Popular Posts

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

@t0mcahill writes to Catherine Judith Burn's NSW Police Counter-Terrorism head about her leaked email buddy- the boylover Garry Burns & about his numerous child sex links

"richard.mallett@noblesolicitors.co.uk" <richard.mallett@noblesolicitors.co.uk>
cc:"craig.mackey2@met.police.uk" <craig.mackey2@met.police.uk>,
Catherine Judith F'N Burn <burn1cat@police.nsw.gov.au>,
"antidiscrimination@bigpond.com" <antidiscrimination@bigpond.com>

Dear Richard,

Re:  Clarification/FYI

On Sunday,  I was alerted to this video upload.  It was removed along with the channel,  according to what Youtube says on Monday night or Tuesday morning.
It's been removed,  but I reposted it as it contains evidence which shows that the police are corrupt in not prosecuting someone mentioned for his full time Harassment activities.

Please see original upload by Brian Harvey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ezh1I-Yp4 (comments disabled) Hilariously Puddick claims not to be bothered abou...
It mentions me quite a lot but it also mentions you  (or someone with your name who's a lawyer).  I'd heard a similar story about you?RM dually working for The News of the World and Brian Harvey and that you'd been totally corrupt,  but never heard your side of this,  so please feel free to elaborate if there's more to this*.

(*Of course there's more to this,  in that the legal industry colludes with intelligence services to fit people up all the time and they're given assurances that they're protected from prosecution,  etc.;  indeed,  we've even got this written into law,  such as the 1997 Harassment Act where agents of law enforcement or the state are exempt from charges---because it's their number one tactic,  but I'm not talking about that kind of thing here.  This is something slightly more serious.)

Harvey's been targeted by a gang of Jewish paedophile agents**,  who're also involved in lots of media related operations,  the reason being that the operations are related to sex blackmail etc.,  it is becoming more obvious.  This group is totally protected by the police,  which in one respect is good,  as they get more  'slack'  so they do more idiotic things,  and they don't bother to cover their tracks,  let alone keep their operations discreet from each other,  so they end up linking to not only UK-based operations and operatives,  but overseas cases.

Along a similar vein  (boundary pushing and ambivalence),  Ian Puddick who claims not to be a Jew,  had been very foolish as he's targeted me and my family but more idiotically he's been speaking to Garry Burns,  a state protected paedophile in Australia,  who heads up their  "gay movement".  You could spend your week looking up Burns,  and whilst it would be entertaining as well as disturbing,  if you take a leap of faith and read between the lines of the stories relating to Lucy Turnbull  (their PM's wife)  and what he was up to there,  you'll not be long working out how incredibly protected he is.

Burns has obtained information from members of our own police force which he's revealed in emails to me.  You may want to look up Craig Mackey and bear in mind that his email is not easy to guess as it has numbers in it.  The connection was via Catherine Burn  (Burn without an "s"),  who's Mackey's opposite number in Sydney.

(**This criminal and subversive element which straddles British society is tangibly linked to all high profile cases,  including media stories and campaigns,  court cases  (some of which appear to be totally fictional,  and yet reported as real),  the suppression of any leaks relating to the Jewish Pedo Mafia who run the UK government's institutions.)

I am aware that the significance of the Australian angle's not something you'll fully understand in this message.  However,  in terms of the maths,  in that country,  we have in order of infamy and significance,  the top three most famous paedophiles and Burn is involved,  very closely in their protection.

You may wish to look these people up:

1.  Dolly Dunn  (given immunity by her mentor and ex boss);
2.  Peter Truong  (covered for by her,  Bravehearts Inc,  ABC,  Ginger Gorman,  the DIAC  (immigration department,  who enabled the trafficking of children as well as providing them with dodgy passports));  and,
3.  Garry Burns  (the deranged,  perverted maniac who takes part in online  "banter"  involving joking about raping children.  He's also a serial litigant full time invalid benefit claiming child sex tourism location globe trotting playboy.  A serial litigant and extortionist who like Puddick's totally protected by police and Masonry.  He makes Puddick look discreet.  If you search his name and  "foreskin",  you'll see he's always going on about them and also he mentions them on recorded calls,  posts pictures of rabbis biting them off children---he's a very sick man,  and yet alleges to speak for gay people.  One crankish thing he's come out with in court is that sodomy should not be linked to homosexuals as it's disgusting and also if you do,  you should be prosecuted for a hate crime.  He admits to having been beaten up by children in a playground who he propositioned,  but the state awarded him an invalidity pension for PTS over the incident.  H eroutinely threatens to have people raped by the police,  that he'll watch them being raped and even threatens to rape children and sodomize and murder women on a routine basis,  all in writing and often cc'ing  "Cath",  his chief of police friend,  prime ministers,  senators and MPs.  He also supports public sodomy as a means to promote equality,  but only for paeodphiles and homosexuals and not for normal people.  It's called  "The Beat Project"  and has many depraved supporters.  In fact,  the public toilets in the UK seem to be getting geared up for it,  with their police installed police  "homophobic hate crime"  numbers in toilets frequented by homosexual paedophiles who scrawl adverts for children for rape daily.

I write,  presuming that this is you who's being mentioned.  Secondarily,  I wish to explain that there's more to what's going on with Harvey and it's not a box that can be opened a small crack and shut again.  I presume it is you who's mentioned in the video,  but I don't think you probably know how serious Puddick's exposure is.  He's not discreet,  preferring to pretend to be a wally and link himself to everyone and anyone.  He uses his real name and is constantly getting caught lying,  such as saying he's not a Jew when he's described as a Jew in the Guardian.

Frankly no one cares about a pop star being set up,  especially as they've successfully demonized him,  but they do definitely care about pedo cover ups.  Putting people like Puddick and Burns on this most serious of operations has been a massive mistake.

Hopefully this will help you understand the situation.  If you were involved,  and I'm not saying you were,  but it looks like some people think you were;  the question is at which point did you become aware of the situation and more importantly did you know how far reaching the wider issues at stake were?  Normally,  compartmentalization prevents ninety-odd-percent of those involved working out what's happening so they think they're insulated.

Feel free to respond with any questions,  but this is primarily just to let you know that a Richard Mallett's about to be publicly very much implicated in something very unsavory.  I'm not saying you're involved or are accused of being involved in any of the more sinister stuff.  Indeed,  I write as I presume that you're not,  but it's very real and the same people promoting it are targeting other people,  Harvey and me.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Cahill
skype:  t0mcahill
(zero in  "t0m")

Garry Burns connections to pedophile and infant anal sex normalization activist  who led the Sydney Mardi Gras Peter Tatchell who writes not all sex with children is bad.

His links are proven in this video:
And more here:

Garry Burns self admitted link to pedophile shill Ian Puddick exposed in this post, has already been documented. A pedophile shill so famous he's named in popular rap songs as such.

Garry Burns has denied he knows of and is friends with the Pedophile who lead the Sydney Mardi Gras in 2010 Peter Tachell because even he knows he is a pedophile. The forensic proof is on the video above they are very close friends and the London police should keep a close on eye on him when he goes to England to his exclusive secret Facebook group meet-ups with Tatchell's inner circle.

Google Forced by European Law to Unlist Peter Tatchell Paedophilia Book Exposé

Peter Tatchell
Peter Tatchell – contributed to the Book, a Betrayal of Youth, edited by former Vice-Chair of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Warren Middleton. Now someone is trying to hide it from Google Search results in Europe.
Thanks to EU legislation, search giant Google has been forced to censor awkward facts from its European search results. A few days ago I received a notice of de-linking of a page on this site and given the chilling implications, I thought it worth sharing.
In March 2014, with the help of amazing Sun journalist @LouiseMensch, I wrote an exposé of a British activist called Peter Tatchell. It is still on this site, entitled, “Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds”. Tatchell is well known in Britain as a human rights activist but back in the mid 1980s he contributed to a book called “The Betrayal of Youth” (perhaps not coincidentally, “Betrayal of Youth”, stands for ‘Boy’). He had also written a letter to the Guardian newspaper (which they had published) in which he appeared to say that sex with adults had brought some nine-year-olds, ‘great joy’.
Several of the contributors to the book were avowed paedophiles. For example the editor of the book was Warren Middleton (also known as John Parratt), now a convicted paedophile (archive here). At his trial in 2011, the prosecutor told the court that Middleton was part of a group of paedophiles who would meet up to look at illegal images of underage boys. Found at the home Middleton shared with another paedophile were three discs containing over 5,000 images. Perhaps there may be some connection between Middleton’s interests and the title of the book.
The book was written in pure text, without any pictures, even drawings. This means that whilst revolting, it can legally be possessed and published in United Kingdom and United States Law. Legal or not, neither I nor other journalists will publish the book as a whole. However, both this site and Christian Voice have published damning extracts. (archive of Christian Voice article here).
The thrust of the book was that the age of consent should be abolished entirely. The first sentence on the back cover, for example, is, “Ages of consent are completely useless.” It is a theme that pervades the book. Children, were to be ‘liberated’ from ‘oppression’.
Obviously, the book’s theme is a horrifying one. To abolish the age of consent entirely. Not merely to reduce it, to (say) 15 or 14 or 8 or even 3. To abolish it.
Tatchell claims his chapter, entitled, “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent”, was merely questioning the idea. To ensure journalistic fairness, I published his right of reply in full at the bottom of my 2014 article. I note that Peter Tatchell has never been charged or convicted with any paedophile offence and it is not asserted here that he is a paedophile. Tatchell’s explanation is (in summary) that when he agreed to contribute he did not know that the editor and many of the other contributors were paedophiles, the title of the book, nor the content of the other chapters. Tatchell still advocated lowering the age of consent to 14.
One oft-quoted sentence from Tatchell’s chapter is this, “What purpose does it [the age of majority] serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?”
The chapter immediately after Tatchell’s is entitled, “Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable … ?” It was written by Roger Moody and opens with a description of two 8-year olds engaged in sexual activity. Again, as it is only text they were able to avoid prosecution.
In my article I linked to a 4 page extract that included the whole of Tatchell’s chapter, as well as the table of contents and (for context) a couple of the pages following on. That link can be found near the bottom of my earlier article here.
On 09/01/2016 I received a notice from Google that, under the new European Union ‘Right to be Forgotten’, someone wants that hidden. This is the body of the email I received from Google –
Someone wants the extracts from Betrayal of Youth removed from Google Search. (Click full size).
Someone wants the extracts from Betrayal of Youth removed from Google Search. (Click full size).
The only thing being removed from search results is the file containing the extracts from “Betrayal of Youth”. Now, under the ‘right to be forgotten’ the only people who can have data, ‘forgotten’ by Google search are those identified in it. So whoever made this request is named in the book extract.
That does not necessarily mean Tatchell. Whilst most of the file is his chapter of the book, the article itself is not being removed so it suggests that one of the book’s other contributors may have made the request. Many people are identified as contributors in the brief extract.
Of course many of the people who could have made the request are creepy PIE sympathisers or enthusiastic, unrepentant paedophiles. It strikes me that there is an issue here of the balance between free speech on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other and I am not sure in this case that it has been struck correctly.
On the other hand, the “Right to be Forgotten” is an interesting area of law. Google itself is a data controller. This means that even if a newspaper, a website or a blocking database has its data outside the EU, when data passes into Google’s control it falls under EU data protection law. This might be of use to those who feel wronged by (for example) blocking databases. Even if they cannot directly affect those who control the publication or the database they may be able to remove it entirely from Google results in the European Union.
Bernard Gaynor was also sued for not supporting those who support anal sex with infants like Peter Tatchell, that's why Garry sued Bernard Gaynor because his child sex lover friend was attacked on Bernard Gaynor's blog.
Garry Burns gay child sex love terrorist school bomb threat placing organization kiwifarms.net also targeted the author of this post below. The militant baby sex love kiwifarms pedophile cult works hand in hand's with NSW Newcaslte GLLO Special Gay child fucker protector Police in joint attacks against John Sunol!
So a world famous Gay Terrorist organization who threatens to bomb schools is praising the NSW GLLO CHILD FUCK POLICE! WOW!

Here's how kiwifarms who stalk all of Garry Burns enemies doing criminal online Harrasment came out and proved their love of the kiddy gay child sex:

Peter Tatchell – A Little Bit Like PIE

Peter Tatchell surrounded by bright colours
Peter Tatchell surrounded by bright colours – used with permission
The Witchfinder examines former Labour Party official and Parliamentary candidate Peter Tatchell’s policy positions over the last few years. Despite the rhetoric about protecting children, in the detail we find Tatchell has all too much in common with the sinister PIE agenda, albeit with a less extreme policy set. The Witchfinder calls for Tatchell’s beliefs to be identified – not feted by the left, and for him to be cast out of British public life. Rights campaigning must not be confused or blurred with the legitimisation of abuse no matter how well meaning or sympathetically presented.
Before we get into Peter Tatchell’s beliefs it is necessary to make some things clear. Whatever Tatchell has in common with PIE, he was never (as far as the Witchfinder can determine) a member. The infamous photo of Tatchell holding a PIE sign is a fake.
However, whilst the picture is fake, it does appear there are some similarities between Tatchell, OutRage! and PIE’s policy positions. Despite their protests OutRage! and Tatchell seem to hold watered down versions of some of the key policy positions held by the sinister paedophile ‘rights’ activist group, although they profess different motives.
Tatchell has described his own views in slightly different terms over the years, but the essence of them (from the most recent statement his assistant sent me) is that he advocates –
  1. a general reduction in the age of consent to 14
  2. a general policy of non-prosecution of sexual activity with perhaps even younger people provided that there was a closeness in their age ranges, consent and no harm. Tatchell expressly states that this could include people of 13 or younger
The text from his 2012 statement is quoting a 2010 speech and says –
Given that most young people now start having sexual  relations around the age of 14, an age of consent of 14 might be more realistic  and reasonable. If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is  criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old’s interest?
Another option would be to introduce a tiered age of  consent, where under-age sex would cease to be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than, say, two or three years difference  in their ages. This tiered age of consent exists in Italy, Switzerland and  Israel. It is designed to prevent the criminalisation of younger people of similar  ages, while protecting the vulnerable from possible manipulation by those much older.
This is pretty much the same as the earlier policy promoted by OutRage! and quoted in Peter Tatchell’s interview with a sexually active 14 year old boy.
The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.
The example used in his 2001 Guardian article was Romeo and Juliet, who Tatchell suggests were 14 and 13, respectively. Of course readers should remember that Romeo and Juliet both ended up dead. Tatchell has repeated these proposals on his own site as recently as 2012.
These ideas are, at their kindest, hopelessly naïve. The effect of the law change he advocates would be to make it legal, for example, for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old schoolgirl. As they are now with 16 year olds, social services would be forced to condone and protect the girl’s right to choose – no matter the potential power imbalance or risk of exploitation.
The second proposal is vaguer, (perhaps because a detailed discussion of its implications would be inflammatory). Let us examine them. In 1997 Tatchell published an interview with a 14 year old boy called, ‘Lee’. I quote – “At the age of 11, Lee had a relationship with a 14 year old named Andrew” and “My first gay sex was with a friend from school called John. I was eight and half. He was the same age.”
The precise limits Tatchell proposes are unclear as is the lower age limit proposed.
Tatchell says he is against paedophilia. However, s9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines ‘Sexual activity with a child’ as sexual activity with a person under 16. For the purposes of most UK sex laws a ‘child’ is anyone under 16. So what he proposes would as a matter of strict fact legalise activities that are presently classed as paedophilia. As a matter of strict fact, Tatchell therefore advocates the legalisation of some paedophile activity.
The difference between Tatchell and PIE is that instead of reducing the age of consent by 6 years he proposes reducing it by 2 as well as the vaguely defined second proposal. Tatchell finds examples such as ‘Lee’ of young people who propose that under-age sex can be a positive experience.
The picture of Peter Tatchell holding a PIE Placard is fake. The photoshopped caption says ‘NOT ALL SEX INVOLVING CHILDREN IS UNWANTED’. Tatchell says it is libellous. But he has expressed that very same view both himself and through the examples he has chosen. In the interview, ‘Lee’ said, ‘I liked it a lot. It was great.’
Not only does Tatchell say repeatedly in terms that that sex between minors is not always unwanted, he wants to enshrine in law the right of those presently defined as children to have sex with persons vastly older. Tatchell never held that sign. But he espoused those beliefs.
The Witchfinder contacted Tatchell and received a response from his personal assistant, ‘James’. James points out that, ‘OutRage! has never advocated that sex with 13 year olds could or should be decriminalised’ . James is quite right. Neither OutRage! nor Tatchell has ever advocated any such belief. James also drew my attention to Tatchell’s clarifying statement, which the Witchfinder duly links to.
What Tatchell advocates is law that would allow 50 year old men to penetrate 14 year olds, and a prosecution policy that would allow a 12 year old to penetrate a 9 year old. The initial response was very prompt so to check I was not being unfair I went back and asked what the lower age limit on the non-prosecution policy might be.
The answer to that question was a single line as follows, ‘Peter has stated his position in the article that I linked to’. I note the age in the interview with ‘Lee’ he talks about a first sexual activity at the age of 8 and a half.
Tatchell’s assistant says that ‘Lee’ never gave his real name, and provided no contact details for his alleged partners. In short it is impossible to check the facts and it was also impossible for Tatchell to verify the facts.
I then sent a draft of this article to Tatchell. Before long I got a lengthy set of what his assistant considers to be ‘balance’ corrections, for example that he proposes that the changes go hand in had with more sex education and help to report abusers and so forth, as though children are not already deluged with such advice in this day and age. No facts were disputed. Not to mention that if the age of consent is reduced young people are likely to get some more ‘practical’ sex education.
The Witchfinder is an ethical journalist and has simply cut and paste the whole response at the end of this article as a ‘right of reply’, cutting out only a half-sentence which unfairly calls critics ‘malicious’ and therefore itself runs a risk of being defamatory. The Witchfinder feels one can oppose reducing the age of consent without being malicious.
So what are we left with? We are certainly not left with an army of sexually frustrated 14-year olds marching on Parliament. The advocates of a lower age of consent are primarily adult men.
Taking their position at its kindest and with the most charity the Witchfinder can offer, Peter Tatchell’s positions on the age of consent are in their core elements weakened versions of PIE’s positions, motivated by naïve liberalism. If they were successful would it stop there? Who knows what the next ‘reform’ asked for might be?
Peter Tatchell is not a paedophile. He was never in PIE. However, he does want to legalise some sexual activity with minors (i.e. Paedophile activity), he has said and does say (as the fake PIE sign did) that not all under age sex is unwanted. The policies he proposes would make it legal to have sex with those the law presently deems to be children.
The views of Tatchell and others of his ilk may be well intentioned but they play directly into the hands of very real paedophiles, some of whom (unlike Tatchell) doubtless have a very real agenda of abusing every child they can get their hands on. Making it legal will not help.
The proposal to reduce the age of consent is nothing to do with gay rights, or lesbian rights, or transgender rights or intersex rights. It applies as much to white heterosexuals as anyone else. One can be for LGBTI rights (or indifferent) whilst still opposing legislative changes that will open the floodgates for predators.
Accordingly, Peter Tatchell has no place in public life, whether in Britain or anywhere else in the world.

Post a Comment