Boris Johnson: Minsk Agreements a “diplomatic charade”
LONDON, 00:44, Saturday 28 January 2023:
The Russian Embassy (London) reports that on a recent trip to Kiev (Sunday 22 January) former UK prime minister Boris Johnson admitted the Minsk Agreements were nothing more than a “diplomatic charade.”
At time of going to press (00:44 hours) this important story is unreported by British mainstream media. TASS reported the story two hours ago. Will any MSM outlet in the UK report on this?
* * * * * * *
Alexi Mostrous publishing utter **** on the Hampstead SRA case
Alexi Mostrous is the latest in a long line to present the Hampstead SRA case as a hoax, as here in The Sun.
I’ve never published a major work on the Hampstead SRA case to date. (I could.) I have previously given a brief summary of my position on the case. I investigated the Hampstead SRA case myself; I concluded it is a genuine case.
My idea of investigating a serious organised crime case such as Hampstead is rather different to the likes of Mostrous and his ilk (Aaronovitch, Waterhouse etc). Mr Mostrous, we can be sure, has never had any access to the intelligence from operations surveilling Hampstead persons of interest. Mostrous hasn’t seen and heard the video and audio recordings from that. Mostrous hasn’t followed people around on the Tube. These are the kind of things which real investigative journalists do. It’s the sort of work which enables serious journalists to really know the facts of a case.
In getting the Hampstead story so completely upside down as he has, Mostrous has failed to engage in anything I could fairly and credibly describe as professional journalism. Mostrous’ position – that the Hampstead case was a hoax based on false allegations – is totally wrong. His version of the Hampstead story is hatchet-job nonsense.
Last year I sent Mostrous the tweet below; it’s telling that his only response was to block me immediately.
Dr Anke Hill case update
I’m going to be away for about six months now. That takes us to July. I may or may not pop back briefly in May, but even if I do that, I won’t pick up properly until July. The last couple of years have been challenging. I’ve been intending to take an online sabbatical for quite a while, so I really have got to be gone for six, to get other stuff done (including sorting out old online content). With the Anke Hill case, and the Samantha Baldwin case, I’m well aware that people keep coming back here to check for new developments. That’s understandable. I know very well that the children in both these cases remain in harm’s way; and may I assure people that they are not forgotten. Also, with the Anke Hill case, I know various decent adults are in prison. I assume that prisoners especially will be keen to have any news relevant to them. As regards Sam Baldwin, I expect to have substantial new material ready for publication on my return (i.e., certainly, in the second half of 2023). As regards the Anglesey case, I will have more to say on that immediately on my return. I hope that the six months will be well worth the wait for what I shall have to say on that case then. As readers are aware, I’ve had a collaboration of sorts with German journalists in order to investigate the Anglesey case. I’ve no control over what or when the Germans choose to publish (and vice versa). It’s my understanding that they plan to go to press some time this year; I get the impression – I may be wrong – that they’re aiming for September/October with a very substantial set of publications then (as in, I think, something akin to a book serialisation), as well as TV/video. The Germans are still actively investigating the case, including new lines of enquiry relating to various locations in England which have never previously been followed up (for sure, not by North Wales Police). I can’t (and wouldn’t) speak here to the wisdom of the Germans’ decision to chase what may be relatively peripheral lines of enquiry. I can understand wanting to do a ‘no stone left unturned’ investigation, if they have the budget, the time and promising leads. Undoubtedly, we have different cultural approaches to [and budgets for] journalism. What I do is, I trust, good and thorough, but I’m a different kettle of fish to these German operators. Our loose collaboration has been mutually beneficial, and so I hope the public (and the people concerned) will see a ‘double blessing’ in terms of the fruit which ripens online in 2023. (Goodness knows, the people in the case deserve that journalists do the best they can, here and in Germany.) To date I have not made any enquiries of my own in Germany, which I mention because the German journalists have not shared with me everything they have from German sources (which is perfectly reasonable, for a loose collaboration); indeed, I am not party to the identities of most of those sources. I know Germans do read this blog, and I assume that some will have some form of personal link to the Seegert family, or belong to the Seegert family. Those German readers with a direct interest in this case should not be surprised if they are contacted by British journalists in the next few months, either by phone, email or social media accounts. By forewarning of this possibility, I hope these German persons will feel more confident about and prepared for talking to British journalists. Translation/interpretation is an issue for me if I do attempt to contact German speakers, but I will resolve that if necessary. Again, I apologise for the delay in this matter, but I’ve been putting off and putting off the sabbatical I really do need to take for far too long already, so I sincerely hope that followers of this story will be happy with what happens later this year. I should also say, before I go, that I am willing in principle to get involved in taking the Anglesey case to the CCRC, later this year. Whilst I am not a lawyer, I have considered the law as it relates to kidnapping in some detail. I have thoroughly understood the legal basis upon which the 2021 prosecution at Caernarfon Crown Court proceeded. There is, in my opinion, an arguable case that the convictions are wrong and ought to be quashed, via the consideration of new and/or previously unheard evidence together with errors in law by the trial judge. The defendants in the case were denied a fair defence, the judge ruling that the lawful defence of necessity was invalid in this case, not to mention that all the evidence for a defence of necessity was deemed inadmissible too. So, not only did the jury not hear the vital defence evidence, but also the jury was told that the judge had already ruled that jurors were forbidden from giving any Not Guilty verdict by reason of necessity. (The one acquitted defendant asserted that she was not a participant in the ‘conspiracy to kidnap’ and the jury acquitted her on that basis.) Similarly, Dr Anke Hill didn’t go to trial at all, not because she wasn’t innocent and didn’t believe in her own innocence, but because a judge told her that were she to go to trial, she would not be allowed to present any of the vital defence evidence she would have wanted to put to a jury. The defendants were also denied the line of defence that the child had consented to his rescue (therefore it wasn’t an unlawful kidnap) by various events and circumstances, legal and otherwise, which scuppered that defence. Perhaps the so-called ‘kidnappers’ will yet make legal history; perhaps a legal miracle is possible. Quicker though and more certain is that the truth come out in the press.
I was sceptical when I first heard that [the late] Dr Diedrich Seegert had somehow managed to contact and contract with Wolfgang Schwarz (not his real name) to do some hardcore troubleshooting in England and Wales. Contacting him was impressive enough; contracting with him would’ve been expensive – and Wolfgang can really pick and choose his jobs. Wolfgang is a BIG GUN. Now, I’m an occasional man of action myself, but I’m not in Wolfgang’s league. Wolfgang is full-time and full on. I think Dr Seegert realised he needed truly the best man for the job, in order to pursue justice for his daughter. It was good to briefly cross paths with the great man when German and British investigations overlapped last year. I daresay Anglesey and elsewhere are in for an explosion of justice, later this year.
There’s an important common thread to the cases of Anke Hill and Samantha Baldwin. Both cases went terribly and disastrously wrong before anything began to go right. BUT . . . in both cases, somebody was saying their prayers in the name of Jesus. Sam Baldwin’s case hasn’t turned around yet to the full satisfaction of Justice, but things began to go right when, extraordinarily, her case received national media attention in March 2017. Sam’s case has never been the same since. Everybody now knows that it’s only a matter of time until Sam’s case resolves well. Sam draws closer to victory with every passing day. So too – believe it or not – with Anke Hill. Ordinarily one would’ve thought all hope dead when the Anglesey Child Rescuers became prisoners and convicts in 2020/21. But God had other plans. Why does God allow injustice to happen to good people, and allow children to be horrifically abused? I’m not going to answer that question here (but try reading Job – it’s ‘better to know God than to know the answer’). However, what will be with the Anglesey case when God writes the final chapter? The Anglesey story hasn’t died. This story is very much alive. So keep saying your prayers, whoever you are. Victim-of-extreme-evil Anke Hill will yet see a particularly spectacular turnaround.
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Richard Carvath 