Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Solidarity with France

The left-right political paradigm is originally based upon the parliamentary division in post-revolutionary France. On the right sat those who advocated the maintenance of a hierarchical society controlled by aristocracy. On the left sat those who advocated the post-revolutionary values of religious and political equality and freedom. In the centuries since these ideals have been disputed and appropriated, including in their theoretical manifestations from liberalism, to Marxism, to modern conservatism that paradoxically applies them to justifying the defence of an established social order. 

Charlie Hebdo adheres to these revolutionary values: it believes in religious freedom, but opposes the suppressive influence of any religious sect, which includes the right for any philosophy to be subjected to criticism and ridicule whether academic or satirical. Charlie Hebdo has consistently opposed discrimination and bigotry against ethnic minorities in France. Getting straight to one point of contention: some of its caricatures have been criticised as racist. Even though this implied racism or xenophobia would inconsistent with the morality Charlie has advocated for the entirety of its history, it is still a justifiable criticism to question the taste and motivation of those particular cartoons. This is the point, we have the right to do so constructively if we are to live in a democratic society.

Conversely, it would be completely illogical to consider that the murderers were motivated by this controversy. Nor were they likely solely motivated by an illustrated portrayal of Muhammad; offensive to Muslims, yes, but the overwhelming majority of whom who adhere to stringent standards of morality, peacefulness and tolerance viewing such an assault on humanity as the most abominable act imaginable. The cartoons were an excuse at most for ruthlessly assaulting Charlie's opposition to fundamentalist Islamism, and the mischevous attitude accompanying it that challenged the self-righteous and oppressive piousness that all fundamentalists and totalitarians rely upon to assert themselves.  

The likes of ISIL and al-Qaeda, which the murderers pledged allegiance to, are virulently racist with an established history of ethnoreligious persecution and cleansing. The West appears to have forgotten ISIL's attempted extermination of the Yazidi and Kurdish populations within their captured territories. Antisemitism is also an integral part of their ideologies; historically this is the basis of why fundamentalist forms of Islam were compatible with Nazism. Even though Hitler viewed Arabs are racially inferior, and despite the supposed secularism of Bath'ist leaders aligned to the Axis, Hitler admired muftis who shared the cause of Jewish persecution and eventual elimination. This common holy war recruited Muslims from Yugoslavia into the S.S. 

Concurrently, the Vichy puppet regime in France replaced the motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" to "Travail, famille, patrie" in an effort to erase the humanistic post-revolutionary values from the national consciousness. The religious motivation in this case was a fundamentalist form of Roman Catholicism, but the repression of human rights facilitated and justified by it was the same as that adhered to by Nazi-aligned Islamic extremism. More commonly in the modern day, Islamic extremism and the far-right are mutually symbiotic cancers, with the former relying upon the encouragement of racism, hatred and discrimination to recruit and brainwash the disillusioned that the latter fundamentally relies upon for its bigoted and stereotyping propaganda narrative.

Those of us who believe in human rights and democracy, therefore, should fundamentally view such extremists as anti-humanist nihilists no matter the ideology or "faith" they project.

Sunday, 28 December 2014

Humberside Police corruption and the Goole mafia

Former chief superintendent Colin Andrews, of Humberside Police, is currently on trial for a variety of criminal offences including rape, stalking, assault and intimidation of witnesses and his victims. He is also implicated in abusing his position of authority within the police to facilitate this harassment and the concealment of his crimes. Ch Supt Andrews has yet to be convicted for these offences, but the ongoing trial has nevertheless revealed what is self-evidently high-ranking corruption and/or misconduct within the force.

Update: Colin Andrews has been convicted of harassment, stalking, common assault and witness intimidation.

Is it stated that Ch Supt Andrews was part of a group of senior officers and managers in Humberside Police that the victim referred to as the "Goole mafia", Goole being one of the East Yorkshire towns that Humberside Police's C-Division operates, and where Andrews lived and worked.

Incidentally, it turns out that other senior officers "were concerned about the dirt Mr Andrews would raise if he was prosecuted", with chief superintendent and divisional commander of C-Division, Judith Heaton, being "worried about the reputation of Humberside Police and worried specifically about salacious details that Colin Andrews knew and whether they would be used as mud-slinging to defend himself." In plain English, senior officers in Humberside Police sought to obstruct an investigation into Andrews in order to cover-up their own misconduct and/or to preserve the force's public image, placing these corrupt vested interests and damage controls above the danger to society and corrupting influence imposed by Andrews.

Predecessor to Heaton as C-Division's divisional commander, was Patrick Geenty, who worked alongside Colin Andrews and is now the chief constable at Wiltshire Police. The same Geenty is currently under IPCC investigation for gross misconduct in regards to how he and other Wiltshire Police officers handed reports of historical child sexual abuse.

Concerningly, while C-Division commander, Geenty worked with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and its chief executive Nigel Pearson and other senior public officials in the region to decide policies regarding children and young people, including the council's approach to child protection policy. From the council's 2006 to 2008 Children and Young People's Single Plan:




As previously stated, the same ERYC appointed Pam Allen to its safeguarding children board after she aided the cover-up of the sexual slavery of children in Rotherham and retains this post despite her being under investigation by South Yorkshire Police for her role in the cover-up, so this exemplifies the council's ethical and political credibility in regards to protecting children from abuse. Ch Supt Heaton, who was apparently willing to cover-up Andrews's misconduct in the same of protecting the force's reputation and the interests of other crooked senior police officers, sits on the same safeguarding children board. With cases such as Rotherham, Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith in mind, this holds extremely worrying implications in regards to the well-being of children and other vulnerable people in East Yorkshire whom the local authority holds responsibility to provide care for, given that the ethos and attitude of these officials displays a willingness to cover-up nefarious behaviour in the name of protecting vested interests instead of transparently investigating or counteracting it.

The same safeguarding children both holds responsibility for investigating institutional abuse within East Yorkshire, such as that committed against 170 complainants by a paedophile ring at the St William's children's home the council ran in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Church's De La Selle Brotherhood. Operation Yewtree and Humberside Police have investigated reported offending by Jimmy Savile at the former De La Pole psychiatric hospital in Willerby on the outskirts of Hull; the ERYC and local NHS authorities decided that the serial sex offender Savile had committed no offences at De La Pole after a self-investigation, detailed in its June 2014 report, based upon the statements of only one potential victim.




Humberside Police were investigated by the IPCC in 2012 for its treatment of a woman who came forward regarding a sexual assault by a police community support officer who had previously been reported for the same offence by another woman; the officer's file was never referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and the force closed its criminal investigation under the excuse of the PCSO leaving Humberside Police. The same year, detective Mike Johnson was convicted for sexually assaulting a female colleague. The IPCC has made inquiries regarding a number of officers in Humberside Police abusing their authority to target women and vulnerable people for sexual abuse.

In 2005, leader of Hull City Council and Humberside Police chairman Colin Inglis was tried, but acquitted, for sexually abusing two boys in Hull and in North Wales whilst he was a social worker in the 1980s. The same Inglis defied the Home Secretary in refusing to take action against then-chief constable David Westwood in the aftermath of the Soham murders. Ian Huntley, who was reported and investigated for multiple sex offences in the Humberside Police area, murdered two ten-year-old girls in 2002 whilst working as a school caretaker in Cambridgeshire. Humberside Police failed to disclose or inform authorities in Cambridgeshire about Huntley's prior offending, and were found to have destroyed records about his criminal history following the murders.

Whilst Inglis was under criminal investigation for his own reported sexual abuse offences, he organised a dinner attended by senior Humberside Police officers and social workers from Hull City Council,  who were comfortable with dining with the Inglis who could have turned out to be a convicted paedophile, to commemorate the police career of Ch Supt Paul Cheeseman. Council funds paid the bill (but the authority still attempted to obstruct the Freedom of Information request by Sky News to discover the details of the soiree).

Here's Inglis in 2004 with Stephen Parnaby, leader of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council: 


The same Ch Supt Cheeseman has been named in the Andrews trial as one of the senior officers Ch Supt Andrews was fraternising with on the evening the alleged rape he is being tried for took place in December 2003, with Cheeseman playing a "practical joke" that led to the circumstances of the reported rape. Before working as a strategic development manager until his retirement from Humberside Police in 2009, Cheeseman worked as a detective constable and sergeant in Goole.

In summary, the following must be considered: 1) What role did Geenty play in covering up the misconduct of his colleague Andrews and to what extent would he have been effected by the "dirt" that other senior officers also intended to cover-up? 2) Which other senior officers were involved in the seemingly corrupt and potentially criminal "Goole mafia" within Humberside Police, and how senior were they? 3) How did the conduct and attitude of Andrews, Geenty and other senior officers potentially including the "Goole mafia" influence police and local authority approaches to sex crimes including those against children, such as those under the care of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council that Geenty played a pivotal role in deciding the child protection policy of? 4) How many other victims of police or other abuses may have had their criminal complaints ignored by Humberside Police or been intimidated when attempting to come forward, including regarding criminal offences committed by police officers, due to the obstruction of justice resulting from these factors?

If you have any information about corruption, sexual abuse or cover-ups within Humberside Police or local authorities within East Yorkshire/Hull then please email me at jjarichardson@gmail.com or find me on Facebook to message it.

Friday, 19 December 2014

Why North Korea isn't funny

Satire, the perfect antidote to the pious self-righteousness that all authoritarian ideologies rely upon to perpetuate themselves, is undoubtedly a crucial weapon of political dissident. Chaplin's caricature of Hitler, which he timelessly used as a platform to promote a humanistic and universalist worldview in The Great Dictator, is a prime example of this fact. This is the precise reason why North Korea, or at least its ideological adherents, have reacted ballistically to the relatively mediocre Hollywood production The Interview, as the North Korean regime is domestically reliant to extreme proportions upon a self-reverence that is self-evidently absurd under the gaze and deconstruction of its justifiable mockery. However, we should be mindful that, unlike North Koreans, we have the privilege to observe the North Korean state and the ideology it propagates as a bemusing spectacle from afar.

Quoting Marx, we refer to tragedies that turn into farce, but in the case of North Korea we seem to only focus on the farce of the spectacle of its cult of personality and propaganda narrative without any reflection on the material reality that is the tragedy. Staggeringly, the Hollywood-centric story about the hacking of Sony and the withdrawal of The Interview has received significantly more media coverage than the United Nations report which implicated the North Korean government and military in crimes against humanity including mass murder, rape, torture, enslavement and involuntary medical experimentation, including within a network of concentration camps established for the punishment of the smallest political dissident, which by any estimation are the closest in the modern world to those that existed in Nazi Europe. Elimination of freedom of expression is not only enforced through terror in North Korea, but easily maintained through its embedding into a social order where the state's ideology and the psyche of its subjects are indistinguishable, which is exactly how Orwell described the totalitarian regime in 1984 asserting its absolute domination; through the draconian regulation of all language and thought in order to abolish any diversity within it.

Despite the useful idiocy of North Korea's so-called leftist apologists in the West, the humanistic and egalitarian ideals of Marxism and socialism have been long eradicated from all state-sanctioned literature and political discourse. Society is instead indoctrinated into the Juche ideology which, as described in B.R. Myers's The Cleanest Race, promotes the values of jingoism, militarism and racial supremacy, within a society that represses all political dissident against a hierarchical and regimented social order that is headed by a cult of personality which propagates the literal divinity of the Kim dynasty. The Kims, who like most dictators are satisfied by a self-entitled lifestyle of gluttony and luxury, occupy an elite class that presides over a majority living standard which is defined by poverty and malnutrition. Although there are insurgent political movements in Europe which adhere to fascism and neo-Nazism in explicit terms, in practical terms North Korea and the racist, militarist, and fundamentalist ideology it upholds is most powerful fascist regime in the world today.

The grotesquely absurd spectacle of the North Korean regime we satirize is simply a reflection of its inherent nature.  The Interview debacle should ground us to reality into focusing on the criminality and misery the regime actually imposes on its people.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Ruthin School abuse cover-up and Freemasonry in North Wales Police

In August this year, I placed an advertisement in Private Eye asking for cases of abuse covered up by public institutions such as local authorities and school, motivated by my personal experience of these corrupt activities. One of the people who replied described to an institutional abuse case at Ruthin School, an established public school in North Wales.

They described the sexual abuse of multiple boys by one of the teachers of the school, a paedophile who took boys of the dormitory at night and into the spare room to sexually abuse them, often plying them with drink and drugs to facilitate this. He was not the only paedophile abusing boys at the school.

A thirteen year old boy at the school committed suicide, but the school's management were unmoved to take any action. It took the boy's parents to make relevant inquires, which is how the extent of the sexual abuse at the school was discovered. They reported the matter to North Wales Police, who proceeded to raid the paedophile teacher's home; they discovered child pornography on his computer and he was charged for the child sex offences.

Shortly before his trial began, the paedophile teacher joined the Freemasons, and to the bewilderment of the police his trial was thrown out of court before it began by the presiding judge. Freemasons apparently saturate the establishment in North Wales, including the police and legal system; among them are paedophiles involved in the institutional sexual abuse of children. A retired senior police officer and Freemason was arrested in January by Operation Pallial, the National Crime Agency and North Wales Police investigation into abuse at North Wales schools and children's homes.

I sent a summary of the emails about the Ruthin School abuse to Operation Paillal, suspecting that obvious perversion of justice motivated by conflict of interest had taken place in regards to the paedophile teacher. I only received a one line response which stated that it was not in Operation's remit to investigate, which I find odd given that such corruption could have compromised adequate investigation into this child sex abuse in potentially multiple other cases and historically facilitated further abuse in the process. It would be irrational to uniformly equate Freemasonry with paedophilia, but secret societies in their inherent nature, as observed in numerous other countries and throughout history, can easily be manipulated as a front to perpetrate criminality. Hopefully making this information public will incite the authorities to respond otherwise.


Monday, 15 December 2014

Mundane American atrocities

Nobody should be logically fazed by the new revelations of torture ordered and committed by the American government and Central Intelligence Agency, even though they are morally repulsive. This lack of surprise should guided by 1) the historical conduct of the CIA and 2) the attitude and track record of the U.S. government officials involved in perpetrating the torture. As previously stated, it was Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General John Yoo who, directly on behalf of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, concocted the legal excuses for the CIA detainees and (at very least alleged) enemy combatants held in the blacksite dungeons where the torture took place to not have the human rights of the Geneva Conventions applied to them during the War on Terror. (Willfully violating the Geneva Conventions is inherently and obviously a war crime). It was Yoo who stated that threatening to crush the testicles of a detainee's child would be a justifiable form of psychological torture for the president to authorize.

The torture employed by the CIA, directly facilitated through the sanction of the war criminal Bush administration, included forcing medical instruments into the anuses of detainees in order to pump foodstuffs into their rectums as a form of "hydration" (an antiquated method of forced feeding which can cause anal fissures and prolapses and apparently did on one occasion), and leaving detainees chained in freezing cold temperatures, which led to the death of at least one detainee, Gul Rahman (whose hashtagged name deserves to trend on social media as much as the black victims of domestic American police brutality). Furthermore, children were actually raped in front of their parents. The definition of torture is the calculated infliction of physical and psychological suffering as punishment or as a (clearly erroneous and fruitless) form of intelligence gathering. It cannot be said that these atrocities were limited to torture if systematic rape, child abuse and murder took place as well. It is self-evidently in kind with the child testicle-crushing school of ethics. How can America, along with nations such as Britain and Poland who aided and abetted these crimes, take the moral high ground above the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIL if it makes excuses and rejects the prosecution of those responsible for this?

The brazen arrogance publicly displayed by the war criminals behind this barbarism, such as John Brennan and Dick Cheney, indicates a self-assured understanding that they will never be brought to justice. Like all professional criminals, they exhibit a shameless contempt for basic justice and civility. Other war criminals, such as Henry Kissinger (never prosecuted for, in criminal partnership with the CIA, supplanting democratically elected governments in Latin America with far-right military juntas or authorizing the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Vietnam), are well-acquainted with this corruptly untouchable impunity. The cowardly administration of Barack Obama (whom Malcolm X would undoubtedly identify as a "House Negro" for his white masters) has reasserted that Bush administration and CIA officials will face no criminal prosecution for their war crimes, reinforcing America's complete moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy.

It is thus the duty of human rights organizations and campaigners in general to lobby for these war criminals to face justice by other means. The International Criminal Court should be appealed to assert its universal jurisdiction and issue arrest warrants. If the U.S. government and law enforcement agencies refuse to comply with the warrants, this would at least exhibit America's status as a nation in contempt of human rights and international criminal law (as always shown by its servility to war criminal Israel). Even if the war criminals are never practically brought to justice, they should at least live in the knowlege of being known as such until their destructive and wretched existences end, and in the posterity of history.


Tuesday, 2 December 2014

On the UK's absurd sexual ethics

Keith Bristow, the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre that is part of the UK's National Crime Agency, recently stated that his organisation did not have adequate resources from the government to bring over fifty thousand paedophiles to justice for downloading images of the sexual abuse of children. Among them was Myles Bradbury, the doctor who has been convicted for abusing dozens of boys in his care. One would assume that protecting children from abuse and exploitation would be one of the utmost priorities of a supposedly civilised society, but evidently not.

In contrast to this apathy, a group of lawyers acting on behalf of the UK government have decided behind closed doors to criminalise the pornographic portrayal of legal sexual acts between consenting adults. And this is supported by a government which claims to defend civil liberties. Adhering to Victorian levels of backwards prudishness, this includes portrayals of BDSM, watersports (urination), spanking, facesitting, and female ejaculation.

Of course, the concept of stuffy judges pontificating on the merits of allowing the portrayal of fetishised spanking and urination may be amusing and titillating to some due to its inherent ridiculousness, but it sets dangerous and destructive precedents in the puritanical and authoritarian values it represents. 

It reminds one of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four, in which Agent O'Brien, the torturer of dissident Winston Smith, informs Winston of the ruling Party's agenda to abolish human sexuality and the orgasm following his illegal affair with Julia, a member of the regime-supported Anti-Sex League. There is a reason why the fundamentalists and fascists of the past and present are so neurotically fixated on human sexuality, represented by its perception of "deviancy", a literal example of the Orwellian thoughtcrime, and resulting in anti-sexual barbarism such as corrective rape and female genital mutilation. The bodily repression of sexuality encapsulates and facilitates tyranny over our minds and identities by authoritarian ideologues and their stone age mentalities.

A particularly repulsive detail of these laws are their bizarre fixation on female ejaculation, which is seemingly included because it could be constructed as or resemble urine fetishism, which is in itself a completely harmless sexual act involving consenting adults in the first place. This naive teenage boy-like presumption of female ejaculate being urine also contradicts established medical science on the subject. The same standard does not apply to male ejaculation, so presumably indicates a belief that part of female sexuality is inherently unacceptable and obscene. Will girls be indoctrinated in school in the style of the homophobic Section 47 that their bodies and sexuality are innately shameful, abnormal and disgusting because they could ejaculate on orgasm? That is the psychologically harmful anti-women logic of this criminalisation.

Another point, presumably identified by others, is that these laws are formulated on the basis of a one-dimensional gender binary that essentially ignores the existence of transgender and intersex people, further emphasising how inapplicable and far removed they are from encompassing 21st century values and legal standards.

These dinosaur laws should therefore be opposed by anyone concerned with the erosion of civil liberties and bigoted assaults on sexuality and womanhood. Perhaps the establishment should devote its draconian attention to those involved in the sexual abuse of children instead, including those in its midst.