Category Archives: Religion

The Hanukkah Hoax and Hatred for Christmas

The Hanukkah Hoax and Hatred for Christmas

Michael Hoffman — Revisionist Review Dec 2016


Christmas is a problematic time for Orthodox rabbis and their followers since it celebrates the birth of the Jesus they despise. The rabbinic term for Christmas Eve is Nittel Nacht, a night they regard as accursed.

There is a rabbinic tradition of refraining from marital relations on Christmas Eve (Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel 5:1). According to Rabbi Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidic Judaism, to conceive a child on Christmas Eve will result in the birth of either an apostate or a pimp (Sefer Baal Shem Tov Vol. 2:43a).

The most prominent rabbinic custom commonly observed on Christmas Eve is to abstain from studying the “Torah” (i.e. Talmud). There is an anxiety that one’s Talmudic study may unwillingly serve as merit for Jesus’ soul, corresponding to the rabbinic teaching that studying the Talmud gives respite to the souls of all the wicked.

Refraining from Talmud study on Christmas Eve also serves as a sign of mourning, corresponding to the rabbinic belief that Jesus “was a false messiah who deceived Israel, worshipped a brick, practiced the magic he learned in Egypt” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 107b); and “was born of a harlot who conceived while she was niddah (menstruating)” (Babylonian Talmud, Kallah 51a).

There is a Talmudic custom of eating garlic on Christmas Eve. The reason for this is attributed to the odor of the garlic, which is reputed to repel the demonic soul of Jesus, which is supposed to wander on Christmas Eve (cf. Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel).

Another rabbinic custom in Orthodox Judaism is to make toilet paper on Christmas Eve as an insult to Jesus, a practice made popular among Hasidic Judaics by the Chiddushei Harim (cf. Reiach Hasade 1:17).

Contrast these grostesque “Nittel Nacht” mockeries with the heavenly story of the Holy Family in Bethlehem: the radiant Virgin and Christ child, humble shepherds, and angels offering glad tidings of peace on earth to men of good will. Frankly, there is no comparison between Talmudic Judaism and true Christianity, and those who attempt to assert that Christianity has ecumenical similarities with the religion of the Talmud are more deluded than the degraded practitioners of Nittel Nacht themselves.

This year Christmas Eve falls on a Saturday which is also Hanukkah. Pray for the Talmudists engaged in their hate-filled anti-Christian bigotry, which the corporate media will not report or expose.

Rabbinic Hanukkah: A man-made tradition of self-worship

Hanukkah is a Talmudic holiday that is a burlesque of the Biblical account of the Maccabees. Hanukkah is celebrated  cursorily  in  the  Israeli state and observed in the United States as competition for Christmas, in order to symbolically assert the supremacy of Klal Yisroel (the Judaic people) over the rest of humanity. The secret of Hanukkah was disclosed by Rabbi Levi Isaac ben Meir of Berdichev (renowned as “the Kedushat Levi” after his eponymous treatise), a prominent eighteenth century halachic(legal) authority. Rabbi Meir revealed a secret known only to a few: that lighting the Hanukkah menorah does not commemorate the victory of the Biblical Maccabees.

The arcane traditional doctrine of Chazal (i.e. the “sages” of the Talmud) concerning Hanukkah is that it commemorates God’s “delight in the Jewish people” themselves, and their vainglorious celebrations. The secret teaching of Hanukkah is that God supposedly provided a mythical eight days of oil not as a means of facilitating a victory, or of guaranteeing the successful completion of a sacred duty, but rather as a sign (halacha osah mitzvah), of His continuing adoration of the Judaic people, which all the rest of us are supposed to emulate, as we do indeed whenever a menorah is erected where a Nativity scene is banned.

Hanukkah is Talmudism’s principal means for pushing the religion of the Talmud into the civic life of our nation in December, at a time when Christianity and its symbols, such as Nativity scenes, are increasingly marginalized or banned completely from the public square, in favor of menorah lightings, “Sanny Claws” and the collective jingle of cash registers. The lower Jesus, Mary and Joseph are made to descend during the Christmas season, the higher the Menorah and the Judaic self-worship it represents rises.

The Hanukkah menorah is not a symbol of a Biblical occurrence.

Hanukkah is a man-made Talmudic tradition intended for self-idolatry. It represents the victory not of the Maccabees over the pagans, but of the selective memory of the rabbis over history. Hanukkah is an enduring commitment to the dark racial and religious conceit of the rabbinic Zionists, disguised as holiday light and cheer for all, and as such it is a kind of abbreviation for and summation of the strange god of self-adulation which is the central idol of the votaries of Orthodox Judaism, and the central violation of the First Commandment of Exodus 20:3: לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני.

Christians are the true sons and daughters of Abraham who celebrate in the publicsquare our gratitude to Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and Sovereign of all Creation. Rejoice! “For unto you is a born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.”

Michael Hoffman is the author of the textbook, Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit; and the editor of The Talmud Tested and Traditions of the Jews.


UN Resolution 2334 Is good For Israel

UN Resolution 2334 Is good For Israel

Gilad Atzmon — Dec 25, 2016

On 23 December the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”.
For once, the USA decided to join the rest of humanity and didn’t veto the resolution.  The message is obvious: if Zionism was a promise to make the Jews people like other people, its failure is colossal. The Jewish State and its lobbies are people like no other. 14 out of 15 members of the UNSC voted against Israel, the US abstained. In the most clear terms, the UNSC denounced the Jewish state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. If Israel would be an ordinary state, as Zionism initially promised,  it would take some time to reflect on the resolution and consider the necessary measures to amend its public image. But as one would expect, the Jewish State did the complete opposite. It took the path of the bully and decided to punish the world.
In his first reaction to the resolution Israeli PM Netanyahu told his followers that the Security Council’s behaviour was “shameful.” He also harshly denounced President Obama’s choice to abstain. A list of American elected spineless characters were quick to cry havoc and promised to correct the damage.  Netanyahu has instructed Israel’s ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to “return to Israel for consultations.” A scheduled visit of the Ukrainian PM in Jerusalem next week was cancelled.  Netanyahu also ordered to block the shekel pipeline to some UN institutions.
But things may be slightly more complicated than they look at first glance.  If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish state, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution. It, de facto, legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders. The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements. Banks and businesses may start to refrain from operating in the occupied territories. Israeli military personnel serving in the occupied territories are about to become subject to the scrutiny of international law. Netanyahu, so it seems, made a fuss about the resolution, but the resolution plays into his hands. It provides him with an opportunity to break the stalemate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows it. President Obama knows it, the president-elect will be advised about as soon as he takes some time off Twitter.
But if the resolution serves Israeli national and security interests, why did Netanyahu react like a bully? The answer is simple. Bibi is a populist. Like president-elect Trump he knows what his people are like. He knows what the Jews and the Israelis seek in their leader. They want their king to celebrate Jewish exceptionalism. They want their master to perform contempt towards the Goyim. PM Netanyahu knows very well that David Ben Gurion (the legendary first Israeli PM)  dismissed the UN, famously saying “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, the only thing that matters is what Jews do.”
It is far from clear whether Ben Gurion was really dismissive of Goyim. However, he was loved by his people for conveying the image as if he did. Bibi follows the same rule. In the public eye, he is dismissive of the UN, he is full with contempt to the nations and Goyim in general. But in practice he knows that the resolution is essential for the existence of the Jewish state. It is probably the last opportunity to scale down the pretentious Zionist dream and make it fit with the reality on the ground.  Let me reassure you, I don’t hold my breath. In reality it is actually the Israelis who don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

MPs criticise Dispatches/Telegraph ‘sting’ as Straw and Rifkind cleared of misconduct – Politics live

Ace News Services


Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen

11.36am BST

Here is a statement from Kevin Barron, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons standards committee, about the standards report. (See 11.19am.)

The committee has not hesitated to take action in the past when a media investigation has revealed the rules have been broken. The debate about whether or not MPs should have outside interests is a legitimate subject for media scrutiny, but the rules currently permit it provided that these are registered in the register of members’ financial interests, and the lobbying rules are not breached. Everything Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind said about their earnings was already published on line in the register of members interests. What was said in the interviews should have been reported accurately and measured against the rules of the House Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind were presumed guilty…

View original post 1,562 more words

Jeremy Corbyn and I are the new Christs

Jeremy Corbyn addresses a rally in Chelmsford last week
Jeremy Corbyn: Words shorn of context, check; beard, check; wool underpants, check… Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

Apparently, the Labour party leadership contest frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, wants to dredge the decomposing corpse of Osama bin Laden from the seabed and then marry it.

And he wants to live with the dead body of Bin Laden in Islington, as if it were his gay-zombie husband, in a sick leftwing pantomime of the heterosexual Christian wedding ceremony. And this arrangement is also a perversion of Islam, which is of course a peaceful religion.

It was Monday morning. I logged off from the Daily Mail website. I only went on the damn thing to check whether migrants were currently a swarm of vermin, or decent loving parents like you or I, or if leggy Israeli model Bar Refaeli would take the plunge in a tiny wraparound oriental miniskirt, and then I got bogged down in all this Corbyn necrophilia stuff. It’s all so confusing.

Later, after I’d dropped the kids at school, I saw the cover of the Daily Express in a newsagent and read that Corbyn had also said it was a tragedy that he and Bin Laden had not met during the latter’s unfairly curtailed life, as Corbyn was sure that after they had become lovers, they would have sponsored a sloth at London zoo.

I raised my eyebrow at the newsagent, a bearded Islamic man in long flowing robes with an inscrutable expression of fundamentalist certainty. But he said that whatever people did behind closed doors was up to them, as long as the sloth had given its consent and was not harmed.

Later, I attended a local radical artists’ and writers’ meeting in the last squatted tower block in Tower Hamlets. We were trying to decide how best to respond creatively to the political implications of austerity, and whether there was a place in our empty gesture for puppetry and dance.

Turning to sip my tea, I looked out of the window to see Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats fly by in a hang glider, with a picture of Jeremy Corbyn kissing Bin Laden printed on its outstretched wings.

Farron’s pained democratic face suggested either constipation, sexualised religious ecstasy, the vain hope that someone would remember that he existed, or some fair and just proportional representation of all three positions.

But a cat by the Museum of Childhood merely looked briefly up from burying its excrement on the lawn, as the desperate Cumbrian wafted himself westward toward Wapping.

The artists and I screwed up our agenda and discussed what we had seen. Of course, these days, rather than being reliant on squinting at the speeding news through the shit-smeared windscreen of newspapers, as it flashes by in full Doppler effect, we all agreed that we can use newfangled internet technology to seek out and then freeze-frame the source of the supposed story.

“Had Corbyn really said the death of Bin Laden was a ‘tragedy?’” asked a painter. “Not really,” offered a young woman tapping at an iPhone. It appeared the veteran leftwinger had used those words, but as part of a forward moving collection of sentences, which contextualised them in the way that sentences in a supporting argument do, in order to lament the lack of due process in Bin Laden’s killing, which Corbyn believed, rightly or wrongly, had ongoing global implications.

Anyone familiar with human language, such as a baby, a dolphin, or a cleverer than average dog, would have experienced such a syntactical procedure before, perhaps involving nouns and verbs and various qualifying phrases.

Only by decontextualising these words entirely were the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the actual genuine leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, able to misrepresent Corbyn so absurdly.

The digitally enhanced, bionic GM news flies past us with such high velocity that within 24 hours the surface of the Corbyn teacup was again millpond still. Only occasionally did the becalmed Fairtrade brew in the chipped Corbyn mug begin to ripple once more, as Tony Blair’s impotent ape footsteps pounded counter-productively on the tea tray around it.

Incoherently outraged, and yet in possession of a megaphone, the wounded and once powerful monkey god lashed out this way and that in a doomed quest for meaning. Or bananas. It’s so difficult to tell since the creature no longer has Alastair Campbell to interpret for him. “We don’t do bananas.”

Like Jeremy Corbyn, I too have experienced the agony of decontextualisation. A DVD of a 2009 standup routine, in which I used depictions of violence against TV motoring journalists as a way of questioning their own right to operate outside accepted taste boundaries, ended with a direct, down the lens, plea to Mail journalists not to decontextualise the images within the 50-minute bit in order to misrepresent me.

But, brilliantly, this did not stop the Daily Mail’s Jan Moir doing exactly that. Moir’s article was swiftly withdrawn from the paper’s website presumably when it became clear that my patented Jan Moir trap, baited with the stinking cheese of assumed outrage, had worked like a dream.

But apart from me, and Jeremy Corbyn, there was another man, wasn’t there, long long ago, whose wise words were often shorn of context by stupid fools, and used against him. And perhaps that man had a beard, and maybe he wore sandals too. And perhaps he too came to lead his lost followers away from false idols towards the promised land.

And this lowly man, would he have gone among the people in fine Raja Daswani shirts like Tony Blair? No, he would have dressed like me, in an XXL T-shirt he got free from an indie band; or like Jeremy Corbyn, in a pair of itchy alpaca wool underpants knitted for him by his mother, as a gesture of solidarity with the Sandinistas. And with all the oppressed peoples of the Earth.

I’m not saying, by the way, that Corbyn and I are the new Christs. But I don’t have any say in what headlines the subeditors and page layout people choose to put on these pieces. I hope that “new Christs” bit isn’t the attention-grabbing phrase that the Observer elects to pull out of this column.

Nobody on Twitter or Comment Is Free reads to the end of the pieces they are complaining about. And a headline like “Jeremy Corbyn And I Are The New Christs” will only serve to convince the Conservative content-provider Tim Montgomerie that Guardian newspapers have finally lost the plot, and send Baron Daniel Finkelstein, OBE, into a tail-chasing tailspin of baronic confusion. What’s the point?

But in such moments of despair I think to myself, WWJCD? What would Jeremy Corbyn do? And the sadness just fades away.

Satan: Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge

Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge


Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Jeremy Corbyn after a Labour party leadership hustings last month.
Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Jeremy Corbyn after a Labour party leadership hustings last month. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

The Labour party is in danger more mortal today than at any point in the over 100 years of its existence. I say this as someone who led the party for 13 years and has been a member for more than 40. The leadership election has turned into something far more significant than who is the next leader. It is now about whether Labour remains a party of government.

Governments can change a country. Protest movements simply agitate against those who govern. Labour in government changed this country. I don’t just mean the minimum wage, civil partnerships, massive investment in public services, lifting millions out of poverty, or peace in Northern Ireland. I mean we changed the nation’s zeitgeist. We forced change on the Tories. We gave a voice to those who previously had none. We led and shaped the public discourse. And, yes, governments do things people don’t like, and in time they lose power. That is the nature of democracy.

But in a thousand ways, small or large, which anyone in government can describe, being in power can make a difference to those we represent. The reality is that in the last three months the Labour party has been changed. Its membership has virtually doubled. Some will have joined in shock at the election result; many more are now joining specifically to support the Jeremy Corbyn campaign; some with heavy organisation behind them. These last two groups are not many in number, relative to the population. But, relative to the membership of a political party, they’re easily big enough to mount a partial takeover. The truth is they don’t really think it matters whether Labour wins an election or not. Some actually disdain government.

So this is directed to longstanding members and those who have joined but without an agenda. They’re still a majority and they have to exercise leadership now to save the party. It doesn’t matter whether you’re on the left, right or centre of the party, whether you used to support me or hate me. But please understand the danger we are in.

The party is walking eyes shut, arms outstretched, over the cliff’s edge to the jagged rocks below. This is not a moment to refrain from disturbing the serenity of the walk on the basis it causes “disunity”. It is a moment for a rugby tackle if that were possible.

This is not the 1980s. This is by many dimensions worse and more life threatening. Michael Foot was never going to win a general election in the UK. But Michael was a towering figure who had been a major cabinet member in the previous Labour government. Tony Benn was never going to be PM; but he was a huge political character who again had long experience of government.

The unions in the 1980s were, by a majority, a force for stability and sense. There were constituencies so solidly Labour that nothing could shake them from their loyalty. The party that assembled after the 1983 defeat knew its direction. Maybe we didn’t know how far or how fast, but we knew, and the new leader Neil Kinnock knew, that we had to put aside the delusion that we had lost two elections because we weren’t leftwing enough and start to modernise. And our objective was to return to government.

What we’re witnessing now is a throwback to that time, but without the stabilisers in place. The big unions, with the exception of the most successful in recent times, USDAW, are in the grip of the hard left. And the people do not have that same old-time loyalty.

If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won’t be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation. If he wins the leadership, the public will at first be amused, bemused and even intrigued. But as the years roll on, as Tory policies bite and the need for an effective opposition mounts – and oppositions are only effective if they stand a hope of winning – the public mood will turn to anger. They will seek to punish us. They will see themselves as victims not only of the Tory government but of our self-indulgence.

Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t offer anything new. This is literally the most laughable of all the propositions advanced by his camp. Those of us who lived through the turmoil of the 80s know every line of this script. These are policies from the past that were rejected not because they were too principled, but because a majority of the British people thought they didn’t work. And by the way, they were rejected by electorates round the world for the same reasons.

Even more so today, they do not think their challenges can be met by old-fashioned state control as the way to personal or social empowerment; they do not think breaking up Nato unilaterally is sensible; and they realise that a party without a serious deficit-reduction plan is not in these times a serious contender to govern them.

I don’t doubt that his campaign has sparked interest. Why wouldn’t it? There is something fascinating about watching a party wrestle with its soul. It doesn’t mean it is a smart place to be. And, yes, some young people will be enthused. Many Young Labour members were enthused in 1997 and are enthused by modernising Labour policy today.

The tragedy is that immense damage has already been done by a policy debate that, with some honourable exceptions, is defined by its irrelevance to the challenges of the modern world. We should be discussing how technology should revolutionise public services; how young people are not just in well-paid, decent jobs but also have the chance to start businesses that benefit their communities; how Britain stays united and in Europe; what reform of welfare and social care can work in an era of radical demographic change.

Instead we’re talking about bringing back Clause IV. There is a vast array of policy questions to answer. We’re not even asking them right now. We know where this ends. We have been here before. But this sequel will be a lot scarier than the original. So write it if you want to. Go over the edge if you want. But think about those we most care about and how to help them before you do.

Head of MI5 Child Abuse Child Abuse “Cover-Up” Allegation

Head of MI5 Child Abuse Child Abuse “Cover-Up” Allegation

Sky News — July 23, 2015

Pictured in London before his death in Jan 2015, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan was also among the accused . Click to enlarge

Police should be able to investigate child abuse allegations against high-profile politicians “without fear or uncertainty” of how high up in Government they can go.

David Cameron said police should be able to take action on any new information and urged anyone who knew anything about “these terrible crimes against children and young people” to come forward.

He spoke after it was disclosed that the former head of MI5 urged the Government to keep quiet about allegations of child sex abuse made against a senior MP in the 1980s.

The illuminating detail has come to light after the Government was forced to reveal that secret files exist that name key Westminster figures in the 1970s and 80s – following months of requests from Sky News.

It has now emerged that the then director general of MI5, Sir Antony Duff, looked into allegations against one MP in 1986 but told the cabinet secretary at the time that “the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger”.

According to a report by Peter Wanless, head of the NSPCC, and Richard Whittam QC, released by the Government on Wednesday Sir Antony’s comments showed the “risk to children is not considered at all”.

Mr Cameron said: ” … the police on their part should then follow the evidence without any fear and without any uncertainty about how high they can go – they can go as high as they like.

“These are terrible crimes and that is why we have set up the Goddard inquiry, which will get to the bottom of a lot of problems in the past. These are still live investigations and if there is intelligence or information then get it to the police and the police where appropriate should take action.”

Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam last year released a review of the loss of hundreds of Home Office files relating to child abuse allegations made against key public figures in the 1980s.

However, they have more recently been passed government papers that had not previously been made available to them and in their new report said the correspondence showed “that issues of crimes against children, particularly the rights of the complainant, were given considerably less serious consideration than would be expected today”.

The report discloses that in response to claims by two different people that an MP “has a penchant for small boys”, Sir Anthony accepted “his word that he does not”.

Sky’s Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said: “(Sir Antony Duff’s) reaction to that does seem to show either a rather cavalier disregard for the safety of children or, at worst, a desire to cover something up.”

On Wednesday, Sky News revealed that four key Westminster figures had been named in secret papers.

It was previously reported that the documents either could not be found or do not exist but Joey Jones said it was becoming increasingly clear that the opposite is true.

One of the accused, Sir Peter Hayman. Click to enlarge

The papers that emerged on Wednesday feature details about Margaret Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former home secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and former minister Sir William van Straubenzee.

They also reveal that the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland was at the heart of further correspondence involving the security services and that former intelligence officer Colin Wallace raised concerns about abuse there.

The four named men have passed away and the detailed contents of the papers have not been revealed, but they are to be passed to the Child Abuse Inquiry headed up by Justice Lowell Goddard.

In January Sky News forced the Government to release the details of a file prepared for Margaret Thatcher’s office on the ‘unnatural sexual’ behaviours of one of the men, Sir Peter Hayman.

In response, the NSPCC suggested that it showed the government at the time did not take children’s safety seriously.

An NSPCC statement said: “This is a clear illustration, as the original review revealed, of the misplaced priorities of those operating at the highest levels of government where people simply weren’t thinking of crimes against children and the consequences of those crimes in a way that we would expect them to.

“It reiterates the need for an inquiry that will explore this in death.”

The Child Abuse Inquiry has got under way but is not expected to report back until 2020.

Tony Blair slams ‘reactionary’ Labour leadership candidate Corbyn

Anytime I read anything this criminal utters, I feel as if I’ve been smeared with dogshit


The Ugly Truth

Britain's former Prime Minister and former Labour Party leader, Tony BlairChoosing Corbyn ‘is like going back to Star Trek or something,’ Blair says in speech; new poll put socialist MP known for anti-Israel stances far ahead of other candidates.

View original post 423 more words

Janner child sex abuse allegations: private legal challenges explained

The Rape of Justice

Guy Adams, Sam Marsden — Daily Mail April 24, 2015

Lord Janner chaired the Holocaust educational Trust and was Vice President of the World Jewish Congress. Click to enlarge

The most damning evidence yet of how the Establishment hid Lord Janner’s alleged child abuse can be revealed today.

Police and social workers were told more than 20 years ago that the peer took a vulnerable boy to Labour Party offices and Parliament before molesting him in his marital bed.

A ten-page witness statement details the alleged victim’s harrowing ordeal at the hands of Janner. But all references to the politician were removed from the child’s social services file, according to legal papers obtained by the Mail.

A children’s home manager told bosses she feared he was having sex with the child but her concerns were ‘swept under the carpet’.

The scale of the cover-up helps explains how the former Labour MP repeatedly escaped justice.

The Director of Public Prosecutions says there was sufficient evidence to charge Janner with 22 offences of paedophilia against nine children. But Alison Saunders outraged campaigners by ruling the 86-year-old should not face court because he has dementia. The latest proof of the Establishment’s strenuous efforts to protect one of its own came as it emerged that:

· Janner hosted at least four private banquets as well as dinners and afternoon teas at the House of Lords after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s;
· A dossier about the peer is among 114 files on child sex abuse that have gone missing from the Home Office;
· Mrs Saunders has admitted that having dementia is ‘not a bar’ to being prosecuted.

The newly-uncovered documents from the early 1990s outlining Janner’s alleged abuse will pile fresh pressure on the authorities.

In a detailed ten-page witness statement, a married father accused the politician of sexually abusing him for nearly two years when he was a teenager at a Leicestershire children’s home in the 1970s. He alleged that the former Leicester MP took him to party headquarters, to his constituency surgeries and to the Houses of Parliament. Janner is accused of sexually assaulting the then 14-year-old at his London house in December 1974 while his wife and children were away.

The alleged victim claimed they had a ‘full sexual relationship’ for nearly two years, with the assaults taking place at the peer’s home, in swimming pools and at a Leicester hotel. Janner was diagnosed with dementia in 2009 but went on to host several hundred people at the taxpayer’s expense in the Lords over the next three years, official records show.

His role organising high-profile parliamentary events for Jewish groups until April 2012 raises further questions about his health. Mrs Saunders defended her decision not to bring charges against Janner, saying she was surprised at the political backlash she has faced.

The chief prosecutor stood by her ruling that the case should not go to a special fact-finding hearing where a jury would determine if the allegations against the peer were true.

‘Dementia in itself isn’t a bar to either a trial or to a trial of the facts, but you have to look at – and the law is very clear about this – is there a need to have a trial on the facts for the public protection?’ she told the BBC. ‘In many of the cases where we do use that procedure, it’s because there’s an ongoing risk to the public. Again the medical evidence was very clear in this case: there was no ongoing risk.’

Janner’s family have issued a statement insisting he was ‘entirely innocent of any wrongdoing’. A Labour Party spokesman said: ‘In the light of these very serious allegations, Lord Janner has been suspended from the Labour Party.’

The stench grows: The Director of Public Prosecutions has ruled Lord Janner should not face sex crimes charges – read this devastating report and decide if she’s right

By Guy Adams — Daily Mail

The middle of the night at a large family home in one of North London’s most genteel residential neighbourhoods. In one of the upstairs bedrooms, a teenage boy lies awake. It’s eerily quiet, and he’s a long, long way from the children’s institution that has in recent years been home.

The house is dark and shadowy. Scary, even. He feels frightened, confused and very much alone.

But this boy is not alone. In the gloom, he picks out an unmistakable figure shuffling across the carpet. It’s the middle-aged father-of-three who owns this house where he is staying.

Continues …

Leading QC Urged Lord Janner Be Charged


Untitled If the cap fits…

The director of public prosecutions rejected the advice of one of the country’s principal authorities on sex offences when she ruled that Lord Janner of Braunstone should not be charged with child abuse.

Eleanor Laws, QC, was leading counsel to Leicestershire police’s investigation into the veteran Labour peer and recommended that he be put on trial despite his age and dementia.

There is recent precedent — Michael Collingwood was convicted in his absence by Exeter crown court in 2010 of abusing six young girls. Like Lord Janner the defendant was suffering from advanced dementia.

Alison Saunders ruled this week that because of Lord Janner’s illness it would not be in the public interest to prosecute despite there being sufficient evidence to charge him with 22 offences against nine alleged victims over three decades.

Mrs Saunders’s decision, which was communicated to police at the start of…

View original post 67 more words



In the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in London, Tulip Siddiq (above) is the Labour Party’s candidate in the May 2015 General election.

Retiring Labour MP Glenda Jackson won Hampstead and Kilburn with a majority of only 42 in 2010.

Currently, Tulip Siddiq is in charge of Culture and Communities on Camden Council, the local council that includes Hampstead.

Sheikh Hasina

Tulip Siddiq’s aunt is Sheikh Hasina the Prime Minister of Bangladesh .

Tulip Siddiq’s grandfather is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a former Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
Like many leaders, Sheikh Hasina’s family has been linked to financial corruption and human rights abuses.

Tulip Siddiq: Bangladeshi Dynasties.

Reportedly, the CIA would like to exercise greater control of Bangladesh.

Tulip Siddiq is a former aide to Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.
On 2013, Tulip Siddiq met Russia’s President Putin when she was in Moscow with Sheikh Hasina at the signing of billion-dollar arms deal.
Tulip Siddiq has worked for Philip Gould Associates, [11] Save the Children, MPs Oona KingHarry Cohen and Tessa Jowell.[6] and the Obama  campaign in the USA[1]

fug’s blog.

In 2013, Tulip Siddiq married Christian William St John Percy,[33] a Mandarin speaking strategy consultant with a background in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.[34]

Tulip Siddiq has been a school governor at Beckford Primary School, Richard Cobden Primary School[27] Emmanuel Primary School and Granville Plus Nursery[29].

Babies rescued from child traffickers.
Bangladesh is linked to the trafficking of babies.

Maajid Nawaz with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. Picture: Polly Hancock.

CCTV footage has emerged of Hampstead and Kilburn’s Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate receiving a lap dance at a strip club in east London.

A typical UK politician.

VIDEO: Hampstead and Kilburn Lib Dem Maajid Nawaz filmed having private lap dance

Simon Marcus on the right. (pic credit: Jonathan Goldberg)

The Conservative Party candidate in Hampstead is Simon Marcus who had his barmitzvah at the New London Synagogue in Hampstead.
His grandparents were communists.

Meet the candidates.