This is a question being put on Facebook;

"Should the IPCC be the subject of an inquiry to test its independence?" 

And you can place your vote here; https://www.facebook.com/questions/10150588848558188/?notif_t=quest...

     Here's my take on them; the Independent Police Complaints Committee [IPCC] are as close as bed-mates with the police as you could possibly expect to get, - and another reason we need to see a real and truly independent IPCC, run by genuinely unrelated members of the public sitting on the boards of inquiries, instead of anyone who is to do with the police or legal fraternity, - and particularly so if they are a member of a secret society, like that of the Freemasons.

     Let's just take a quick look at the slaying of the newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinso, who was brutally attacked by a masked police officer at the London G20 protests 2009, and for no apparent reason whatsoever, other than he felt like it and could - and which resulted in the poor mans death.

    The top cops then pass the message down the thin blue line, pervading the same kind of message throughout the ranks of the force in the form of “Chinese whispers”, so that when this kind of message is then passed on to the ordinary PC by their superiors, it’s giving them the thumbs-up to get their battle dress on, having their truncheon in one hand, Taser gun on the hip, mace spray in the breast pocket and with their riot shields in the other hand.  And as indicated by the boss, if it’s too peaceful, then just lash out and beat the first innocent newspaper vendor whosoever just happens to be strolling along minding their own business, - that way you might hopefully provoke a reaction from the mob, and we can then steam-in, and give em all a good old beating, and with a bit of luck we might even kill the odd one here and there, and not to worry if it does come on top, your be protected, because we can’t have a copper grassing on his superiors, saying; “Well, we were encouraged by our superiors to go out and kick arse”.

                        

     And the toothless Independent Police Complaints Committee [IPCC] won’t do anything, and after months or even years of investigations, interviews and hearings with the running up of expense accounts: “You’re got some lovely hotels about the country...”, will be about the only comments coming from the investigating officers from the IPCC, they will not find anyone responsible, so therefore guilty or answerable, as all those police officers they would of interviewed, will have simply close ranks, saying they see nothing, heard nothing, - and nothing will happen as a result of their findings.  And to then help rub the family’s noses even deeper in the shit, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] announced no one will be charged for either the assault, possible murder or even the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. 

     The police, the CPS and the IPCC were all fully aware that there was a six month time limit [in regards to the assault charge], that means if no police officer is charged within that period, then they couldn’t be charged with the alleged offence anyway, now that’s what I call a “conspiracy”, as there was clearly more than one party who helped towards this cover-up.  In fact I can’t see why there isn’t now another criminal investigation launched and the accusation of another crime can’t be brought forward by the families defence team of solicitors, in that; “collusion” to stall the investigation and prevent any charges being made within that know time period, obviously took place.  Bearing in mind the legal six month timeline in which the officer could be charged, it appears the investigation was purposely delayed knowing full well that the alleged officer couldn’t have been charged either way, even if he was or wasn’t guilty.

     But I’m not sure what’s worse, the failure to bring charges forward before the six months was up, or the very fact that such a loophole exists in the first place?  I urge the Tomlinson’s solicitor’s, though he too, is more than likely to be a Freemason, so won’t exactly be rushing off his feet to see the prosecution of a fellow brother, - so I urge the Tomlinson family to insist their solicitor looks into this matter, and particularly in regards to the more appropriate charge of manslaughter, and the little matter of conspiracy by the bodies involved who appear to have colluded to prevent this being heard in a court of law.  After all, isn’t manslaughter what any other member of the public is normally charged with following the death of another person, if it can be proved that, that person had some kind of involvement with the person before they died? 

On the 6/9/2009 in an interview with the Guardian, Tomlinson’s widow, Julia, and son, Paul King, spoke for the first time about the anger, hurt and frustration they have felt in the months since his death. They said they felt they had been pressured by the City of London police, Scotland Yard and the IPCC not to speak out.  The family said police had prevented them from viewing Tomlinson’s body for six days after his death.  Police initially tried to persuade them there was nothing suspicious about the death and gave them only an edited version of his first post-mortem examination.  Telling the family he had “Died of a heart attack”, police made no mention of significant injuries found on Tomlinson’s body. ^[4]

    The family said they could no longer keep silent when the IPCC announced this week that it had completed its investigation and handed a file to the CPS.  The family believe police misled them over Tomlinson’s death from the outset.  Police then refused to allow her to see his body in the Royal London Hospital, she added; “Six days later, I wasn’t allowed to go and see him, I didn’t understand why they didn’t want me to go and see him – if someone dies of a heart attack, you get to go and see him. But they weren’t letting me”. They also disclosed that, when a post-mortem examination was completed three days after Tomlinson died, police gave them an edited version of the results.  The family were not told that a forensic pathologist had found large amounts of blood in his stomach, a suspected dog bite on his leg and a number of other injuries.  Paul King said: “We’ve been confused by the City police, Metropolitan police, IPCC to not say anything: - Don’t say anything, because you'll jeopardise the case. - I think we've been so confused with all that – don’t say this, don't say that, even down to don't talk to the media – they've made us quite scared to talk. The IPCC have finished their investigation, we haven't been able to talk, and we just want to let people know how we feel.  We are grieving”. ^[5]

    Incredibly the pathologist Mohamed “Freddy” Patel, who was appointed by the City of London coroner Paul Matthews to carry out the first post-mortem examination on Ian Tomlinson, was already under investigation by the General Medical Council [GMC] for misconduct or deficient professional performance relating to three earlier post-mortems.  On the 26th of August Patel was found guilty of having behaved ‘irresponsibly’, a GMC disciplinary panel ruled. The family of Mr Tomlinson described Patel as an “obstacle to the truth”. 

     How much more are we expected to take from these corrupt bastards, - when just three days into the new inquiry into Tomlinson’s death, it was unbelievably reported ^[5a] on the 31^st March 2011, that the incompetent Freddy Patel has yet again been suspended, but for just four months, when the man should be jailed, or at the very least struck off for life.  A hearing concluded that the pathologist’s ‘irresponsible’ autopsies into the first victim of the Camden Ripper murder’s, may have hampered the police investigation. A hearing was told how his autopsy on Hardy’s [the murderer] first victim Ms White, discouraged a police investigation that might have saved two other women.  The prat of a coroner reported to the police that he ruled out murder, which therefore meant there was effectively ‘no crime to investigate’.  And yet again, we are ‘all’ cheated, these pathologists and doctors whom again are virtually ‘all Freemason’, stick like flies to a lump of shit.  As they look a Patel, and see themselves standing there, knowing full well they’re as guilty as him.  This is why we need these laws, that will reveal who is and who isn’t a Freemason, and any of these sorts of jobs shouldn’t be open to them. 

     The naked body of Ms White’s was discovered by police in a locked room at Hardy’s flat in Camden on the 20^th January 2002.  He’d covered the blood-stained walls with Celtic and Christian crosses.  Within months, Hardy went on to kill 29 year old Elizabeth Valad, and 34 year old Brigette MacClennan.  He chopped up their bodies and dumped in bin bags.  Patel, carried out three reports on White’s death, all of which concluded she had died naturally.  He said there were ‘no marks of violence’ in the first report, despite the fact she had a large gash to the back of her head, and a bite mark on her thigh. Her nose was bruised, and liver split, yet this wanker said it could have been caused by resuscitation attempts.

Let's not forget Charles de Menezes;

                                                     The IPCC, said the officers would not face a police tribunal over the July 22nd 2005 killing ^[3] of this totally innocent young man who they shot, not once, twice, three, four, five, six or even seven times, but eight times in his head, - and that no one has had to answer, or be found accountable for his death.  - Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards.  de Menezes was shot eight times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals.  A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots. ^[4]

No officer’s face charges in which looks like another cover-up as no police officers will be charged over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, prosecutors announced on the 13/2/2009, following a review of evidence from the inquest into his death. The decision finally cleared the commanders in the alleged bungled police operation and the two marksmen involved.  An inquest jury found that catastrophic failures by police led to the killing of de Menezes, who was mistakenly identified as a suicide bomber.  They returned an open verdict - rejecting the option of deciding that de Menezes was lawfully killed. They also dismissed the accounts of marksmen, known as C2 and C12, who claimed they had shouted a warning before shooting him, and that he had advanced aggressively towards them. ^[5]

     As other independent witnesses had said; “...no such thing had occurred, no warning was given by the police, nor was de Menezes showing any form of aggression towards any of the attacking officers”.  It was the most damaging outcome possible for the Metropolitan Police after the coroner and Sir Michael Wright, had earlier ruled out the possibility of an unlawful killing verdict.  Then the CPS lawyers, reviewing the evidence for a second time since the shooting in July 2005, said that; “No new evidence emerged to warrant a prosecution”.  Freemason Stephen O’Doherty, of the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “I have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence that any offence was committed by any individual officers in relation to the tragic death of Mr de Menezes. In reaching this decision, I considered whether the officers known as C2 and C12 acted in self defence in shooting Mr de Menezes and also whether they lied to the inquest about what was said and done immediately before the shooting. - The answers the jury provided to specific questions they were asked by the coroner made it clear, albeit to a civil standard, that the jury did not accept the officers accounts of what happened.

     However, although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said at the inquest, there were also inconsistencies in what passengers had said. I concluded that in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events. - I also considered the actions of the individual officers in the police management team on that day and considered whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any of them with gross negligence manslaughter.  There was no fresh evidence from the inquest which caused me to change my original decision that there was insufficient evidence to do so. I have today written to the de Menezes family explaining my decision”. ^[6]

     Now how on earth can we rely on any of these kind of people in positions of power, - in trusted positions to establish the truth, how is it, in this instance Stephen O’Doherty of the CPS Special Crime Division come out with such blatant bullshit, and then to rub salt into the wound, get clean away with it? - The de Menezes family, who said they felt vindicated by the inquest jury’s findings, are said to be unhappy and equally devastated that no action will be taken against those who murdered their innocent son.  They had accused the Masonic coroner of failing on every count to ensure justice was done, because of the severe limitations he had placed on the jury’s deliberations. - Again we have to question; - why did he, and more importantly how is he allowed to do so?

Then the killing of Mark Saunders;

                                                   In May 2008-Chelsea CO19 are called to Chelsea, London, where Mark Saunders, ^[9] a defence barrister, was locked in his luxury flat after opening fire at his neighbour’s houses with a shotgun. After a tense standoff, during which Saunders exchanged fire with C019 officers, he was shot several times by marksmen. Taking no chances, CO19 stormed the flat, throwing in stun grenades and tear gas canisters.  Mr Saunders was taken outside so he could be given medical assistance but it was too late as he was already dead from his wounds. Saunders family say that the IPCC has accepted that it did not seize all the relevant accounts from police officers about the shooting more than a month afterwards - allowing a long time to confer, - but only after Charlotte Saunders, the barrister’s sister, won permission on the 17th July 2008 at the High Court for a judicial review of an ongoing investigation into the shooting being carried out by the IPCC. ^[10] The family claim that when Mr Saunders, was shot on the 6th May 2008, he had not fired his weapon for around 20 minutes.  The legal papers also claim that a negotiator talking to the gunman was impeded by the noise of the police helicopters and say there were repeated recorded requests by officers for the helicopters to move away so that negotiations could continue - including ten seconds before Mr Saunders was fatally wounded.  

     Now this shows you how insincere many of the police officers are, and who are in fact often itching to blow someone’s brains out. A Metropolitan police firearms officer who may have fired the deadly shot that killed Mark Saunders was removed from firearms duty after allegedly inserting song titles into his oral evidence at the dead man’s inquest. ^[11] The IPCC confirmed it is investigating the unnamed officer, who gave evidence as Alpha Zulu 8 or AZ8, after it emerged that he had been reprimanded by his superior shortly after giving evidence on the 27th September 2010.  An examination of the transcript shows that evidence given by AZ8 contained a number of phrases which are also the titles of songs, including Enough is Enough by Donna Summer, Point of No Return by Buzzcocks, Line of Fire by Journey, Quiet Moments by Chris de Burgh, Kicking Myself by As Tall As Lions and Fuck My Old Boots by the Membranes. 

Extract from Trapped in a Masonic World - http://www.trappedinamasonicworld.co.uk

[3] "The Trinity of Global Empire >a href="http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1231966366%3E">http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/ne...;.

[4]"'They've made us scared to talk a4 we just want to let people a href="http://www.zimbio.com/Ian+Tomlinson/articles/SuqNzFte_ZX/ve+made+scared+talk+a4+just+want+let+people%3E">http://www.zimbio.com/Ian+Tomlinson/articles/SuqNzFte_ZX/ve+made+sc...;.  

[5] "Britain: Report into police killing of Ian Tomlinson handed ..." a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/toml-a15.shtml%3E">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/toml-a15.shtml>;.

[5a] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371894/Pathologist-critici...

[6] a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308667/Ian-Tomlinson-pathologist-Freddy-Patel-suspended-months.html%3E">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308667/Ian-Tomlinson-patho...;.

[7]"Tomlinson widow backs sanction / Britain / Home - Morning Star." a href="http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/94852%3E">http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full...;.

[8] "Photos of police banned in name of counter-terrorism a href="http://photodoto.com/photos-of-police-banned/%3E">http://photodoto.com/photos-of-police-banned/>;.

[9] "Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - informationliberation." a href="http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26548%3E">http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26548>;.

[10] "BBC News - Police publish report into death of Blair Peach in ..." a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8645485.stm%3E">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8645485.stm>;.

[11] "Police investigate truncheon attack - Crime, UK - The Independent."  a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brain-op-for-student-hit-by-truncheon-2156207.html%3E">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brain-op-for-student-hit...;.

     Free copy of Trapped in a Masonic World in PDF format - 'Warning Over 18yrs Only' - do share; http://m.friendfeed-media.com/d00495e5f7afc74daa5a6a521aada39c9c52315e

     This book contains numerous expletives, derogatory terms and insults, aimed at many groups, organisations and people in which you could quite likely find yourself being among one or more of those categories. Don‘t try and judge the book by its cover, or should I say title, - as some already have and therefore have assumed there is some kind of... undercurrent racist agenda here within its contents, when in fact you‘ll see it‘s quite the opposite. Though if you are overtly devout in your religious beliefs, whether you‘re Christian, Muslim, Jewish or from any other faith, it might not be your cup of tea, as I'm an agnostic, borderline atheist. - If you're a member of a secret society, a corrupt world leader, MP, policeman, civil servant, - a paedophile or child abuser in general, - then I‘m afraid it‘s highly likely you will find this book extremely abhorrent, very insulting and bad for your blood pressure. So with this in mind I therefore recommend you DO NOT read on any further than this page.

     JOIN US – Surely it’s not too much to ask; to wish to live in a world where our governments are sincerely transparent and fit for the 21^st Century, - and not remain in circa 1776. http://www.causes.com/causes/643665-ban-members-of-secret-societies...