Establishment closes ranks over elite paedophile-ring suspicions?

[Note, added 23/07/2021: this article was written before the lesson of Pizzagate and before it was understood that what happened on This Morning  in 2012 would have been scripted, and that Establishment paedophile-ring conspiracy theories that can never be proven are for channelling potential oppositional behaviour into futile activity, and creating scope for the marginalisation of serious criticism by the lumping of it together with the easily discreditable].

In an appearance on ITV’s This Morning programme, David Cameron yesterday suggested that the Establishment was going to stifle investigation into revelations generally to do with abuse of children in care, and complicity to it, by members of the ruling class and their high-profile victim-suppliers. Although Cameron made an appeal for people with accusations regarding paedophilic predation to go to police and to let official commissions come to conclusions, he also deployed a cynical trick of deflection by equating a desire to bring dangerous criminals to justice as an act of homophobia. There soon after followed many statements of support for Cameron’s position from politicians and figures in the corporate-media, as well as denunciation of the TV show host, Phillip Schofield, who had, after qualifying his action with the words “there could have been a paedophile ring amongst the elite of Great Britain”, presented Cameron with a list of suspects.

There could be no other interpretation of the well-meaning Phillip Schofield’s so-called “confrontation” with David Cameron; it should be clear to all that the concern was not about embarrassing a man who may well himself owe a debt of thanks for his career to some of the people on “Schofield’s List”. The internet is awash with allegations, based on witness statements, about a paedophile ring that manipulates politics and corporate-media output to remain in a position to abuse their power, and this situation is the result of the perception that the Establishment is not interested in sorting the truth from the rumour.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman told a media briefing: “If they have got allegations, if they have evidence, they should hand it to the police. We should not have people throwing allegations around and trial by Twitter”. Putting aside the issue of possible police complicity with Establishment paedophile rings, such a statement should be seen as a criticism of the free, unfiltered flow of information that passes between people as hearsay, and even did so by word of mouth before the digital age. Such information has always required individual powers of critique to weigh it (a skill which the British Marxist State is trying to disabuse Britons of). Most people, both then and now, acting in accordance with inherent notions about not making false witness, would be able to see that some incriminating gossip was not proof enough to go to the authorities. However, this did and does not mean that the information will stop circulating.

All this, it seems, is elemental to the gist of Schofield’s complaint, which was this: the investigation into what could be an incredibly significant crime syndicate is being diluted; he referred to multiple enquiries, but there is also the issue of any enquiry’s remit – something that he didn’t mention but which is even more important for obtaining full transparency. Look at this list, said Schofield, and implied that here was the never-ending gossip that is the inevitable result of a culture of cover-up.

Now, in the space of 24 hours, Phillip Schofield has been forced to issue an apology, is defending and distancing himself from being “part of any kind of witch hunt”, has been suspiciously condemned by barnacle-covered fixtures of the British corporate-media and by politicians of every LibLabCon stripe, and a message has been sent to all who are paying attention.

Cameron clearly gave the signal for what was the Establishment’s own ambush to be executed:

Look Phillip, I think Phillip this is really important. There is a danger if we are not careful, that this can turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay.

I’m worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now…. giving me a list of names you have taken off the internet.

The motive clearly was to cow Schofield’s viewers into a distrust of extra-corporate-media sources using the principle of control through political correctness. Soon, others were taking Cameron’s lead.

The ludicrous Richard Littlejohn made a surprisingly energetic effort to ridicule the idea that a paedophile ring could exist at the heart of the Establishment, labelling Labour MP, Tom Watson, – a politician who appears to be very genuine in his desire to obtain justice for the victims of the worst sort of crime – as the “Noncefinder General”; the allusion is of course to a chief witch hunter, and a particularly grimy one. Littlejohn was also guilty of taking up the other cynical ploy that is being utilised to parry enquiry, which is making the issue all about party politics. While simultaneously bashing conspiracy websites, he insisted that “the race is on to claim a Tory scalp; the agenda apparently to smear everyone in the Conservative Party as a child molester — or at least guilty of covering up child molesting”.

Unfortunately for Littlejohn, the evidence that his is a shameful effort at diversion is already in the pudding; some of the names that are circulating are those of Labour politicians and therefore there is no question of political motivation driving the online discussions.

Other reacting journalists were Jonathan Dimbleby, a fellow presenter of Philip Schofield, who described his behaviour as “cretinous”. On Thursday night’s edition of Newsnight, the charge was repeated that interest in bringing paedophiles to justice was a “witch hunt”. Telegraph blogger, Iain Martin, demanded that Schofield be sacked. In his case, a very interesting development occurred whereby the comments section beneath the pertinent blog post was closed down only after 15 comments, which indicates that he had drawn some fierce opposition from readers.

MPs also got involved to attack Phillip Schofield. Rob Wilson, the Conservative MP for Reading East, condemned ITV and wrote to Ed Richards, the boss of broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom, to ask if he will be investigating whether or not ITV was in compliance with section 7 (“Fairness”) of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Policing Minister Damian Green said Mr Schofield’s intervention was a “pretty tasteless and silly stunt” – a meme first introduced by a Downing Street spokesman. London Mayor Boris Johnson branded Schofield’s presentation as a “rum piece of journalism”, with Labour’s Chuka Umunna declaring that it was “foolish and irresponsible”.

From a position of awareness of the already demonstrable crookedness of the British Establishment (based on how it deceives and manipulates to make war in order to make itself wealthy, and how it deceives and manipulates to sell off the sovereignty and liberty of the British People), there should be no surprise at what appears to be a closing of ranks to try and control suspicions of organised horrific abuse by members of the British elite. In other words, if it ever came out that the British ruling class ran a paedophile ring that minions in the corporate-media covered up and even participated in themselves, it would not be new evidence that the British ruling class is a clan of gangsters. As previously stated, this fact can already be demonstrated, and it only takes a willingness to observe in order to be able to see it. Following on from this, then, it should not be too hard for any person who is an awakened observer to understand that the controller of a system of official enquiry can abuse it in a way that will dispel allegations, and allow perpetrators to get away scot free. If the controllers are gangsters, then any justice they say that they are obtaining is a sham.

So, although the current lesson to awakened observers is of the powerlessness, for the time being, of people who are really concerned about unscarred human lives, and who are revolted by abuses of excess inflicted by the self-entitled on innocents, this won’t always be the case, and exercises like Phillip Schofield’s will be very valuable at a later time. For what has happened in the aftermath of this event is that certain people have seemingly aligned themselves for and against, and those against have been facetious and have relied on group-think or used verbal gimmickry when presented with the possibility that there is a terribly dangerous affliction upon society.