more. But in terms of policy, there has been very little systemic change.”

“Bishop Bell” – A Poem by Brian Worsfold of Chichester

bishop-george-bell (1)


A Poem by Brian Worsfold of Chichester

I raise my glass to Bishop Bell 
Is he really now in hell? 
And if it be so then I pray, 
That I may join him there one day! 
For then eternity would pass 
Much quicker, and we’d raise a glass 
And raise it to the place 
Where those who never sinned 
Sit smug and never look within. 
Does his life’s work now count for nought? 
It seems this now is what we’re taught. 
God bless the Bishop now I say 
I’ll sing his praises every day.