Tuesday 30 May 2023


At 30 May 2023 at 20:31 , Anonymous said...

What do 60 top British politicians have in common?

At the most recent count, “almost 60 members of parliament were facing claims of sexual misconduct”

“Many of those complaints were made by much younger people, few of whom would be saying it was consensual.

“Yet our nation’s seat of government remains a black box on this front, and we don’t know what happened to most of those investigations.

“Plenty of the alleged victims remain currently in limbo, and without faith that anything will ever be done.”


In the U.K. there are 650 members of parliament (MPs)

Therefore, 9% of British MPs are facing claims of sexual misconduct.

Almost one in ten.

(Unknown is how many *more* MPs — that is, over and above the 9% cited — have committed sexual ‘misconduct’ but aren’t included in these statistics and aren’t being investigated because the victim is a minor too young to report what happened; 

has been threatened/is too terrified/traumatised; is in witness protection/has assumed a new identity; 

or is hospitalised, dead, or otherwise not in a position to lodge a complaint.)

Then there are the members of the UK’s upper house, the House of Lords.

Lord Peter Mandelson, a longtime close friend and business associate of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, has been the subject of allegations made to the late psychiatrist Dr Joan Coleman.


Dame Alun Roberts


If any Twitter user has been directly impacted by Mandelson's misconduct and/or negligence re Epstein/Ghislaine/TerraMar/Lambeth Council/NSPCC/Kevin Spacey/Old Vic/Greville Janner/Dr Coleman, now is the time to contact the House of Lords!

At 30 May 2023 at 21:09 , Anonymous said...

The Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards are totally unwilling to investigate allegations against Parliamentarians, except in extremely narrow circumstances.

They say they’re only willing to investigate a Parliamentarian in cases where he or she is alleged to have attacked victims “with a parliamentary dimension”.

In other words, the alleged attacks must have been carried out while the Parliamentarian was formally acting in his/her official capacity as a Parliamentarian.

A Parliamentarian who functions as a ‘Jack the Ripper’, ‘Jimmy Savile’ or ‘Jeffrey Epstein’ while formally ‘off-duty’, for example, is of NO interest to the Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards.

(Nor, incidentally, of much interest to senior police chiefs who don’t want to be forced out of their jobs and libelled as credulous ‘witch hunters’ in the spook-infested media — jeopardising their retirement pensions and life savings).



At 30 May 2023 at 22:20 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 30 May 2023 at 22:30 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phillip Schofield in happier times!


At 30 May 2023 at 22:31 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also on board with Schofield:


At 31 May 2023 at 00:34 , Blogger Anon said...

At 30 May 2023 at 22:20 , Anonymous Anonymous said...
Phillip Schofield axed from Prince's Trust as ambassador role 'no longer appropriate'



At 17 November 2023 at 02:51 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

but isnt this all excatly what carl beech said ?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home