Direct Democracy proposal for IT, Communications and Data Protection
This page details four separate but related events;
1. David Cameron and Patrick Rock's decision to block the PA's UNICEF-backed Inet Protect strategy [Oct. 2013].
2. David Cameron's cover-up of Patrick Rock's sexual misconduct and arrest for paedophilia [Feb. 2014].
3. David Cameron's decision to protect Tony Blair's child abuse cover-up, which started in 1998.
4. Tony Blair's blocking of our child protection strategy in 2001 [eventually ran by the FBI as Operation Ore].
All four events occurred well before the announcement to launch any investigations into establishment-led child abuse cover-ups and therefore, when no politician ever thought they would be investigated regarding child abuse cover-ups. Also of paramount importance is that during our submission of Inet Protect in October 2013, David Cameron was intentionally given the false impression that we were not willing or able to publish his response to Tony Blair's decision to block our on-line child protection strategy in 2001 and therefore, also to our related request to implement Inet Protect. He would have known that Alex Romane [the PA founder and a direct witness to events 1, 3 and 4] had signed the Official Secrets Act in early 2001 but, he wouldn't have know that Alex had also then broken it in 2001 and, that Alex had already decided to publish everything through this page as soon as he got a response, and to deal with any legal recourse after.
However, two years after publishing this page and of informing the Electoral Commission and other legal bodies that we had done so, the chair of the investigation ordered prosecutions for witnesses who break the Official Secrets Act to be waived and neither David Cameron, Tony Blair or Alex Romane would have foreseen this.
In conclusion, we believe that David Cameron blocked Inet Protect because it would have ended mass surveillance [now a global industry], publicised and ended Tony Blair's child abuse cover-up and, publicised a rival reform party that has been blacked-out since 2010. In addition, with both Labour and the Conservatives in bed with Google [a potential Inet Protect partner] for decades, Inet Protect never stood a chance.
As of November 2016 and due to voter's on-going refusal to lawfully reform to true democracy, unelected PM Theresa May decided ALONE that personnel at ALL levels from the following bodies can access ALL of your internet activity as and when they like and, that they can then share it with up to 850,000 intelligence and intelligence sub-contractors in the US. It should be of great concern to voters that the British government is the ONLY Western government that appoints a Home Office [or equivalent] Minister to decide alone who should be surveilled with focus [instead of these decision being made by the judiciary - as in the US] but, we acknowledge that while most voters don't respect their own right to privacy ["I have nothing to hide"], that this will NOT be of concern.
Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Secret Intelligence Service
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
An ambulance trust in England
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
• Intel's success confirms mass untargeted survailance is unviable
• Cameron is Blair's secret prodigy
• Blair shares templates with Cameron
• Cameron's template addiction gaining traction
• Cameron now trying to restrict FOIA
• Cameron accused of "governing from the gloom" over bid to scrap FOIA
• Cameron does a Clinton - uses unlawful protocol to hide public-owned comms
• Google - now an intelligence agency
• Facebook secretly records their users' environment via their phone mic
In response to our direct requests, the FBI, CIA and NSA have failed to cite a single technical fault with Inet Protect but because they serve a government and not people, they are not allowed to publicly endorse Inet Protect. Without true democracy, security agencies can't run Inet Protect and they can't even tell you about it and so, children around the world continue to be made vulnerable to on-line abuse due ONLY to government policy, and NOT due to the lack of a solution. While deluded voters continue to believe that politicians are qualified [even though they are elected instead] and, that politicians have children's best interests at heart, they will never vote for true democracy and so ultimately, it is now parents who are responsible for their children's on-line experiences.
We believe that dilemmas of this nature are among the reasons for why multiple former FBI and CIA chiefs continue to call for a "peaceful, non-violent revolution."
If politicians staunchly refuse to protect the right of children to know of something as basic as their true parentage [for example], why would they care about other forms of child abuse? All parties refuse to acknowledge the hundreds of child psychologists across the country who have for decades, demonstrated the dangers to children of being lied to about their true parentage. Demonstrative of his attitude towards child welfare, David Cameron actually aids abuse - civilian volunteers will now be investigating sex abuse cases instead of the police and, he has spent UK tax payer's money supporting the FSA while they openly who use a Saudi-issued child rape fatwa against pro-Assad families across Syria.
• PA direct democracy comment: No regard for child welfare - Cameron's policies proliferate child abuse
• PA direct democracy proposal: Pornography, erotica and rape to be defined within the sex education curriculum
In our belief, cover-ups and inaction regarding child abuse amount to seeing a child being abused in the street and walking by, leaving that child to its abuser. In doing nothing to prevent the abuse, such people assist the abuser and in doing so, they are akin to the abuser [one of the same]. By the time that we are aware of something, we are responsible. The only options we have from that moment onwards are between denying this responsibility, or acting upon it.
Inet Protect Strategy
• Prevents child abuse and bullying via social networks, chat rooms and web-based email
• Prevents terrorist recruitment via social networks, chat rooms and web-based email
• Prevents fraud-related activity via social networks, chat rooms and web-based email
• Prevents privately-owned child abuse, terrorist and fraud websites
• Maintains anonymity until after criminality is reported and confirmed
• Prevents the 'need' for mass state surveillance and censorship
In 2013, our UNICEF-supported Inet Protect strategy was submitted directly to David Cameron and to various members of his inner circle but its implementation was blocked without a single reason being stated and, David Cameron is aware of our previous history and success regarding the creation of internet-based child protection strategies. While in communication with directors at Yahoo in early 2014, we invited them [and many others] to fault Inet Protect on technical grounds but they [along with Twitter] couldn't so, we can only assume that David Cameron blocked Inet Protect for political reasons. The fact that both Yahoo and Twitter also refused to support and publicise Inet Protect while at the same time disclosing concerns about abuse is a separate issue and, our requests for Twitter to verify our account have since been declined without any stated reason.
• Until mid-2016, Twitter protected verified accounts while leaving everyone else vulnerable
• After refusing Inet Protect, Twitter shuts-down Anonymous for 'harassing' ISIS
• Sara Payne quits Twitter after a decade of abuse
• Sarah Donohue; "Adult cyber bullying made me cancel my wedding."
• Footballer Jamie Vardy's 1 year old daughter threatened with rape tweets
• Teachers bullied and threatened by pupils and parents
• Blogger's life threatened - just for saying that she didn't want children!
• Facebook makes payout - girl aged just 11 was exposed to sexual predators
• Scam that targets Facebook would have been prevented with Inet Protect
• Killer driver posted photos of victim's body on Twitter
• Teen killed herself after boyfriend threatened to expose private messages
• 14 year old boy groomed and murdered
• Pro-rape groups thriving on Twitter
• New laws [sticky tape] won't help 'swamped' police - Inet Protect needed
It is estimated that 75% of UK children under 13 and 75% of US children under 8 now have social network accounts.
A Bestvalid fraud victim said; “I don’t feel like the police are able to protect anyone from online fraud. If they were, these types of sites would not exist in the first place.” and she is absolutely correct but, what victims and voters don't know is that their freely-elected politicians have agendas which to them, are of much higher priority and, that would be have been compromised if David Cameron hadn't blocked Inet Protect in 2013.
Inet Protect is a multi-network solution and as such, it becomes unviable for abusers [of any nature] to use anonymous currencies and underground [dark web] websites - it is the method to prevent [not the will to prevent] that drives abusers underground and regarding on-line terrorism, hactivists and others are now cleaning-up after David Cameron's decision to block Inet Protect because with Inet Protect, there would be nothing for anyone to have to clean-up.
• EFC's latest strategy results in disaster after using remnants of PA's 2001 strategy - in 2015!
• Chief constable; "A real increase in abuse taking place, much of it facilitated by the internet."
• Cameron lets rapists and child abusers go free if they apologise - offers Restorative Justice without prison!
• Children under 10 committing sex crimes
• School children in England are now among the world's unhappiest
Add to this that David Cameron's long-term close friend and unelected Conservative Deputy Head of Government Policy Patrick Rock [who was implementing an inferior strategy that uses web filters] was himself investigated regarding sexual misconduct towards female colleagues and then later arrested [Feb. 2014] on charges relating to paedophilia and, that David Cameron covered-up news about Patrick's misconduct and arrest, and it becomes clear that David Cameron prioritises protecting his inner-circle criminal friends and keeping quiet about the PA and true direct democracy, over any desire to protect children.
PA direct democracy video: Cameron protected paedophile friend while blocking Inet Protect
PA direct democracy video: Cameron lied - disclosing friend's arrest would NOT compromise investigation
PA direct democracy video: CEOP's Jim Gamble states truth of Cameron's web filter child abuse PR stunt
PA direct democracy video: CEOP's Jim Gamble gives wake-up call to Cameron over on-line child abuse
PA direct democracy video: Cameron's web filter 'technology' stopped working in 1995
• NCA boss corrupt - helped Cameron to silence criminal friend's arrest [Met blocked]
• After Cameron blocked Inet Protect, MPs recognise that cyber-bullying harms children but do nothing
• Thanks to Cameron, parents can no longer protect their children
• Cameron now Parliament's fixer - openly protects child abusing MPs, lords and bishops
• Cameron would have known that Freud [author of 'Bedroom Tax' policy] was a prolific paedophile
• Suffolk and Met police covered-up Freud-Maddy link for over two years
• Officer who abused boys for decades was protected by West Midlands Police - not even disciplined!
• Cameron's family, fellow Tories and the church conspired to kill-off abuse investigation
• NHS whistle-blower was defamed, lost chance to have a family, and is now in debt
• Tory-led 'enquiry' into young bullying victim separates parents for interviews - as if they were suspects!
• Cameron at it again; covered-up 4,000 ill people who died within weeks of being forced to work
• Cameron at it again: covered-up activist's death at hands of Tory bully who he then promoted
• Haringey Council used £900,000 of tax payer's cash to fund child abuse cover-up
It is no 'coincidence' that a second unelected adviser to David Cameron [Doug Richard] was arrested for child rape less than a year after Patrick Rock was arrested and, that since 2012 and that in an open demonstration of support for paedophiles and child murderers, David Cameron uses UK tax payer's money to fund, train and equip the FSA in Syria while they commit fatwa-enabled child rape against both Christian and Muslim Syrian children [a war crime]. The £5 M of public money that William Hague wasted on hosting his anti-rape in war summit in 2015 while in the knowledge that the FSA use this fatwa is the ultimate hypocrisy and in our opinion, co-host Angelina Jolie should have done her research before allowing herself to be duped and exploited by those who directly fund rape as a weapon of war in other people's countries.
PA direct democracy video: Cameron-backed Syrian FSA raping women and children using fatwa
PA direct democracy video: 'Cleric' issues fatwa allowing Cameron-backed Syrian FSA to rape children
PA direct democracy video: Cameron arms countries government says violates human rights
Two years after our policy proposal to teach children about pornography, erotica and rape was blocked by freely-elected 'problem solvers' in Parliament, it was disclosed that pupil-on-pupil sex attacks in UK schools had shot through the roof and, that on-line porn is the overriding influence.
GCHQ's attempt at on-line child protection is distributed in the form of an app and as well as not being produced and released until over a year after David Cameron blocked Inet Protect, its purpose is to teach children how to encrypt their personal data - which strikes us as absolutely bizarre. There is no safety advice and it fails to prevent bullying, abuse and blackmail and while David Cameron requires that GCHQ operatives break the law while being leased to the US NSA, we would never recommend downloading anything from any government website [ref; Angry Birds].
In response to David Cameron's policies, we have released instructions for how to 100% protect your children's systems against hacks and intrusion from ALL state, corporate and private spying programmes via the use of a home-made Closed Circuit for as little as £5:
• PA's Closed Circuit advice ignored by freely-elected 'reps' - council gets hit [obviously]!
• On-line safety info the government and social networks refuse to publish
• Tech Insider omits info re; 100% intrusion block [closed circuit] protocol
• Google's token 'safety' advice is just as void as GCHQ's app
• Google's 'solution' is an admission of complete failure - ISIS can't be forced off Open Web
"Google can't even cross-check an IP address so as to verify whether a user has already signed its search engine Terms and Conditions or not and, this is why users have to continually agree to them."
- Alex Romane
We believe that the primary reasons for why Inet Protect was blocked were so as to not inadvertently promote the PA and true democracy and, because a web without terrorists is a web that doesn't need mass state surveillance and at any cost, David Cameron wants to maintain inefficient blanket surveillance of all citizens instead of targeted surveillance of suspects only - even if it means that in reality, terrorism and child abuse are left to thrive and children left to suffer. This is confirmed by the intensification of state spying being prompted ONLY by terrorism and not by child abuse and, only after David Cameron blocked Inet Protect. In addition, without Inet Protect, all of the social networks now have the perfect excuse to censor their user's material at any time [as AOL and MSN have been doing secretly since early 2012].
In 2010, we published information about censorship, spying and Prism but, no action was taken against us because the US and UK governments didn't want to acknowledge its existence and, because they couldn't prove that we broke any laws in how we obtained our information about it. However, our information [and more] was later confirmed through Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013.
PA direct democracy video: GCHQ and NSA can't prevent terrorist web recruitment
PA direct democracy video: David Cameron leased GCHQ to US so as to secretly target ALL UK citizens
PA direct democracy video: David Cameron allowed GCHQ and NSA to share data on innocent civilians
PA direct democracy video: GCHQ unlawfully rigging web polls - Chief lied to MP's Committee
PA direct democracy video: GCHQ chief lied - US NSA sifts UK haystack then gives remnants to GCHQ after
PA direct democracy video: Confirmed; Hague lied for Cameron about GCHQ's criminality
• Gloucester Police and GCHQ covered-up child porn on spy's computer
• GCHQ lied to MP's Committee in 2013 - breaks laws upon Cameron's request
• QCHQ chief says Facebook and Twitter aid terrorism so privacy must be compromised
Again, missed by the intelligence agencies but noticed by the PA, HSBC's speech recognition security system can be easily overridden by using a full-frequency range sampler with target voice capturing and, while MPs and 'experts' block strategies created even by those who have been endorsed by the FBI, expect only gimmicks and prepare for more attacks.
• Email to David Cameron re; Inet Protect and Tony Blair's blocking of our 2001 strategy
Sent directly to David Cameron and close colleagues on the 2nd Oct. 2013 via both private and public channels and therefore, available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Cameron and Blair running joint child abuse cover-up
Before the Panorama programme that reported about the BBC and Jimmy Savile was broadcast , the mainstream media [including seven national newspapers] refused to report anything about it - just as they refuse to report about David Cameron and Tony Blair's joint child abuse cover-up now.
• Over 100 BBC personel assisted Savile's child abuse via inaction
• After Savile, inherently abusive BBC ensures new whistle-blowers suffer
• BBC's "culture of child abuse and fear" let Savile and Hall abuse children for decades
• BBC 'learning lessons' is recycled PR - promotes paedophile on TV and Radio for months!
• BBC child abuse culture no longer a PA conspiracy theory
On the 13th Oct. 2016, a leading MP's Chief of Staff was arrested for rape and despite the attack being alleged to have happened on-site in Parliament, the BBC didn't cover it until the 18th Oct. and, on its website ONLY!
In early 2001 and while taking a break from the music industry due to illness, Alex Romane created and submitted another internet-based child protection strategy but it was blocked by the state for "political reasons" and in Alex's belief, due directly to Tony Blair's efforts to protect criminal banks, Labour Party members and other establishment members from arrest for crimes relating to child abuse. Prior to submitting his strategy, Alex had signed the Official Secrets Act but since 2001, he has consistently and openly broken this and, the media has consistently refused to inform their audiences about any of this. Alex's witnesses to his attendance include MI5 [who are banned by law from reporting the crimes of MPs and peers], Scotland Yard Anti-Terrorist Division and, the agency that alerted Alex about the government's desires to establish a specialist cyber crimes unit [now known as CEOP] and that led to his meeting and strategy submission in 2001.
• Labour MP accuses Labour's Jeremy Corbyn of aiding historical cover-ups
• Paedophile Information Exchange campaigner who joined to back Corbyn sent to knock doors!
• Labour's Harriet Harman assisted Paedophile Information Exchange
While studying the links between various organised crime portals, Alex discovered how banks were equipping criminals [including paedophiles] with merchant trading accounts that enabled them to use on-line payment facilities. Using these facilities, they were then able to generate a revenue for themselves and the banks by selling membership subscriptions to child pornography websites that they themselves administered. Part of Alex's strategy revolved around accessing various networks [legally or other] so as to obtain personal information about who these merchants were, who their paying subscribers were, and where they all lived.
Friends of Alex's at the time who were hackers years before the web was invented had created automated hacking tools for Alex to use specifically for this purpose and, Alex himself was a self-taught ZX Spectrum programmer at the age of 13 . During further education, he qualified in Computer Science and Micro Electronics so as to be able to maintain his recording studio himself and to use as a back-up career and by pulling upon all of this, he created and submitted his strategy [in-person] but as soon as he mentioned how criminals were using on-line banking facilities, the conversation and the strategy were terminated for "political reasons" and, the strategy itself wasn't even explored.
Contrary to some conspiracy theories, Alex's 2001 strategy was NOT blocked by any intelligence or secret service agency and as far as we know, Tony Blair did NOT use a non-disclosure order [of any type] to gag the media regarding the reporting of convicted Labour Party and establishment members during this period. If no order was made, we suspect that the media was silent because in 1997 and for the first time ever, Rupert Murdoch had personally and publicly endorsed the Labour Party in a general election and so after the first arrest in 1998, he could have chosen to operate a news blackout simply to protect his own reputation. The reasons for why the BBC and Channel 4 [a BBC division] could have operated a blackout could have been to avoid provoking parliamentarians because at that time, many of them knew about the BBC's own dark parallel culture but had not gone public about it. However, ITV was perfectly placed to report on these convictions and we question why ITV didn't report anything - especially if there wasn't a non-disclosure order in-place.
To summarise; with or without a non-disclosure order or the distribution of a D-Notice form the government, a mainstream news blackout of convicted Labour Party and establishment members benefited Rupert Murdoch and the BBC as much as it benefited Tony Blair, the Labour Party and the entire establishment. In early 2015, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith expressed frustration to the speaker of the House of Commons regarding the number of D-Notices he was encountering as he tried to make related enquiries within various Parliamentary offices and, this seems to confirm that Tony Blair did issue D-Notices.
• Mainstream media blocking the People's Administration direct democracy party
• BBC journalist confirms complete pro-Cameron political bias; "Trust nothing you read or watch."
• BBC journalist; "I am ashamed to call myself a Journalist."
• BBC's John Simpson; "MSM is grotesquely selective."
• BBC Silent: Serving coalition minister is accused of child abuse
• UK-relevant news NOT reported by the BBC
• BBC - political history exposed [Corbet Report]
Since publishing the names and crimes of many of these convicted establishment members [below], we have NOT been threatened with legal action by any party and, the UK Electoral Commission itself has been fully informed and has witnessed that we are disclosing our evidence regarding both the 2001 and 2013 strategy blocks and these names, into the public domain via this page. This confirms that either there is no order in-place or, that no party wants to risk further exposure and validation of our claims and evidence.
Since 1998, multiple Labour Party activists, members, councillors, school governors, mayors, lords and MPs were convicted of horrific sex crimes against women and children [some even involving animals] but through media blackouts and through blocking on-line child protection strategies, Tony Blair had erected a state-wide shield which Alex's strategy would have inadvertently penetrated. We believe that Tony Blair invaded Iraq in 2003 ONLY because Saddam Hussein stopped selling Iraqi oil through the US Dollar in 2000 [the world's reserve currency] and, because it provided a great distraction from the arrest of establishment figures [his friends and colleagues] in the UK on charges relating to child abuse and child pornography because in 2002, the FBI picked-up on what Alex had discovered and ran a scaled-down version of his strategy.
It was known as Operation Ore and it became the world's largest joint police operation to-date and led to approx. 70,000 arrests and multiple suicides of criminals [some of them police personnel] and during our submission of Inet Protect in 2013, David Cameron was made aware of all of this. He was shown how the state's decision to block Alex's 2001 strategy led directly to millions of children around the world being abandoned to their abusers and Alex specifically asked David not to repeat the previous decision that amounted to such a massive global proliferation of child abuse. However, while under the false impression that we were not legally able or willing to publicly disclose anything about what happened in 2001 and therefore also anything about our request to implement Inet Protect, David Cameron chose to block it. In addition, he also refuses to launch an investigation into Tony Blair's decision in 2001 to deliberately leave abused children in danger by blocking Alex's strategy on political grounds and, he refuses to submit our information to the enquiry into historic establishment-led child abuse cover-ups. In our belief, him making these decisions after working directly with Tony Blair at Ten Downing Street during 2012-2013 was not a coincidence because unknown to most, career-obsessed David Cameron was to some extent Tony Blair's prodigy.
One of the components that the FBI omitted from their own strategy was Alex's idea to prosecute the banks involved as accomplices and to implement laws that forced financial service providers to vet their clients upon application and, it is worth noting that when the FBI initially launched their investigation, the banks involved refused to co-operate to any degree and it was only after the FBI had secured court orders against them that Operation Ore could begin.
If this component had been used in the FBI's strategy, Mastercard and Visa would NOT have been able to generate a revenue for themselves by assisting pimp websites [some generating up to $9 M per month] in 2015 but due to public ignorance, both of these companies were able to re-frame their 'change of heart' as a strike-back against on-line sexually-oriented criminality.
"The spat in 2016 between the FBI and Apple regarding gaining access to data on a mobile phone used by terrorists reveals much about current hidden agendas. The FBI is demanding that Apple writes and submits generic unlocking software but due to marketing reasons dressed-up as privacy concerns, Apple is refusing. The simple solution that both have covered-up is for Apple to write and own the unlocking software, and for the FBI to obtain court orders on a case-by-case basis that would require Apple to unlock phones and to retrieve data on the FBI's behalf. This way, the FBI could achieve its aims without needing ownership of Apple's unlocking software. The other aspect this reveals is that the FBI is becoming less-competent and, all of this confirms that Inet Protect would be of massive benefit. However, Western governments will NEVER implement anything that retires their desire for mass untargeted surveillance - even if it does prevent on-line fraud, sex and terror abuse. I'm amazed that the FBI failed to learn that their 'hack' method would automatically lock them out, when this 'intel' is openly published in the iCloud's Terms and Conditions. In 2016, it also became apparent that the CIA, NSA and the FBI had all left NASA vulnerable by not suggesting closed networks for password storage - despite the PA publishing instructions regarding closed networks in 2014.
It should be of concern to voters that a music producer who dabbles in security technology has a pattern of being years ahead of Western intelligence agencies; submission of the FBI's Operation Ore in 2001, notice of mobile device bombs on planes that need only be powerful enough to blast out a window in 2003, creation of Inet Protect in 2013 and, with the issue of closed network technology in 2016. In a true democracy, the public vote would have decided upon implementing my strategies but like sheep expecting the wolves to protect them, voters prefer that unqualified MPs with hidden agendas decide for them instead. As such, they themselves are compromising their own children's security and future prosperity because at its heart, this is actually an issue of mass parental neglect."
- Alex Romane
Tony Blair and David Cameron are both guilty of running child abuse cover-ups and of abandoning millions of abused and vulnerable children around the world just to benefit themselves and while David Cameron publicly fakes concern for the 5 million UK children who are bullied on-line every day, he privately chose to leave them vulnerable by blocking Inet Protect in 2013. Despite this, neither Tony Blair or David Cameron have committed any crimes and neither have they failed to discharge their sworn duties [the oath is extremely vague].
To protect potential state witnesses from being scapegoated by David Cameron and Tony Blair, we will not be disclosing the names and positions of the people who directly blocked the strategy on Tony Blair's behalf. What we can disclose is that they were resentful and disappointed when blocking the strategy and according to Alex, it was evident that they wanted to explore any potential but felt they had no choice.
Incidentally, your freely-elected so-called 'qualified' MPs voted years ago to ban secret service and intelligence officers from disclosing information about any crimes committed by MPs and unelected Lords and Ladies [the core of the establishment] to any 3rd party. As such, any officer who breaches this law will be tried for treason [in secret] and, it is due to this block that MPs are able to pressurise officers into undertaking unlawful practices because, officers [of any level] who refuse such orders have their jobs and pensions threatened and can't report any unlawful orders to anyone anyway. It is criminal MPs who break laws by ordering officers to commit to unlawful acts and obviously, no officer can disclose when MPs do this and, with intelligence officers already banned from reporting the crimes of MPs, David Cameron now wants the lawful right to hide the identities of any MPs who get arrested [automatic lawful cover-ups].
We believe that by taking advantage of this ban, Tony Blair was able to scapegoat MI6 weapons expert David Kelly so as to cover for his manipulation of MI6 intelligence on Iraq's weapons systems because, while Tony Blair blamed any 'sexing-up' of information on MI6, David Kelly would NOT have been able to reveal that it was Tony Blair's men who edited MI6' information. We believe that it was being placed in such a dilemma that could have caused David Kelly to take his own life during the investigation of MI6 but unfortunately, it is still widely believed today that MI6 misled Tony Blair. Alternatively, if David Kelly did not commit suicide, then he was assassinated and in our opinion, this would have been ordered by George Bush and therefore probably carried-out by the CIA [even if they used a proxy] and in confirmation of our beliefs, both George Bush and Tony Blair go out of their way [to this day] to keep private anything regarding Iraq that could potentially incriminate either of them. Ultimately, Tony Blair's decision to block a coroner's inquest and to instead implement a public enquiry and the deeply concerning and irregular practices used by the enquiry's chair [Lord Hutton] into David Kelly's death, combined with the information and evidence that Lord Hutton saw being locked-up for 70 years, firmly cements our beliefs that one way or another and however indirectly, Tony Blair killed David Kelly.
• Labour MP; "Blair duped me over Iraq and I feel ashamed."
• Blair and ex-MI6 boss conspired to lie about Iraq WMDs - officers betrayed by own boss
• Saddam Hussein's CIA interrogator says "US got it so wrong."
• Hans Blix; "Blair misrepresented facts over Iraq chemical weapons."
• Ministers destroyed evidence that showed Iraq war was ILLEGAL
• Defensive and in denial - Blair's report spin tanslated into truth
• The Iraq War and the Rupert Murdoch connection
For the reasons listed below, we choose to boycott David Cameron's so-called 'enquiry' [a whitewash] into historic establishment cover-ups of child abuse and to instead publish our evidence into the public domain and, our reasons are summarised by top QC Michael Mansfield who we believe would have been the most appropriate chair person for this inquiry:
1. Through blocking Inet Protect in 2013 without reason while knowing of Alex's proven abilities and competence, David Cameron has demonstrated that he is not at all serious about protecting children.
2. David Cameron himself attempted to run his own cover-up when his close friend of over over 20 years and unelected colleague Patrick Rock was arrested for paedophilia [Feb. 2014].
3. Teresa May's statement in 2013 regarding anyone who fights to protect privacy rights being either "a criminal or a paedophile" demonstrates that both she and David Cameron do NOT perceive paedophiles to be criminals and, this was proved by David Cameron when he attempt to cover-up Patrick Rock's arrest for paedophilia in Feb. 2014. Despite making this statement and in a further demonstration of their hypocrisy, neither Teresa May or David Cameron have removed the curtains in their homes - confirming that they believe privacy to be a valid right for themselves but, not for the people.
4. David Cameron continues to cover-up for Tony Blair's decision to block Alex's strategy in 2001 while refusing to submit our evidence to the inquiry.
5. In open defiance of the expressed wishes of the victims, David Cameron insists that a chairperson is selected from within the establishment itself.
6. In open defiance of the expressed wishes of the victims, David Cameron is restricting the inquiry's reach so that the it does NOT have the power to summon [to legally compel] suspects to give evidence or, to have their property searched by investigators.
7. David Cameron is selecting and aiding [with others] the inquiry's potential chair people and is therefore influencing any investigation before it starts.
8. David Cameron's first choice for a chair person [former President of the UK Family Courts 'Lady' Elizabeth Butler-Sloss] quit when news of her links with key suspects were revealed and amazingly, she was NOT removed when news of her own historic child abuse cover-up was published and in a show of contempt for victims and voters alike, both David Cameron and Teresa May continued to argue to keep her AFTER this information was published [confirming that they wanted a chair person who had herself ran a child abuse cover-up, to be running the inquiry into establishment-led child abuse cover-ups].
9. David Cameron and the second chair person [Fiona Woolf] completely disregarded and disrespected child victim's groups by ignoring their wishes regarding specific aspects of the chair person selection process.
10. Fiona Woolf compromised her impartiality and her integrity by not disclosing that she had dined with top suspect Lord Leon Brittan five times, lived on the same street as him, and had sponsored his wife’s fun run and, she only disclosed this information after learning that the media were about to publish details of her relationship with the Brittans. In addition to this, her collusion with the government through Teresa May was confirmed when it was disclosed that a letter had to be re-written seven times on her behalf by civil servants but as with 'Lady' Sloss, David Cameron and Teresa May continued to openly support Fiona Woolf's appointment also.
11. In their secret attempt to prop-up Fiona Woolf's appointment by editing her own letter for her so as to play-down her relationship with the Brittans, David Cameron and Teresa May yet again confirm their impartiality in the selection process and it is therefore our strong belief that David Cameron has a vested interest in who runs this inquiry and therefore, its final outcome. We believe that this alone [regardless of our own evidence] confirms that David Cameron himself is directly complicit in establishment-led child abuse cover-ups.
12. On 31st October 2014, the openly pro-Cameron head of the NSPCC [Peter Wanless] who somehow went from running the lottery to running the NSPCC in 2013 and, who ran the related investigation into police prosecutors and missing documents, openly compromised his impartiality when he publicly attacked the victims for delaying the process after they complained about Fiona Woolf's friendship with the Brittans. In sharp contrast and only moments later, MP Keith Vaz [the Chair of the House of Commons' Home Affairs select committee] announced that he was actually going to recall Fiona Woolf to answer to further related questions in a Commons committee hearing. This was followed by David Cameron and Teresa May publicly reaffirming their support for Fiona Woolf but upon hearing about her recall, Fiona Woolf finally resigned.
It is therefore evident that Keith Vaz has more consideration for the victims than the boss of the NSPCC himself does and, it is worth noting that when we contacted Peter Wanless directly in 2013 to ask for his feedback regarding David Cameron's policies that proliferate child abuse and to join UNICEF in supporting @inetprotect, we were ignored. Also refusing to join us and UNICEF is Save the Children, who soon-after awarded Tony Blair [21st Nov. 2014] their Global Legacy Award for services to children [obviously, his illegal war that orphaned 4 million Iraqi children and that now sees deformed children being born in their thousands every year means nothing to them].
13. Peter Wanless' report [11th Nov. 2014] concluded that Leon Brittan lost [not destroyed] evidence of child abuse committed by MPs but, he failed to report that according to currently-existing Home Office files from 1983, the parents of an abused boy actually wrote to their MP [Geoffrey Dickens] for help, who in-turn raised their concerns with Leon Brittan. However, Leon Brittan replied saying that he felt it would not be practical to carry out a detailed investigation. Therefore, Leon Brittan WAS directly responsible for protecting child abusing MPs - regardless of 'losing' any documents and for whatever reason, Peter Wanless failed to report this.
14. David Cameron has ordered GCHQ to surveille private meetings between solicitors and clients [a criminal offence] who seek to bring actions against members of the establishment or the government itself. While GCHQ continue with this highly unlawful practice on David Cameron's behalf, there is no possible way for us to communicate confidentially with any legal body.
15. In 2014 and before becoming aware that it could take years for the investigation to conclude, David Cameron announced that he would not make any reports publicly available until after the 2015 general election.
16. On 4th Dec. 2014, the victims wrote to Teresa May to give formal notice of their decision to boycott the inquiry from this day onwards and, specifically on the grounds of establishment-led corruption and although this was reported by the BBC in the afternoon, it later retracted any mention of it and instigated a blackout [which the rest of the UK mainstream media have since joined]. We then contacted NAPAC [the charity supporting the victims] and they confirmed to us that although the victims have boycotted the inquiry, NAPAC will continue to work with the Home Office on their behalf but, in NAPAC deciding not to sign the victim's letter to Teresa May and by continuing to work with her, they allow David Cameron to portray that there is no boycott [hence the media blackout].
In our opinion, this is further abuse by the establishment of people who as children were already abused by the establishment and, this alone demonstrates where it stands regarding these victims and their fight to obtain justice. With police and intelligence officers powerless to act against David Cameron and Tony Blair and with news blackouts now in-place against the PA and the victims, we will continue to publish reactions to related events as they happen and, we will continue to up-date the Electoral Commission as we do so.
17. On 1st Jan. 2015, the enquiry's first chair person [Elizabeth Butler-Sloss] who quit when her links with key suspects were revealed, tried to weaken any remaining influence that the victims had regarding the chair person selection process by stating that there could be "real problems" if they were to decide who the eventual chair person is and, being that the former judge is known to have ran a child abuse cover-up herself and is likely to be caught-out by this inquiry, it makes sense that she will be doing all that she can to disrupt it - especially after being removed from her role as the inquiry's chair person.
18. Less than a year after the arrest of Patrick Rock for paedophilia, a second adviser to David Cameron [Doug Richard] was arrested for child rape and while David Cameron did not this time attempt another cover-up, he is though now guilty of being the first UK Prime Minister to have Downing Street advisers arrested for child abuse and our point is about the people who David Cameron chooses to advise him, while blocking advice from those who are far more experienced and, far more concerned.
19. In an incredible demonstration of absolute lawful and ethical incompetence and inconsideration, the House of Commons’ Home Affairs select committee [chaired by Keith Vaz] published the details of some of the victims into the public domain and, these victims have subsequently been approached and have received death threats. In one case, one of the victims and his young daughter had been targeted by a convicted abuser and on-line hate campaigns against victims [which incidentally, Inet Protect would have blocked] are now also targeting the families of other victims [thanks ONLY to exposure from Rupert Murdoch and other tabloid publishers]. It is obvious that MPs are just not up to the job and with such a lack of integrity, it is not realistic for us to expect our evidence and any confidential information within it to be treated or handled seriously.
20. On 1st Feb. 2015, it was disclosed that David Cameron and Theresa May commissioned Home Office Secretariat Angela Kyle to brief, train and equip witnesses and abuse victims as to how they should answer questions, so as to prioritise the interests of the establishment over their own. This again confirms that this so-called 'inquiry' is still not independent to any degree and, that David Cameron has a vested interest in the eventual outcome. In principal, David Cameron's interference in this particular way amounts to perverting the course of justice but, there will be no inquiry into this issue.
21. On 7th March 2015 and shortly after selecting its third chair for the inquiry [New Zealand High Court judge Lowell Goddard], the Home Office disclosed to the media that evidence that they themselves held regarding MP's child abuse would only be disclosed to Lowell Goddard in private. This nullifies David Cameron's statement of "An inquiry that the people can believe in." In addition, we are deeply concerned by the Home Office's admission that some of this evidence was actually in the process of being destroyed when they collected it and, we are amazed that Teresa May and David Cameron refuse to disclose who was destroying this evidence.
We would like to be clear that in making this point, we make no judgement against Lowell Goddard because, it is clear to us that her remit does not allow her to challenge the Home Office's stance and, that the Home Office would never allow any judge to publish this evidence.
22. On 8th March 2015, it was disclosed that the Cabinet Office itself had embarked upon its own child abuse cover-up of Conservative MPs but, it relented after being threatened with High Court action. This again confirms that David Cameron does not want for the truth to be disclosed and therefore, that he has a vested interest in the inquiry's outcome and, this again confirms his position regarding the victims being able to attain justice.
23. On 25th March 2015, Deputy PM Nick Clegg publicly dismissed the possibility that decades of child abuse could have been deliberately covered-up by successive governments - while the investigation was on-going! He added that; "A lid has been lifted on a kind of horrendous under scene of British society which no one knew existed." but, our evidence shows that many people knew. He reiterated his stance by stating; "What I wouldn't do if I were you is assume that because you can point to an individual allegation and another allegation that some other individual made another allegation, therefore there must have been an organised plot spanning decades which everyone must have known about." When David Cameron's Deputy PM makes public statements during the investigation that are designed to protect his boss, he indicates that he knows far more than he actually states and under these circumstances, we feel that we have no choice other than to keep publishing our evidence of establishment-oriented child abuse cover-ups into the public domain.
24. On 16th April 2015, it was disclosed that Alison Saunders [CPS' Direct of Public Prosecutions] decided not to prosecute top suspect Lord Janner because even though he passed the evidence test, she decided that his health condition determined that he [in her opinion] shouldn't be tried for child abuse and, this was despite Lord Janner turning-up for 'work' at the House of Lords right up until Alison Saunders' announcement. From just this one incident, it is clear to see that the CPS and its directors have taken sides against the victims and the police, so as to protect MPs and their unelected 'Lords' and 'Ladies' from child abuse and child abuse cover-ups.
25. On 24th November 2015, it was disclosed that former chancellor and Conservative Nigel Lawson claimed that the investigation into establishment-led child abuse was a waste of money. Mr Lawson [a former Margaret Thatcher aid and friend to Leon Brittan] derides the victims and devalues their experience at the hands of his friends and colleagues and, we believe that he was being defensive. How anyone could publicly call for abused children to be neglected specifically and only to save a few quid is beyond us but, this is exactly what the UK voted for too so again, it is us who is out of alignment with both him and the UK's voters of fake democracy - and we're fine with this.
26. We ourselves have acquired direct tangible evidence that demonstrates how and when every single member of Parliament became aware that by supporting the FSA in Syria, they would become complicit in FSA-related child abuse in Syria. They were also made aware that supporting militia groups that use rape is a war crime and by refusing to publicly disclose information about the FSA's use of the Saudi-issued child rape fatwa, they have ALL become complicit in a major government-led child abuse cover-up in Syria. Under these circumstances, how could we ever possible be expected to submit our evidence of establishment-led child abuse cover-ups?
27. As already mentioned, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith expressed frustration to the speaker of the House of Commons regarding the number of D-Notices he was encountering as he tried to make related enquiries within various Parliamentary departments and, this seems to confirm that Tony Blair did issue D-Notices. If this is true, then David Cameron would have been made aware about Tony Blair's 1998 cover-up by MI5 and with D-Notices oriented in protecting 'national security', this would have happened by default as soon as he took office in 2010. By informing David Cameron about Tony Blair's cover-up, MI5 would not have been breaking any laws regarding the reporting of the crimes of MP because, cover-ups are not unlawful and again, this demonstrates that David Cameron has a vested interest in the investigation's outcome because, if MI5 or [anyone] confirms that he knew about Tony Blair's cover-up, then David Cameron has been guilty of covering for Tony Blair since before Alex made him aware of it.
28. In mid-2015, Judge Lowell Goddard announced that she would start hearing evidence from victims and witnesses in early 2016 but in early 2016, she then announced that she would not hear any evidence until early 2017. She didn't state a specific reason but, we don't believe that her motives were political or that she was pressurised by any 3rd party. We instead believe that she was motivated exclusively by a personal desire to stretch-out her contract for as long as she could. Towards the end of 2016, she stated that her investigation could last for up to ten years but, she also spent almost fifty days working abroad on unrelated matters with her expenses paid for by the UK tax payer, while also being paid for her role as the investigation's judge. Regardless of her motives, we believe that Lowell Goddard has demonstrated extreme contempt for both victims and witnesses and that through this, she has made the potential for victims to obtain justice and for witnesses to obtain liberation more difficult to obtain.
29. In July 2016, the above information was published by the mainstream media and Lowell Goddard subsequently resigned [demonstrating that the investigation still lacks integrity] and, a new judge was immediately appointed by the Home Office [now ran by Amber Rudd].
Summary of the investigations events to-date:
July 7 2014
Theresa May [then home secretary] announces a public inquiry with the remit of investigating whether state and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse within England and Wales. Its chairwoman will be Baroness Butler-Sloss, a retired High Court judge.
Baroness Butler-Sloss faces calls to quit due to a potential conflict of interest over a family connection. Her late brother [Sir Michael Havers] was attorney general in the 1980s. PM David Cameron stood by the appointment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss steps down.
Dame Fiona Woolf [a leading tax lawyer and then Lord Mayor of the City of London] is appointed as the new chairwoman of the inquiry.
Child sex abuse victim launches a legal challenge against Dame Fiona's appointment over her suitability for the role. She is accused of having a close association with Lord Leon Brittan, the late Tory peer against whom allegations of sex abuse were later dropped.
Dame Fiona quits as chairwoman.
February 4 2015
Theresa May tells the House of Commons she is disbanding the former inquiry into child sex abuse and setting up a new statutory inquiry. Dame Lowell Goddard - described as "one of the most respected and experienced judges in the Commonwealth" is announced as its chairwoman.
New inquiry is set up with same remit as first.
Dame Lowell announces the inquiry will conduct a full investigation into the issues surrounding the allegations of sexual abuse against Lord Greville Janner, citing "clear public interest" over the adequacy of institutional responses to allegations against public figures.
Dame Lowell officially opens the inquiry.
Former child protection manager Peter McKelvie resigns from the inquiry's Victims' and Survivors Consultative Panel as it is revealed that he may face questioning over his own handling of pursuing allegations of child sex abuse.
Inquiry announces its first twelve investigations and Dame Lowell says she is committed to completing the in inquiry in five years.
Lord Janner dies aged 87.
March 9 2016
Inquiry holds first hearing on the investigation into allegations against Lord Janner.
Dame Lowell writes to Home Secretary Amber Rudd to offer her resignation citing her career and family life.
Professor Alexis Jay [who led an earlier inquiry into abuse in Rotherham] is promoted from within the inquiry to take over as chairwoman.
Ben Emmerson is suspended as the inquiry's top lawyer amid reports he fell out with Professor Jay over the scale of the inquiry.
Elizabeth Prochaska [junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse] confirms that she had stepped down a fortnight ago.
What happened to Alex in 2001 was one of the primary reasons for why he later established the PA and, for why he continued to work intermittently on internet-based child protection strategies and child welfare policies both with, and independently of the state. As such, many of our policy proposals [particularly within the Family Law and Child Protection, IT and Education manifestos] are potential solutions for all that we have since found [both on and off-line] and assessed as being harmful to children and, Alex has also written about this extensively in his eBook Direct Democracy and the Nature of God [published by the British Library].
In our belief, submitting our evidence to the state would amount to an absolute betrayal of the millions of children who both Tony Blair and David Cameron have abandoned and without knowing how or when he would achieve it, Alex made a decision in 2001 to do something about it. In his words; "I promised justice for those children and revenge for myself and while incompetent and unwilling governments betray us, I will continue to explore and to publish potential solutions. I'm not a childcare worker, policeman, diplomat or a politician but when made aware in 2001 of government-level corruption that amounted to allowing mass child abuse to continue, I chose to take responsibility and not to become part of it. I had no connections, resources or experience and I didn't know what I was going to do but fifteen years later and when requesting that MPs work with us and our evidence so as to end David Cameron and Tony Blair's joint child abuse cover-up, the hypocrites who voters empower to look after their interests leave me to it and run away. With self-interests to protect and with a media blackout against the PA, they have nothing to lose."
Alex waited until he found what he felt would be the best way to bring fundamental and sustainable change to the system that allowed for this proliferation of child abuse to happen but, he didn't expect a repeat experience at the hands of a second Prime Minister years later.
Alex adds; "While so-called 'Peace Envoy' Tony Blair ran around the Middle East on tax payer expenses building-up a client network for his business, I got the Palestinians to implement a web and phone voting system for the peace process without costing anyone but myself. Protected jointly by David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch and with his expenses paid for by UK tax payers who refuse true democracy, Tony Blair remains unstoppable, unaccountable, and able to manage the child abuse cover-up that he implemented in 1998."
Alex has acquired direct experience, knowledge and evidence regarding how various aspects of the establishment from the top down is involved in running child abuse cover-ups and, of how the mainstream media are complicit. Therefore, our accountability is to the people and as mentioned previously, the UK Electoral Commission has been fully informed and has witnessed that we have disclosed our evidence into the public domain via this page.
The people who Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch, the BBC, others within the establishment and now David Cameron are protecting from mainstream public exposure are as follows:
Cllr. Nicholas Green [Mayor]
- Convicted on 3 counts of rape and 13 counts of indecent assault on girls aged between 6 and 10 years old. He also raped a woman on her wedding day. Jailed for 10 years.
Terry Power - Arrested and charged with committing sex attacks on boys. Forced to resign only.
Martyn Locklin [local party member on first name terms with Tony Blair]
- Convicted on 8 counts of rape and indecent assault of teenage boys. The judge told Locking"You will be watched for the rest of your life. You need to be!"
Mark Tan [Prominent Labour activist in Kent]
- Convicted for sexually assaulting a girl of 9 and of raping a 4 year old girl on two separate occasions. Jailed for 15 years.
Cllr. Stuart Brown [Mayor]
- Admitted downloading thousands of images of hardcore child pornography and distributing - some of images of children as young as 4 years old. Walked free from court.
Cllr. Keith Rogers
- Convicted for downloading over 2000 images of hardcore child pornography. Placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
- Convicted for setting up a secret camera in his bathroom to film women and, was also found guilty of gross indecency in relation to showing hardcore pornography to a child.
Cllr. Greg Vincent [school governor]
- Convicted for possession of hardcore child pornography featuring children as young as 8 years old. One of the images featured a girl of 10 who was tied up and beaten. Given a 2 year rehabilitation order.
Cllr. Gilbert Benn
- Found guilty of child molestation.
Cllr. Paul Diggert
- Found guilty of grooming under-age girls for sex and for downloading hardcore child pornography.
Cllr. Joseph Shaw
- Found guilty of Downloading hardcore child pornography.
Cllr. Alen Prescott
- Found guilty of child molestation committed in the 'care' home where he worked.
Cllr. Keith Potts [school governor]
- Found guilty of Downloading hardcore child pornography
Cllr. Alec Dyer-Atkins [school governor]
- Convicted for downloading over 42,000 images and films that were described in court as "horrifying images of child abuse." Also a member of the Shadows Brotherhood paedophile ring. Jailed for 2 years.
Cllr. David Spooner
- Found guilty of masturbating in front of two young boys. Jailed for 1 year.
Peter Tuffley [Labour Party member and Hazel Blears' personal assistant who also worked for Barnardos and the NSPCC]
- Convicted for grooming of a 13 year old boy. Jailed for 15 months.
- 2 convictions for gross indecency in public toilets.
- Convicted for committing a horrific sexual assault. Jailed for 3 years.
Cllr. Lestyn Tudor Davies
- Convicted for the multiple rape of a 9 year old girl. Jailed for 7 years and placed on the Sex Offenders register for life.
Cllr. Lee Benson
- Found guilty for 12 counts of possession of indecent images of children aged between 5 and 11 years old.
Cllr. Peter Swainston [Mayor] - Found guilty of gross indecency in a public toilet.
Cllr. Sam Choudhary [Mayor]
- Convicted of multiple sex attacks on girls as young as 5 years old.
Cllr. Nelson Bland
- Convicted on 16 counts of possessing child pornography [stored on his daughter's computer]. The images were found after he was investigated by police in relation to a murder enquiry.
Cllr. Raymond Coates
- Him and his son were both found guilty of child rape and, of attempting to force a woman to have sex with an animal.
Cllr. George Harding
- Charged with indecent assault on a 12 year old girl.
Cllr. Les Sheppard
- Convicted on 10 counts of indecent assault on girls aged between 9 and 13 years old. Jailed for 2 years.
Cllr. Liam Temple [Mayor]
- Found guilty of inciting a 12 year old girl into committing an act of gross indecency.
Yusef Azad [Labour Party member - Greater London Assembly]
- Found guilty of subscribing to hardcore child pornography sites.
If you continue to elect those who continually block proven child protection strategies created by more-experienced outsiders who in this area were years ahead of UK and US intelligence agencies, then expect more damaged children but, don't blame Parliament for your freely-made choices to betray both true democracy [rule of the people] and children, in-place of electing so-called 'representatives' [which the Greek inventors of democracy NEVER did]. If these are the sort of people who you align yourself with and who you therefore want to represent you, keep voting - and reap.
Social networks, chat room and email providers to automatically cross-check user IP [Internet Protocol] address with connecting-ISP [Internet Service Provider] at sign-up [or validation if a current user], so as to verify that the user is signing-up [or validating] using a domestic ISP account [even if not their own], as opposed to a business ISP account. Users will not have to submit any additional information to any party and the providers will only have access to the same information that they already have [which already includes the IP addresses of ALL visitors] and so will still not be able to personally identify either their users or the ISP customer that users sign-up or validate through. Excluding access through non-domestic ISP accounts at the point of sign-up or validation eliminates access from anonymous or masked IP addresses or from public networks, public libraries, businesses networks, coffee shops and cyber cafes etc. anywhere in the world.
Users remain anonymous up until the point that the social network, chat room or email provider can confirm that a particular user's history on their server [already currently recorded] shows abusive behaviour expressed towards the user who reported the abuse. Users will become identifiable to 3rd parties only after the investigation stage [not during] and after confirmation and, it also allows for a penalty system to deter abuse of the report facility itself.
If necessary, it will also be possible to offer an anonymous amnesty to current users and, when you consider that most bullies are themselves victims of abuse, we feel that this would be a more appropriate measure over that of punishment and, unlike off-line amnesties [of any nature], users will not have to come forward to identify themselves.
Fundamentally, if Inet Protect was extended to cover ISPs that lease domain names to individuals and businesses for use with their own websites, abuse and terrorist websites simply wouldn't be able to exist. Currently, all ISPs that offer this service have to re-lease domain names from the only two organisations in the world that create them [Internic and Nominet] so, an automated licensing service for ISPs would be extremely easy for Internic and Nominet to interface with in order to lease domain names ONLY to ISPs who conform to Inet Protect. Private website owners who wish to remain anonymous when leasing domain names for their websites would be protected until the point when their website is reported and then investigated for any criminality.
Inet Protect - strategy in full:
In order to seriously reduce incidences of on-line child abuse of ALL forms committed globally through social networks, chat rooms and web-based email accounts, we propose that these providers be compelled by law as soon as possible, to automatically cross-check a user's IP address and status as being one that is connecting through a domestic customer [as opposed to a business customer] of that ISP just once, either at the point of sign-up or validation. Thereafter, users can continue to access their social networks, chat rooms and web-based email accounts through any connection anywhere.
This will mean that users must sign-up [or validate] using any current domestic land line or current domestic mobile ISP account only [even if not their own], therefore relating to an already verified ISP account and therefore an associated geographical location and, a simple one-off process can easily validate current users in seconds.
Business customers of ISPs will be able to sign-up to these providers by assigning a member of staff to complete the sign-up process through a domestic account and as with domestic users, their social networks, chat rooms and web-based email accounts can also be accessed from anywhere thereafter and, a re-validation process can easily transfer accountability from one member of staff to another at any time and in seconds.
When the provider requests confirmation from the ISP that the user is signing-up [or validating] through a domestic customer of that particular ISP, a match or mismatch signal will then be generated and returned to the provider and the sign-up process [or validation] will then either be completed or terminated. The provider will keep a record of the IP address used at the point of sign-up [or validation] and abusive behaviour [of ANY nature] expressed by any user towards another would then relate to an identifiable ISP account [anonymous to the social networks, chat rooms and email providers] - regardless of what information users submit to any provider and regardless of where they log-on from after signing up and, because the cross-checking is automated and in real time, it doesn't matter if users are assigned static [fixed] or variable IP addresses by their ISPs.
The strategy also involves using components and protocols that are already in existence and already being used by users, providers and ISPs; every time someone visits a social network website, a chat room, or sends an email through a web-based account, their IP address is automatically recorded [regardless of whether logged-in as a member or not] by the provider and, every ISP already has a database that contains their user's assigned IP addresses and status as either a domestic or business customer. A simple programme that interfaces the provider with the ISP database at the time of sign-up or validation is all that is required for this strategy to be launched with immediate effect.
The principals of this strategy mean that anyone can sign-up or validate through anyone's domestic ISP account [not necessarily their own] while preventing users from signing up or validating from an anonymous or masked IP addresses or from virtual private networks, public networks, public libraries, businesses networks, coffee shops and cyber cafes etc. If for any reason, new and current users fail to sign-up or validate through any domestic connection to an ISP, we feel that the loss of these accounts will be well-worth the pay-off in terms of benefits to child safety and, we challenge anyone to state otherwise because, what provider would even attempt to justify keeping hold of users who may have harmful and criminal intentions and separately, why should the desires [not needs] of those who can't access any domestic account with an ISP just for the one-off purpose of either sign-up or validation, come before the need for children to be protected from abuse?
Other than to those who can not access any domestic account with an ISP just for the one-off purpose of either sign-up or validation, the only other disadvantage is for the ISPs, social network websites and web-based email providers that will be funding their end of the technology but, after they get over the 'shock' [costs are negligible] and eventually get around to seeing the PR potential, we feel very sure that they'll stumble over themselves in their rush to comply so why not save some time, save some children, and tell them, David Cameron and Parliament yourself right now?
Follow our dedicated Twitter Inet Protect blog so as to register your support specifically and only for this proposal, so as to create and apply the pressure needed to remove David Cameron from office and to implement Inet Protect law immediately:
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
This is not a protest campaign.
In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK is signed-up to], the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog is a UN-sanctioned and legally recognised voting format for UK reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.
Vote legitimately for a peaceful and structured UK reform to direct democracy now simply by following the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog and when numbers reach a point of critical mass, we'll do the rest.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols for implementing direct democracy have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration DOES NOT have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now by following @self_rule