New documentary.

Celebrities, football coaches and others involved in past public or voluntary activities, now fearing, or facing, false allegations can learn from families fleeing from Social Services.

Featuring Jonathan King, Brian Rothery and Allison Johnson.

youtu.be/hqujAGcDqdo

Well worth watching.

Frightening stuff!

Well worth watching.

Thanks to Randall, Pete and others for their patience as the revision took longer than we expected. We will watch with interest if any celebs and related come looking for advice to the Ectopia network.

The makers of the video are new to the art but I must say that JK was most professional both in working with us and in his performance.

Thank you Brian; I'm slowly learning the art! My own new movie will be ready soon.

Great stuff.

I know I do keep going on about the call from Surrey Police I received. I couldn't help but think "you just want me to say 'yes' to your questions".

Thank you to Brian R for the video, and also for sterling work over the years. Social Services departments are particularly badly infected with poisonous communist ideology, and like Brian says, they are arrogant and protected by secrecy. They evince contempt for the people they purport to serve, especially if they are white and working class. So thanks once again to Brian R for doing something to protect the dignity and value of individuals against the state.

That said, I'm not sure what is being proposed here. Is it that people arrested for bullshit so-called sex crimes should seek refuge in Ireland, whether above or below the radar? There might well be a more pro-nuclear family attitude there, but Erin is definitely not the place to look for liberal social attitudes to sex. Nor is it a place to seek sensible, well drafted law about so-called sexual crimes: what the Irish have now is largely a direct copy from perfidious Albion. Various activist groups have targeted the church and carehome networks, justifiedly in some cases no doubt, and are beginning to have success in forcing prosecutions without any supporting evidence or by rounding up several claimants who can get their ducks in a row and relying on no-smoke-without-fire. The tone of the media is much more parochial in Ireland, as you'd expect from a country an eighth of the size of the UK. But this cuts both ways. There's not so much national hounding of famous figures (Cliff Richard, Rolf Harris) but for the local man, like a schoolteacher, churchman or sports coach the local gossip is worse.

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Randall. I’m sure you noticed the British accents of our lovely narrator and the un-named legal expert she interviewed. As he begins to speak there is a difficult to read box which says

“Because some resourceful and highly-educated British families have fled to Ireland to prevent their children being seized, the Ectopia help network has gained much- needed new expertise and has become more capable of accessing the legal and judicial systems.”

The expertise and culture resulting in justice for fleeing British families is coming from our new British population in Ireland and (to our great relief) from Ireland’s High Court. Not from the Irish social workers or the local secret family courts run by SS and their national Child and Family Agency, which I call an anti family child agency. This agency (Tusla) is now itself in trouble with the judiciary and under national scrutiny. The significant publicity we have received has had two objectives – to be critical of the UK and to try to prevent the Irish child protection industry going the same way.

However your question is so central that I will ask our British experts here if they can expand.

On a personal note, one effect of this new happily settled British ex-pat population is a much-needed improvement in the social life of this old widower.

Here is the response of the British expert who is in the documentary. May I add that this kind of discussion is one of the outcomes I had hoped for and that he is now prepared to consider test cases to add to his existing portfolio of very successful applications to the High Court in Dublin for fleeing British families. Brian.

Expert replies

Yes there are parallels between UK and Ireland in terms of the law around sexual offences, registration of offenders etc. The Gardai and the DPP are happy to pursue with zeal it seems any allegations - unless they refer to children in care of the state, but that's another story. Fortunately the High Court Judges are still interested in real evidence, even where the test is 'balance of probabilities' and not just 'beyond reasonable doubt' as seen in the many cases brought to he High Court on behalf of parents. This is where the real advantage lies in the Irish system and it was writ large by Hardiman in his review of Bob Woofinden's book. Certainly there those who will try to exploit the historical and false allegations industry in Ireland and there has been successes against institutional based allegations,- not least the Catholic Church. However what we are looking at is the opportunity to challenge the system with the system, going back to the very basics of the law, its processes, procedures and fair application. Where these have been circumvented, abused or just plainly wrong (as Henriques detailed so damningly) then challenging these aspects can expose the system for what it is - convictions at any cost, the burden of proof being shifted and the opportunity to receive a truly fair trial ignored at the expense of 'believe the victim'. The arrested would not have to seek refuge in Ireland, the challenge is to the system wherever they are, but the Irish Courts could be conduits to receiving a fairer hearing and being able to challenge far more effectively, especially under Human Rights legislation. It is a work in progress and simply hypothetical (though based on solid experience, research and precedents) until and if a test case were to be undertaken.

I too would to thank Brian R. for this enlightening and curiously invigorating movie.

It had a curious and unexpected effect on me. I’ve become something of an incorrigible pessimist in my later years, having watched the liberties my parents’ generation struggled for against Nazi terror being blithely eroded from within by the ideologues of political correct victimology and the unaccountable spooks of the security state. I was, for example, expecting to feel my familiar outrage and despair at the shockingly corrupt stitch-up Jonathan King was so blatantly subjected to. But I didn’t.

Or not entirely, anyway. I found that I was instead buoyed by Mr King’s broad-shouldered good humour and his refusal to be daunted.

As I listened further to the moving sequence from Brian R. and to the unnamed legal source speaking of the new legal expertise emerging between persecuted parents and their supporters in the Ecotopia network, I found a long-subdued sensibility coming back to life. It was like a reunion with a long-lost friend: the emergence of cautious, qualified hope.

I must say that Ireland’s contagion with the near-psychotic sex victimology that has caused such destructive havoc in the rest of the Anglosphere did make me consider it an unlikely place for resistance to this pernicious tyranny to arise. And yet, these fleeing families have been able to gain some respite from the terror they were subject to by militant social workers in the UK. They appear to have used that respite to good effect, appealing to an Irish judiciary which, in the High Court at least, has been far less corrupted by victimologist ideology than its British counterpart.

The excellent Christopher Booker recently highlighted the kind of snouts-in-the-trough corruption these families are up against in the closed family courts, where the only beneficiaries seem to be lawyers trousering vast sums of public money:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/11/brit...-lawyers-always-win/

The British judiciary of course would claim that it’s simply more enlightened, having been educated in the appalling life-blighting consequences of childhood adversity, especially if that happens to have been sexual in nature. What they seem to mean is that they’ve been indoctrinated for decades into believing the dogma-driven sexual hallucinations of intersectional feminists, including the spectral sexual hell their perverted rape-and-incest fantasies have fashioned. That this is a wholly unwarranted counsel of despair and vindictiveness appears to have passed too many of our learned judges and prosecutors by.

This misandrist venom has, I believe, been peddled by pampered, well-heeled ‘radical feminists’ – people who for the most part have suffered neither harm nor persecution of any sort in their sheltered and privileged lives. They’re just desperate for victim status, which has become the last refuge of today’s scoundrels: rigid ideologues who have nothing to say about liberty and prosperity for all but have oceans of ignorant intersectionalist bile to spew over “the patriarchy”, by which they seem to mean men.

What strikes me as remarkable is that parents fleeing the cruel fanaticism of British child protection ideology, which tends to cast children’s interest as fundamentally at odds with parental interests, have found in Ireland not only a haven from the judicial brutalism that defers to social workers in the UK, but a precious form of fellowship. In speaking to one another of their hitherto unspeakable ordeals at the hands of unaccountable ‘professionals’ steeped in loony feminist victim ideology (which slyly figures children as proxy-'wimmin', perpetually endangered by the imagined ‘structures of patriarchy’ inhabiting the family), they have created mutual resources and scholarship in the law.

The law, they discover in their collaborative endeavours, is not the instrument of brute subjugation it has become in the hands of British social workers, but a means of mounting a precious defence against professional caprice, a force for liberty and true justice, provided its resources are unlocked and it is used as such.

This is what can happen when the conditions for what Freud called “free association” are available. You can’t free associate – speak and think freely – when you’re terrified that some officious, state-empowered militant steeped in victimological dogma and seething with pre-emotive hostility is trying to snatch your children from you. But you can when this danger is suspended. In conditions of safety and hospitality, you can begin to bring your education and experience to the table with others in a similar predicament.

If we were to socially encounter the sadistic moral authorities that lurk in our psyches, berating us for all our failures and shortcomings, we would immediately apprehend a narrow-minded, cavilling boor, devoid of imagination and averse to even the most basic kindnesses. But these fleeing families have indeed socially encountered these fanatical representatives of what Freud would have called the “Superego.” And they have seen how the cruel victimological dogma embraced by these agents of what we might call “the Superego group” has not only petrified and shrivelled their capacity for fellow-feeling, but legitimised a vicious punitiveness that PC victim idolatry always authorises.

Talking freely together is the essence of the well-conducted seminar, one of the best means of developing scholarship because it empowers and inspires people to learn further and deeper about the knowledge they need to protect their liberty and their children from State tyranny. This is surely a means of challenging corrupt dictatorships – the dictatorship of the child-snatching social worker and the “accusers-will-be-believed” cop. Both place preserving their own hides from criticism and advancing their own careers ahead of justice and truth.

When Freud discovered free association, he discovered something remarkable: even the least articulate people, when given the safety and opportunity, could free themselves of the cruel stranglehold of a deeply-held sadistic morality (“symptoms” in psychoanalysis). And they did so by the power of their own free speech, not the cleverness of the analyst, whose main task is to offer a safe and hospitable setting, stay quietly attentive and encourage as much free, truthful speech as possible.

It seems to me that the Ectopia help network has been doing something very similar. If it helps counter the poisonous, top-down creeds that have mutated in privileged academic circles – circles that are impermeably insulated from the real world with layers of imponderable theoretical nonsense – if it helps overturn all those mad incantations favoured by our ‘professionals’ that militantly dismiss or blockade evidence in favour of doctrinaire victimological narratives, it seems to me to be inestimably valuable. It might even catch on over here in Albion.

Legal expert responds


I think Pete hits the nail on the head - 'top down creeds' - that is indeed very much the role the social worker or the police officer takes to their 'victim' and as we have seen, hide behind this to achieve their ends. That is why I believe the High Court judges in Ireland have become so essential to our fight for justice -- they are our 'top down' authority over the actions of supposed public servants. The deeper I delve into the legal processes and case law the clearer it becomes that ideology is driving the processes and outcomes, not the administration of justice. One of Hitler's first acts when coming to power was to take over the courts. For all the Government's claims that the judiciary must remain independent of the executive and legislative there is a creeping fascism as seen recently in removal of rights to cross examine domestic violence 'victims' by their alleged perpetrators and the attempt to introduce non cross examine-able video evidence for those who allege rape. The tail is wagging the dog, the politicians do not trust the justice system to deliver the 'right' results so they will manipulate it until it does. The abuse of process is top down and comes from political will - the ideology that the state knows best, is a better parent than biological ones and can't 'protect' the public unless it micro-manages every aspect of their lives.

Now we're getting to the heart of it. After Hitler came a new struggle against a different flavour of totalitarianism: the Cold War. Lots of people think the ideological conflict ended in 1989 but they're wrong.

Two of the features of liberal democracy are Rule Of Law and Independent Judiciary. On the other side of the Iron Curtain, law was a much more moveable feast to suit the direction of the political wind, and judges were told what to do by government. Defendants had reduced ability to challenge evidence against them and much of the legal process was not public. Do we see the parallels?

A topical example is the new rules and Harriet Harpy's proposed amendments about complainants victims survivors giving evidence. It is not given in public, its provenance can never be checked and the defendant is not allowed to ask any questions about anything relating to its subject matter. He is also not allowed to say anything about it in his own evidence.

Here is what is proposed

(1) If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then—

(a) no evidence may be adduced, and

(b) no question may be asked in cross-examination,

by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any sexual behaviour of the complainant.

About any sexual behaviour of the complainant... So even for the defendant during his own testimony to say "It wasn't rape: she consented," would not be allowed.

Randall wrote:

Two of the features of liberal democracy are Rule Of Law and Independent Judiciary. On the other side of the Iron Curtain, law was a much more moveable feast to suit the direction of the political wind, and judges were told what to do by government. Defendants had reduced ability to challenge evidence against them and much of the legal process was not public. Do we see the parallels?

Professor Sir Roger Scruton, the conservative philosopher every Leftist ought to read, distinguishes, rightly in my view, between two types of revolution:

There is the kind exemplified by the English Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1783, in which essentially law-abiding people attempt to define and protect their rights against usurpation. And there is the kind exemplified by the French Revolution of 1789, and the Russian Revolution of 1917, in which one elite seizes power from another, and then establishes itself by a reign of terror.

Scruton, Roger. Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Kindle Locations 5923-5927). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I believe Hitler’s seizure of power falls into the second kind of revolution Professor Scruton describes, too.

When influential militants of the Harm-man variety seek to bring about forms of totalitarian law because they ‘know’ they are entirely virtuous and right (and that everyone else is merely an apologist for the evil they hallucinate everywhere), we are well along the slippery slope to a police state. These people must be opposed at every level by those who still cherish liberty and justice, because if they succeed in realising their Utopia, we’ll very soon have neither.

Peter Hitchens puts it rather evocatively: Utopia can only be approached though an ocean of blood. And you never get there.