Speaker 1: Good evening. Welcome to Dispatches. I'm joined this evening by
Speaker 1: Alex Thompson. Alex, welcome to the program. Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 1: I wish I was speaking to your happier circumstances. This
Speaker 1: is a very grave case that we have to cover
Speaker 1: well we do, but it's up to us and many
Speaker 1: other good people to speak out and tell the truth
Speaker 1: about what's really happening. The most important thing, I think
Speaker 1: is to get the information out there. And this, of
Speaker 1: course is one of those cases that touches on very
Speaker 1: strange things going on in the establishment. Somebody reporting wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: the system then turns on them. We have strange things
Speaker 1: going on with the police, with courts, with government officials. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: this particular gentleman ends up a prisoner of the psychiatric system.
Speaker 1: And this, of course is an event which we know
Speaker 1: about from other cases. It's very it's very frightening for
Speaker 1: many people to think that the psychiatric system, which should
Speaker 1: be there to help, can be used to try and
Speaker 1: silence people. But you've spent a lot of time investigating
Speaker 1: this particular case. The gentleman's Peter Hoffscher and can you
Speaker 1: give us a start at the beginning and tell people
Speaker 1: a little bit about the case.
Speaker 2: Peter Hoffscherer, the name is spelled hof sc hr Er
Speaker 2: and his mother is known as Grandma b. You'll find
Speaker 2: the blog easily that way. Her real name is Barbara.
Speaker 2: This pair of people have been through a very great deal.
Speaker 2: They're both disabled, elderly people. We don't know whether Barbara
Speaker 2: is still alive at this point. She would be approaching
Speaker 2: ninety if she is. What is as a case You
Speaker 2: could call it an asset stripping case of the kind
Speaker 2: we've seen in various parts at Britain, where an apparent
Speaker 2: criminal cabal within all of the public authorities in a
Speaker 2: county or city conspire to corner vulnerable old people with
Speaker 2: valuable property and steal their assets. That's one where you
Speaker 2: could look at it. You can also describe it as
Speaker 2: a case of what the Soviets called Sihushka, the abuse
Speaker 2: of psychiatry, well known in the West from the works
Speaker 2: of Alexander Soljernitsyn. Now I shouldn't let it affect me,
Speaker 2: I suppose, but it has been poignant. In calling up
Speaker 2: Peter can find apparently for life to the ward that
Speaker 2: he's been sectioned on. The forensic psychiatry department in Gratz
Speaker 2: Graz in Austria. It's been very poignant to me to
Speaker 2: be talking for once to really someone of the same
Speaker 2: bent as me, a kind of cogitative intellectual man, a
Speaker 2: historian who speaks several languages and noted his or in
Speaker 2: a the Napoleonic period, with a library of five thousand books,
Speaker 2: And to speak to someone who seems less damaged at
Speaker 2: this point than any of the others we've spoken to
Speaker 2: in prominent UK column case work who've got this far
Speaker 2: into the black hole. He is still able to reflect
Speaker 2: ironically and dryly and with understatements and relativization really on
Speaker 2: everything that's happened to him. But that's really something about Peter.
Speaker 2: Perhaps what I'll do, Brian is I'll spend about four minutes,
Speaker 2: probably reading the succinct summary of the case first, which
Speaker 2: has been written by Andy Peacher, a well known campaigner
Speaker 2: on many of these cases, and you will find his
Speaker 2: material in many places online. We're going to put the
Speaker 2: links in the associated details for this podcast, but here
Speaker 2: is what Andy Peacher has had to say about the
Speaker 2: hofsher occasion outline quote British born missus Barbara Hoffschreer was
Speaker 2: born on the thirteenth of December nineteen twenty eight, and
Speaker 2: she is in fact a disabled Second World War veteran.
Speaker 2: Just to comment by me Alex there Andy continues she
Speaker 2: was kidnapped by her abuses in May twenty fourteen. Her
Speaker 2: current whereabouts and status are unknown. She has disappeared in
Speaker 2: inverted commerce. Her son, Peter Hoffscher, was born on the
Speaker 2: twenty eighth of May nineteen fifty six and has both
Speaker 2: British and German citizenship. He has been confined to the
Speaker 2: Sigmund Freud Klimkum in Gratz gr Z, Austria for life.
Speaker 2: Although mentally sound, Barbara and Peter have exposed serious organized
Speaker 2: crime and corruption at high levels in Britain, Austria and Germany.
Speaker 2: They maintain that they have been detained to prevent further
Speaker 2: exposure of cross border criminality undertaken by senior officials. It
Speaker 2: is thought that Barbara might be confined to a local
Speaker 2: authority care home in York, England, although nothing has been
Speaker 2: heard from or about her for many months, it is
Speaker 2: not known whether or not she is still alive. Peter
Speaker 2: was detained in Britain on the first of December twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: just minutes before commencing a private prosecution case that would
Speaker 2: have exposed fraud and criminality committed against Barbara and himself,
Speaker 2: which also involved police and local authorities. He was held
Speaker 2: on remand for two years until June twenty sixteen, when
Speaker 2: he was convicted of possession of indecent images. Just to
Speaker 2: comment by me, many of the charges were dropped and
Speaker 2: fiddled with during the process. I'll get to that later.
Speaker 2: He continues to dispute the allegations and maintains that the
Speaker 2: images were planted by police or another party. Evidence supporting
Speaker 2: this was withheld from the court. Peter and his supporters
Speaker 2: also maintained that he has not had a fair trial,
Speaker 2: with Article six of the Urouropean Convention on Human Rights
Speaker 2: being seriously violated, as Peter had already served longer in
Speaker 2: jail than the sentence received by the time it came
Speaker 2: to trial, that is, he was due for immediate release. However,
Speaker 2: he continued to be held in custody pending extradition to
Speaker 2: Austria to face various charges which he maintains are false.
Speaker 2: These relates a supposed defamation of a judge by sending
Speaker 2: an email that he said he never sent. Extradition took
Speaker 2: place in July twenty seventeen, and Peter was first held
Speaker 2: in jail pending trial, and he says, by the way
Speaker 2: that while he was there, nearly ten percent of the
Speaker 2: prisoners in the jail with him were journalists and political prisoners. However,
Speaker 2: most of the charges were dropped and in November twenty
Speaker 2: seventeen he was transferred to a psychiatric institute for life,
Speaker 2: without ever having been examined by a psychiatrist in Austria.
Speaker 2: An a psychiatrist who's ever examined Peter, by the way,
Speaker 2: has been a British psychiatrist, doctor Gethins, who told the
Speaker 2: British court that there was no mental health problem with
Speaker 2: him at all. Andy continues. The psychiatrist who wrote this
Speaker 2: report was a certain university professor, doctor Manfred Waltzel wa
Speaker 2: l z L Manfred Waltzel. It has been said that
Speaker 2: he is known to fake reports to facilitate the imprisonment
Speaker 2: of opponents of the regime. His report determined that Peter
Speaker 2: suffers from such a severe paranoid personality disorder that he
Speaker 2: is a danger to the public and that he needs
Speaker 2: to be confined for life. This, however, conflicts with all
Speaker 2: the evidence. A psychiatrist in England examined Peter in person
Speaker 2: and discermined that he is of sound mind. That's doctor
Speaker 2: Geffins I just mentioned. Furthermore, suitably qualified friends and professionals
Speaker 2: confirmed that he has no mental health issues, and Brian
Speaker 2: and I just spoken to him on the phone. There's
Speaker 2: no mental health issues there, that's for sure. He's a
Speaker 2: top flight intellectual or very sound mind. Peter maintains that
Speaker 2: all these allegations of crime and mental incapacity have been
Speaker 2: fabricated in order to a prevent his exposure of official
Speaker 2: corruption in Britain, Austria and Germany. B discredit him and
Speaker 2: the evidence of this corruption he and others have already
Speaker 2: published in the public domain, that's mainly on the Grandma
Speaker 2: b blog and see to allow corrupt officials, working in
Speaker 2: cooperation with certain Hoffshurer family members to defraud Barbara and
Speaker 2: Peter of all their assets in Britain and Austria. And
Speaker 2: that is a point about this case, Brian. There's asset
Speaker 2: stripping and house stealing going on simultaneously in two EU
Speaker 2: member states. Lord Kenneth McGinnis, many people will remember him
Speaker 2: as the Ulster Unionist prominent politician, Lord McGinnis, member of
Speaker 2: the British House of Lords, working with a professional investigator,
Speaker 2: produced sufficient evidence for what should have been a successful
Speaker 2: prosecution of offenses committed by police and social works involved
Speaker 2: in the actions to defraud Barbara of her house in England.
Speaker 2: In May twenty twelve in Parliament, in fact, it was
Speaker 2: in a response to the Queen's Speech debate he called
Speaker 2: for a thorough investigation into the hoffsher case. This, however,
Speaker 2: not take place, and shortly afterwards North Yorkshire Police entered
Speaker 2: Barbara's house and claimed to have found incriminating evidence against
Speaker 2: Peter in the house. This summary is nearly done, but
Speaker 2: I will drop in the relevant things here. What's relevant
Speaker 2: about this is that within five thousand books of a collection,
Speaker 2: police supposedly found the dirt they were looking for within
Speaker 2: twenty minutes, and when challenged about it, they went back
Speaker 2: into the house and found supposedly a pile of forty
Speaker 2: six videos that they have missed in the first search
Speaker 2: of five thousand books during twenty minutes, which had netted
Speaker 2: them a piece of paper. During this time, Peter and
Speaker 2: Barbara were in exile in Austria, and the Austrian authorities
Speaker 2: then claimed that Peter lacked mental capacity that is to
Speaker 2: continue the case because he was starting a case against
Speaker 2: the Austrians even though they had never met him, and
Speaker 2: commenced proceedings to have him confined to a psychiatric institute
Speaker 2: for the rest of his life. Peter and Barbara were
Speaker 2: then forced to seek refuge in Germany, where they were
Speaker 2: granted persecuted persons status. However, in May twenty fourteen, German
Speaker 2: police and others violently kidnapped Barbara and allowed her persecutors
Speaker 2: to take her to England. Will get onto the manner
Speaker 2: of that kidnap later Brian. Both Barbara and Peter are
Speaker 2: frail and disabled. Physical violence was used against them. Since then,
Speaker 2: Barbara has been held against her will. She was known
Speaker 2: at one time to be held in a Yorkshire care
Speaker 2: home run by the local authorities. She is said to
Speaker 2: have been denied critical medication, her glasses and more. She
Speaker 2: suffered a life changing injury due to what is believed
Speaker 2: to be wilful neglect, and has been stripped of all
Speaker 2: her assets. Barbara was and still is being held in communicado,
Speaker 2: and it is not certain whether or not she is
Speaker 2: still alive. The English courts, in particular the infamous Secret Court,
Speaker 2: the Court of Protection that's the court set up in
Speaker 2: recent years to look after the assets supposedly of mentally
Speaker 2: incapacitated old people, has acted in collusion with her persecutors.
Speaker 2: Peter's appeal against his confined to a psychiatric prison was denied.
Speaker 2: The courts refused to consider evidence or hear witnesses supporting
Speaker 2: his case. Meanwhile, the Austrian State prosecutor starts Unvaldt has
Speaker 2: dropped two and a half of the three charges against Peter.
Speaker 2: These are the charges that brought into Austria in the
Speaker 2: first place. The outstanding matter is so petty that it
Speaker 2: does not warrant imprisonment. Peter maintains that he and his
Speaker 2: mother have been subjected to persecution and imprisonment due to
Speaker 2: their anti corruption activism and their exposure of serious organized
Speaker 2: crime committed by officials in several member states of the
Speaker 2: European Union. His case appears to be far from unique.
Speaker 2: In fact, when you call Peter, he'll say that there's
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of people like his mother, and he
Speaker 2: asserts that he has knowledge of reports concerning a large
Speaker 2: number of people being held in Austrian mental institutions like
Speaker 2: himself due to their opposition to the regime i e.
Speaker 2: Political prisoners. Final paragraph of Andy's summary says the level
Speaker 2: of corruption in the Hofschuer case has deterred lawyers from
Speaker 2: giving Barbara and Peter proper advice and support. Neither of
Speaker 2: them has had effective legal representation and their case has
Speaker 2: not had effective media exposure. Despite the efforts of Lord McGinnis.
Speaker 2: The case is mentioned several times in Hansard for twenty
Speaker 2: twelve and others. On the contrary, North Yorkshire Police alone
Speaker 2: have spent in excess of one million pounds in civil
Speaker 2: actions to block all publicity concerning this case. So this
Speaker 2: is as we see in Scotland with the Crown Office.
Speaker 2: People who are or were in public duty are given
Speaker 2: a bottomless pit of public money to pursue libel cases
Speaker 2: against people they don't like. No action of libel has
Speaker 2: been commenced against those involved in exposing official corruption, just
Speaker 2: a trumped up harassment charge and public money is used
Speaker 2: to silence critic. There is the summary, Bryan, of what
Speaker 2: has gone on. It is pretty incredible. It's taken me
Speaker 2: more than four minutes to read. Sorry for the underestimation there,
Speaker 2: but I think listeners will be gobsmacked enough just by
Speaker 2: that summary.
Speaker 1: It is thank you very much for that summary, Alex,
Speaker 1: because with many of these cases people who come forward,
Speaker 1: it isn't that they don't have evidence. The problem that
Speaker 1: we have consistently encountered is that they have too much evidence.
Speaker 1: They have hundreds or thousands of documents which demonstrate the
Speaker 1: reality of their case. But it's how you take that
Speaker 1: information and get it into a form that can be
Speaker 1: put across to other people simply, and I think you've
Speaker 1: done a marvelous job of that, So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: And isn't it interesting that if we come down to
Speaker 1: the absolute basics of the case, we've got a man
Speaker 1: who says that he has encountered corruption and organized crime
Speaker 1: and that has impacted on his family, where further wrongdoing
Speaker 1: has taken place. So things have happened to his mother,
Speaker 1: things have happened to him in self. You gave three
Speaker 1: points there of how he'd been targeted preventing exposure, he'd
Speaker 1: been discredited, and then corruption amongst officials was then allowed
Speaker 1: to continue. So there's a sort of template here, and
Speaker 1: the bit that you also mentioned, which I pick up
Speaker 1: on straight away, is that you say, well, the use
Speaker 1: of the psychiatric system for these criminal purposes is what
Speaker 1: we used to see in the Soviet Union. This was
Speaker 1: the Gulag, and you mentioned soldier knits In. Well, we're
Speaker 1: not in the Soviet Union. We are in Western Europe,
Speaker 1: or we're in UK and yet we are seeing a
Speaker 1: system of psychiatric abuse which is amazingly similar to the
Speaker 1: Soviet system. Perhaps we could come onto that a bit later.
Speaker 1: But this man has essentially had property stolen. Would you
Speaker 1: say that that's the key part. He's been targeted for
Speaker 1: the property he owns.
Speaker 2: That seems to have been why Peter Hofsher was targeted
Speaker 2: in the first place. He had together with his parents,
Speaker 2: and particularly after his father died in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 2: and he and his mother were vulnerable owners of a
Speaker 2: nice large house in desirable York in the city itself
Speaker 2: which falls under North Yorkshire Council and Police Area.
Speaker 1: What focuses attention is the amount of evidence that's come
Speaker 1: to light about what has happened around Peter. So can
Speaker 1: we focus on some of the detail of what's actually
Speaker 1: taken place and try and join together I'm actually trying
Speaker 1: to get my own head around this case because there's
Speaker 1: so much there to it. So we'll say, for listen,
Speaker 1: I fully appreciate the position we've had an overview of
Speaker 1: the case, but we need to I think we need
Speaker 1: to try and focus in on some of the details
Speaker 1: of things that happen, where we could say, how can
Speaker 1: you explain this? In a normal functioning system, if somebody
Speaker 1: goes to the police and they say a crime has
Speaker 1: been committed, what should happen is that they should be
Speaker 1: listened to. What they say should be recorded, They should
Speaker 1: be questioned in a reasonable way. But then a decision
Speaker 1: is made. Has the person put forward evidence which appears
Speaker 1: to be credible and if so, then there's going to
Speaker 1: be some investigation to see whether their evidence is actually credible.
Speaker 1: But none of those things have happened in this case.
Speaker 2: I'm afraid that the situation in Britain's constabulary ticularly in
Speaker 2: North Yorkshire, which is the headquarters that Jimmy Saville used,
Speaker 2: because the city of Leeds isn't in North Yorkshire, but
Speaker 2: his coastal hideaway in Scarborough was where we now all
Speaker 2: know that Saville was working closely together with the then
Speaker 2: Mayor of Scarborough, the late Peter Jack and Ellie Jaco
Speaker 2: n l I. Scarborough and North Yorkshire coastal area was
Speaker 2: the epicenter of where Jimmy Saville's operations involving children were
Speaker 2: and there's been so many scandals, particularly involving North Yorkshire that,
Speaker 2: as Lord mcgannis said in his interventions in the House
Speaker 2: of Lords including the Queen's Speech debate in twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: North Yorkshire is a particularly suspect police force. And if
Speaker 2: you go to the magistrates court or the social services
Speaker 2: in the City of York or the County of North Yorkshire,
Speaker 2: it's the same story. There is no basic investigation and
Speaker 2: you get quite illiterate threatening emails in his case even
Speaker 2: sent to him while he was in Austria saying we
Speaker 2: summon you back to Britain. This is the level of
Speaker 2: hutzpah that these authorities have literate and they claim to
Speaker 2: be able to have complete jurisdiction over you, as are
Speaker 2: they owned you body and soul, that investigations don't happen.
Speaker 1: Okay, now, Alex we have jumped so far from houses
Speaker 1: being stolen and assets being stolen and an assault by
Speaker 1: police and somebody's mother being taken and literally disappearing. We've
Speaker 1: jumped from that environment to talking about children, and you're
Speaker 1: mentioning Jimmy Saville. So for our audience, how do we
Speaker 1: how do we show how these pieces fit together or
Speaker 1: appear to fit together, Because this is a very big
Speaker 1: jump to go from organized crime, which is stealing somebody's house.
Speaker 1: That's an understandable crime. You're now talking about children being involved,
Speaker 1: and you're also mentioning Satanism.
Speaker 2: I think that the phrase you have come up with yourself, Brian,
Speaker 2: is very useful. Child abuse is the glue that keeps
Speaker 2: the criminal structures in place, which exists among behind, and
Speaker 2: above and around the official public structures we have of politicians, councilors,
Speaker 2: members of Parliament, police, social services, judges, magistrates and all
Speaker 2: the rest of them. If some of each of these
Speaker 2: professions are involved in child abuse, then there is a
Speaker 2: hold over them for life. And I think now it's
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, it's beyond reasonable doubt in the British and
Speaker 2: worldwide public's mind that there is a massive systemic problem
Speaker 2: with child abuse in every part of Britain, with particular
Speaker 2: hotspots like the coast of Yorkshire and the City of
Speaker 2: York itself in this case. I don't know whether you
Speaker 2: had anything to add on that, because of course you
Speaker 2: posed this very valid question to me. But you've been
Speaker 2: in UK column casework longer than I have, and to
Speaker 2: my four or five major cases i've been involved, and
Speaker 2: you've been in perhaps a hundred of them. So what's
Speaker 2: your perspective on it?
Speaker 1: Well, I did indeed say that that child abuse was
Speaker 1: there the fuel or the engine of wider corruption in criminality,
Speaker 1: and I certainly believe that's true. And as we are
Speaker 1: speaking tonight, former Detective Constable Metropolitan Detective Constable John Wedger
Speaker 1: is on his walk from London to Manchester in order
Speaker 1: to raise people's awareness for the abuse of children, the
Speaker 1: massive abuse of children and the cover up of that
Speaker 1: abuse by the establishment and political circles. So he is
Speaker 1: walking that distance in immense cold at the moment in
Speaker 1: order to try and raise awareness. And I'm delighted to
Speaker 1: say that he's had for part of the journey so
Speaker 1: far he's had a Member of Parliament, Mike Penning with him.
Speaker 1: Mike Penning used to be the Policing Minister and Mike
Speaker 1: Penning is now on record as saying that when he
Speaker 1: presented a file to the Home Office on the subject
Speaker 1: of child abuse, but also including the testimony of John Wedger,
Speaker 1: that that file has mysteriously disappeared. And once again we're
Speaker 1: into the pattern that we've seen many times before. So
Speaker 1: I bring in John Wedger because as a policeman, he
Speaker 1: talks in the interview that he did with myself, he
Speaker 1: talks through the detail of how when he started to
Speaker 1: expose the abuse of children, the deaths of young children,
Speaker 1: how he was viciously silenced by bullying an harassment by
Speaker 1: the Metropolitan Police, and he got no help at all
Speaker 1: from the political system. So to me, the evidence is
Speaker 1: overwhelming that we have a political system and an establishment
Speaker 1: which is involved in the abuse of children and covers
Speaker 1: it up. And once we can see that at the
Speaker 1: heart of that system, which has got to be Westminster,
Speaker 1: it's reasonable to say that because it is there, it
Speaker 1: will exist at a lower level.
Speaker 2: That's a good way of putting it, Brian, And you've
Speaker 2: mentioned one of the good MPs who are doing that job.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: The solution to corrupt MPs is not revolution, it is
Speaker 2: good MPs. And we have to say every political party
Speaker 2: and independent MPs such few as we have have shown
Speaker 2: themselves worthy and committed to this. One thinks of Sariah
Speaker 2: Champion in Rochdale, John Mann, Jeffrey Dickinson, the late Conservative
Speaker 2: MP who did so much in the nineteen eighties when
Speaker 2: there was a brief window of opportunity to lift the
Speaker 2: lid on this and all the dossiers that he brought
Speaker 2: to the police attention went missing in the Home Office.
Speaker 2: Can't find the archives of them in applied company. In
Speaker 2: the Welsh Nationalist Party you have Bethanne Jenkins still active
Speaker 2: as an assembly member in Cardiff on this issue. And
Speaker 2: the most egregious of all is the probably assassinated William
Speaker 2: McCray of the Scottish National Party who made it to
Speaker 2: his cottage in wester Ross in nineteen eighty five. And
Speaker 2: this was just after he had started talking as a
Speaker 2: war hero of some reputation, when the SNP was gaining
Speaker 2: in popularity about the Scottish and British wide issue of
Speaker 2: child abuse, including at Westminster. So it's not just a
Speaker 2: bunch of nutters talking about this. Brian. We don't like
Speaker 2: to pull rank often, but you're a retired role Navy officer.
Speaker 2: I was a GCHQ officer for eight years. We believe
Speaker 2: and we see the evidence brought forward by mister Hofsherer
Speaker 2: in his limited circumstances, in his clinic and his supporters,
Speaker 2: and we have to say we believe the word and
Speaker 2: documentation of mister Hofsher and others of his ilk against
Speaker 2: the insistence of all of the institutional weight that police
Speaker 2: and social services can bring. Because mister Hofsherer, and this
Speaker 2: is a key authenticity Hallmark has consistently in blog posts
Speaker 2: and other public appearances, letters freedom of information request, always
Speaker 2: given right of reply to those whom he's accusing of wrongdoing,
Speaker 2: whether involvement in the theft or the fraud, or a
Speaker 2: child abuse or satanism, and they have always replied with
Speaker 2: silence and sometimes with publicly funded lawsuits to shut up
Speaker 2: investigators who are backing him up. And that to me
Speaker 2: is a great sign of guilt. And we've reached a
Speaker 2: tipping point now where the respectable and alert people in
Speaker 2: the nation are on the side of mister Hofshre and
Speaker 2: you and I are not on the side of the
Speaker 2: powers that be in this matter.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely correct. While you were talking through there, I
Speaker 1: was thinking about the Hampstead case. That was what came
Speaker 1: into my mind. Where we have a mother and a
Speaker 1: partner who go to the authorities talking about what was
Speaker 1: happening to their children. We have testimony from those children,
Speaker 1: both on video and audio. And I will add that
Speaker 1: not only did I meet the mother and a partner,
Speaker 1: but I was also able to speak to the young
Speaker 1: boy in a telephone conversation. I wasn't able to speak
Speaker 1: to the little girl because she'd already been taken by
Speaker 1: social services, but what the parents said to me, and
Speaker 1: certainly what the child said to me, made great sense.
Speaker 1: The minimum I would have expected is for a proper
Speaker 1: investigation by the police, but of course in the Hampstead
Speaker 1: case it is clear that there was no proper investigation
Speaker 1: from the police. And then there was a recorded interview
Speaker 1: of the two youngsters which was incompetent. Is about the
Speaker 1: best I could put it, because this was certainly not
Speaker 1: a carefully recorded interview with two young children talking about
Speaker 1: horrific things. This was it was almost amateur. It was
Speaker 1: so casual, it was so it lacked professionalism, and other
Speaker 1: policemen have said this. But what then trans inspires that
Speaker 1: the mother and her partners are the one who are
Speaker 1: then effectively hounded. They are the ones who the courts
Speaker 1: focus on. Medical evidence is ignored, the whole case is
Speaker 1: shut down, and any members of the public who are
Speaker 1: prepared to speak out on it are hounded. And we're
Speaker 1: left today with Sabine McNeil, for example, one of the
Speaker 1: people who's been particularly outspoken on the Hampstead case. She's
Speaker 1: had to appear at court again. She is at fault
Speaker 1: for speaking out. So on one hand, you're talking about
Speaker 1: the silence of the establishment. What we also see go
Speaker 1: with the silence is very often a vicious attack against
Speaker 1: those who make accusations. If there was no crime, why
Speaker 1: does this need to happen. Why can't there be a
Speaker 1: proper investigation, Why can't there be a fully documented rebuttal
Speaker 1: to the accusations in the first.
Speaker 2: Well, A point of commonality between the Hofsherer case and
Speaker 2: the Doherty case in the northeast of Scotland, which went
Speaker 2: over to Ireland as well, is this failure to investigate,
Speaker 2: and it takes a similar form in both cases. A
Speaker 2: good social worker and police constable is put on the
Speaker 2: case in both instances and is then taken off again
Speaker 2: within twenty four hours by a colleague who is a
Speaker 2: slightly senior officer who seems to put the fear of
Speaker 2: God into the original not bent social worker or copper
Speaker 2: who was assigned to the case.
Speaker 1: Well, that is very true, and I have to say
Speaker 1: that again with the Hampstead case, when good police officers
Speaker 1: took the correct action, we know that quite senior police
Speaker 1: officers were threatened at some stage overnight between being informed
Speaker 1: and the next morning they had been threatened. In one case,
Speaker 1: the man was quote a gibbering wreck when he spoke
Speaker 1: to a colleague at Hoppol seven in the morning. We
Speaker 1: don't know what was said to him, We don't know
Speaker 1: what was done. What we do know is that one
Speaker 1: policeman was prepared to say when I spoke to my
Speaker 1: colleague the next morning, he was a gibbering wreck and
Speaker 1: it was quite clear that no correct action was going
Speaker 1: to be taken.
Speaker 2: Just a slight sidebar here on how that threatening even
Speaker 2: extends into the political and military realm. We don't want
Speaker 2: to get too far off the Offsherer case, but just
Speaker 2: to confirm what you've said, UK column sources have reported
Speaker 2: to us that flag officers so very senior rank retired
Speaker 2: military men of the General Admiral Air COMMANDAW level who've
Speaker 2: spoken out in some aspect of the European Union's military
Speaker 2: unification agenda have had similar threats. And the leaders of
Speaker 2: political parties within the last few years. And when you're
Speaker 2: at that level of respectability in stage of life, the
Speaker 2: threat seems to take the form of something will happen
Speaker 2: to your granddaughter at college. So there seems to be
Speaker 2: no end to the threats that will be issue to people,
Speaker 2: no matter high up.
Speaker 1: This is very true, and of course this was exactly
Speaker 1: although he's not a senior officer, but of course John
Speaker 1: Wedger has said that this sort of threat was made
Speaker 1: to him within the police force. And yes, I've also
Speaker 1: heard from very good people that this is the technique
Speaker 1: used against very senior individuals. And I'm sorry to say
Speaker 1: that many of the senior military people I think cave
Speaker 1: into this remarkably quickly. Whereas I would expect some guts
Speaker 1: from them, I see people quickly withdrawing into the safety
Speaker 1: of their establishment world.
Speaker 2: Now it's time to get back into the detail of
Speaker 2: the Hofshure case. We didn't want to hammer it incessantly
Speaker 2: through the whole podcast because it's a lot for people
Speaker 2: to take in. But now we've put it in contact,
Speaker 2: we need to zoom in again to Pour Peter in
Speaker 2: the current frame we're speaking at the end of February
Speaker 2: twenty before I read a chronology that Peter himself gave
Speaker 2: by phone to Andy Peacher, which people can listen to
Speaker 2: on the Freedom Talk Radio Network channel on mixcloud dot com.
Speaker 2: They can easily find it by searching or by going
Speaker 2: to Freedom Talk Radio dot co dot UK. Before I
Speaker 2: read basically a retranscribing of what Peter said about the chronology,
Speaker 2: and it's just a slightly clearer voice on the better line,
Speaker 2: I would like to read a written contribution that's come
Speaker 2: into us, which is Peter Hoffsher's account of incidents in
Speaker 2: the psychological and psychiatric torture that he's now undergoing. You
Speaker 2: mentioned earlier that we should return to this now. I've
Speaker 2: discussed this with Peter, as he's a historian and a
Speaker 2: cultural analyst. This point of the network he now finds
Speaker 2: himself victimized by. I said, do you think that, with
Speaker 2: Austria's particular status in Central Europe through the years, that
Speaker 2: this is something that the Soviets implanted after the Second
Speaker 2: World War in Austria, and he said that he'd thought
Speaker 2: long and hard about it and reckoned that it dated
Speaker 2: communism and the Soviet Union. The abuse of psychiatry in
Speaker 2: Austria is something, he says, that goes right back to
Speaker 2: the eponymous founder of psychiatry, after whom the clinic he's
Speaker 2: incarcerated in his name, Sigmund Freud. From that time onwards
Speaker 2: there has been this angle, and more recent years have
Speaker 2: seen members of the Freud family acutd of that very
Speaker 2: child abuse we were talking about earlier.
Speaker 1: This takes us into a fascinating area, Alex because in
Speaker 1: my mind comes the chart from Christopher's Story's book The
Speaker 1: EU Collective Enemy of its Member States. In the first
Speaker 1: few pages of that particular book is a table. It
Speaker 1: says that Britain is to be dismantled as a country
Speaker 1: by subversion, effectively by first of all weakening society, undermining
Speaker 1: state institutions. It then gives details of what would happen
Speaker 1: at each level. So education would be made empty wasteland
Speaker 1: where children didn't learn anything really productive and what would
Speaker 1: that mean that they were vulnerable and the state could
Speaker 1: claim them. Marriages would be broken down Eventually it's talking
Speaker 1: about trouble on the streets and major breakdown in the country,
Speaker 1: and it ends by saying that when the state then
Speaker 1: clamps down on this unrest, that the United Kingdom will
Speaker 1: have been normalized. And what Christopher's story explains in the
Speaker 1: book is that normalization means that the country will be
Speaker 1: under a new and very draconian political system. Now the table,
Speaker 1: the information in the table was acknowledged to a gentleman
Speaker 1: called Thomas Schumann, which is a cover name for a
Speaker 1: Soviet ex Soviet KGB man. And when I read that book,
Speaker 1: and I paid attention to that table because my mind
Speaker 1: said to me, what was set forth on the paper
Speaker 1: was happening in the country. I then thought, how interesting
Speaker 1: that a former KGB man should be warning the West
Speaker 1: of what was going to take place. And in the beginning,
Speaker 1: I assumed that he was breaking ranks with the Soviet
Speaker 1: system which had unleashed this particular form of attack. And
Speaker 1: it was later when I began to realize that we
Speaker 1: were seeing this subversion drilled into every level of our
Speaker 1: society that I started to realize that this was something
Speaker 1: far deeper than a particular political system. This was not
Speaker 1: something that had simply come out of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: It had been used in the Soviet Union, but it
Speaker 1: was something that was much older, darker, and more danger
Speaker 1: And the Frankfurt school comes into to my mind, and
Speaker 1: that would bring us to Germany in the when are
Speaker 1: we talking about the eighteen nineties or thereabouts, where we
Speaker 1: had a school of psychiatrists who were openly admitting that
Speaker 1: psychiatry would give them a powerful tool for overthrowing traditional governments.
Speaker 1: They were talking about it at.
Speaker 2: The time they were and the same group of philosophers
Speaker 2: and psychologists had an evil twin. As well as getting psychiatry,
Speaker 2: which is the dirty hands on bit psychology involved, they
Speaker 2: also had the cultural army Frankfort Schuler, which went off
Speaker 2: to Columbia in New York in the nineteen thirties. Separately
Speaker 2: there was Antonio Graham, she talking about cultural Marxism in Italy,
Speaker 2: not part of the Frankfort Schuler or the German clique,
Speaker 2: and separately from that, and this is where we get
Speaker 2: back to Freud and Austria. There was a group which
Speaker 2: became the Tavistot Clinic, still part of the NHS to
Speaker 2: this day. In London. The Second World War set up
Speaker 2: by Colonel Reese, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, which
Speaker 2: does the mind experimentation on subjects unwilling, witting and unwitting,
Speaker 2: which has always been an implantation of this very dark
Speaker 2: Austrian and German based idea psychology and psychiatry in Britain
Speaker 2: and thence into America and the world, particularly through military intelligence.
Speaker 2: This is all relevant to what we're discussing with the
Speaker 2: Hofsher case, of course, because as you said, we were
Speaker 2: told that the Soviets were the problem, but the Soviet
Speaker 2: Union and Nazism, which had a strong support based in Austria,
Speaker 2: were both funded, as mainstream academics like Anthony Sutton have
Speaker 2: pointed out in their day, by the same banks and
Speaker 2: the same Anglo American elite structures. So yes, the abuse
Speaker 2: of psychology and psychiatry is something that transcends nationality and
Speaker 2: political ideologies. It is really what Christopher's story in his
Speaker 2: later years was calling a global revolutionary Trotskyite model which
Speaker 2: really glides in and out of totalitarian regimes and seems
Speaker 2: to have gone east to way, from the Soviet Union
Speaker 2: to Nazi Germany and now the Anglo American model. But
Speaker 2: with that said here is a brief cry for help,
Speaker 2: although written in a very dry tone. I have to
Speaker 2: say by Peter Hofscher. This has been transcribed because he
Speaker 2: can't send emails out, but he's dictated it over the phone.
Speaker 2: There's two incidents described here, and the doctor Weissensteiner he
Speaker 2: is describing is a female psychiatrist who is on his ward,
Speaker 2: who he says, like all the rest of them, he
Speaker 2: describes as a psychotic individual screaming, yelling and not behaving
Speaker 2: at all like a psychiatrist calming people, and with a
Speaker 2: team of strong male nurses. And I say that because
Speaker 2: Peter Hofscher has room toward arthritis as you're hearing this,
Speaker 2: but they strap him down anyway, So he writes here
Speaker 2: incident of the nineteenth of January twenty eighteen. Around eleven
Speaker 2: am on Friday, the nineteenth of January twenty eighteen, I
Speaker 2: was called into a room on hospital Wing PS two
Speaker 2: to one in the London's Krunken House Zudvest, which is
Speaker 2: just the district hospital for the area in Ratz, Austria.
Speaker 2: This room is known to the inmates as the torture chamber,
Speaker 2: as this is where staff forcibly inject patients, including peaceful
Speaker 2: patients with the liquid kosh. In the room were a
Speaker 2: number of people, including doctor Weisensteiner, three to four male nurses,
Speaker 2: two men and one woman. Normally male nurses wear a
Speaker 2: white T shirt with name badges. These well built men
Speaker 2: were wearing civilian T shirts so could not be identified.
Speaker 2: Doctor Weisensteiner had her hand in her pocket and seemed
Speaker 2: to be holding something. The three other people stated that
Speaker 2: they were police officers from the er Kenungsteinst, which is
Speaker 2: the police intelligence unit, who had come to take my
Speaker 2: fingerprints and a DNA sample. Hmm. Interesting for someone who's
Speaker 2: been sectioned as a danger to the public. They asked
Speaker 2: me a number of questions which indicated that they had
Speaker 2: little knowledge of the case. As I was not sure
Speaker 2: that they really were police officers and by the way, Brian,
Speaker 2: we've seen plenty of masquerading as police, haven't we in
Speaker 2: British cases. I asked them, Peter Osher continues to produce
Speaker 2: the relevant court order and their warrant cards. They refused
Speaker 2: to do so. I then asked to be allowed to
Speaker 2: take legal advice before continuing this interview, which, according to
Speaker 2: my knowledge of the Austrian Constitution, is a right in Austria,
Speaker 2: as in Britain, this too was refused, so I declined
Speaker 2: to give my fingerprints or DNA. The female then produced
Speaker 2: a card with poddied tsai and a number on it.
Speaker 2: Her ID number was sixty one one six five one
Speaker 2: three six. You can see that Peter Offsher is no fool.
Speaker 2: He memorized the number, but it had neither a name
Speaker 2: nor a photograph on it, So again I refused to
Speaker 2: give my fingerprints or DNA. At that point, one of
Speaker 2: the male nurses screamed at me so loud that his
Speaker 2: face went red, threatening me if I did not cooperate.
Speaker 2: I responded by politely requesting that the male nurse stop
Speaker 2: screaming at me. He continued to do so, so again
Speaker 2: I asked him to stop, which he did. One of
Speaker 2: the police officers then for possibly ran a swab over
Speaker 2: my neck and forehead. I was then allowed to leave
Speaker 2: the room. It seems that this was a failed attempt
Speaker 2: to provoke me into a violent reaction to provide an
Speaker 2: excuse to give me the liquid cosh, because otherwise they
Speaker 2: have to apply for a court order for it. The
Speaker 2: fact that I did not respond as hoped is a
Speaker 2: further clear indication that I do not suffer from a
Speaker 2: paranoid personality disorder, which of course is what he's been
Speaker 2: sectioned for life for without a psychiatric assessment, and the
Speaker 2: other one, Peter writes, is the same length and it's
Speaker 2: an incident during the night of the thirteenth to the
Speaker 2: fourteenth of February twenty eighteen. On the evening of the
Speaker 2: thirteenth of February twenty eighteen, I went to bed around
Speaker 2: nine thirty pm. Around eleven thirty pm, the lights went
Speaker 2: on and a number of male nurses came over to
Speaker 2: me and started shouting at me, being half asleep. I
Speaker 2: cannot be sure of exactly what was said, but it
Speaker 2: seems I was being accused of having attacked somebody. I
Speaker 2: denied this politely and asked to be left alone. Then
Speaker 2: my bed was moved to the middle of the wor
Speaker 2: where there were around ten male nurses. They grabbed hold
Speaker 2: of me and moved me to a bed on which
Speaker 2: there were restraining straps. I reminded them that I suffer
Speaker 2: from chronic rheumatored arthritis and asked them to stop manhandling me. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: they strapped me down and applied the straps with such
Speaker 2: force that the blood flow to my hands was restricted.
Speaker 2: I was then left like this for several hours. At
Speaker 2: no stage did I offer any physical resistance to this assault.
Speaker 2: Firstly because I am a calm placid, non violent person. Secondly,
Speaker 2: because I suffer from chronic rheumatoid arthritis, so any attempt
Speaker 2: to use my fists or feet in a violent fashion
Speaker 2: would have resulted in me suffering severe pain. And Thirdly,
Speaker 2: when faced with ten or so opponents, resistance would have
Speaker 2: been futile. Furthermore, passive resistance to violence places one on
Speaker 2: the higher moral ground. Once I was strapped down, one
Speaker 2: of the nurses grabbed my genitalia. I noticed a female doctor,
Speaker 2: possibly doctor Weisensteiner, hovering in the background. I assume that
Speaker 2: she was hoping I would be violent, giving her the
Speaker 2: excuse to use the liquid cosh, which, for anyone who
Speaker 2: doesn't know, is brain altering chemicals with irreversible effects to
Speaker 2: send people gargar. Such behavior by the staff of the
Speaker 2: Sigmund Freud Klinicum appears to fit a pattern of contrived
Speaker 2: incidents designed to provoke me into a violent reaction so
Speaker 2: that the staff here have an excuse to drug me.
Speaker 2: It should be noted that the drug doctor Weissensteiner prescribed,
Speaker 2: which I have refused to take, would lead to permanent
Speaker 2: brain damage. This incident was the latest in a series
Speaker 2: of criminal offenses committed against me here, which include one
Speaker 2: imprisoning a sane person for life in a psychiatric institution,
Speaker 2: a known violation of Article three of the European Convention
Speaker 2: on Human Rights and considered it to be tantamount to torture.
Speaker 2: Two attempting to get a sane person to take unnecessary
Speaker 2: life changing medication, which is an attempt to inflict serious
Speaker 2: bodily harm, and three as well as a breach of
Speaker 2: the Hipocratic oath of course, and three strapping a disabled
Speaker 2: person to a bed knowing I suffer from arthritis, which
Speaker 2: is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Not to be forgotten.
Speaker 2: Peter Hofsher concludes in this report is that my house
Speaker 2: in Austria can only be sold when I'm dead. The
Speaker 2: assaults and torment to which I'm being subjected appear to
Speaker 2: be designed to cause me so much stress that I
Speaker 2: may be tempted to commit suicide. Before I hand back
Speaker 2: to you, Brian, I'll just say that Peter Hofsherer has
Speaker 2: found out from friends who the city councilor in the
Speaker 2: city of Grutz is who covers issues of oversight of
Speaker 2: the health system. It's a chap called Robert Krotzer. Krtzer
Speaker 2: easily found contact details online. I have to say I
Speaker 2: have little faith in the man. Not only does he
Speaker 2: look startlingly young to have such a responsible job, but
Speaker 2: he belongs to the cape UH, the Communist Party of Austria.
Speaker 1: I think, Alex that many people who've listened in to
Speaker 1: that statement that you've just read out will be utterly horrified,
Speaker 1: and I can imagine that quite a few of them
Speaker 1: will be very frightened indeed by what they're listening to,
Speaker 1: because for the average person to understand that somebody can
Speaker 1: be taken off the streets, not go through a proper
Speaker 1: trial process, and then end up in a psychiatric unit
Speaker 1: where they're trying to forcibly administer psychotropic drugs. This is
Speaker 1: the stuff of horror films. But you're talking about Peter
Speaker 1: in this case. Into my mind comes Melanie Shaw, And
Speaker 1: for listeners who have not heard this name before, Melanie
Speaker 1: Shaw was a child abuse survivor from Beechwood Children's Home
Speaker 1: in Nottingham. She blew the whistle on the abuse of
Speaker 1: children at that location. She also so says the death
Speaker 1: of children at that location. And even though the police
Speaker 1: supposedly carry out an investigation of Beechwood and another seven
Speaker 1: or eight other children's homes, Melanie is rapidly silenced, first
Speaker 1: of all being put in prison, but later put in
Speaker 1: prison again without any proper charges against her. Certainly she
Speaker 1: didn't know what the charges against her were, nor did
Speaker 1: she know the time that she would be in prison.
Speaker 1: But while she was in prison, she has been kept
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement for over eighteen nineteen months. She's been
Speaker 1: denied medication, She's been denied a basic facility such as
Speaker 1: education provision or even doing a small job. She has
Speaker 1: been brutalized. And we ask ourselves why, And the only
Speaker 1: answer I can come to is because the state is
Speaker 1: terrified of the information melanieawholds about the abuse of children
Speaker 1: by members of the public, but also bymps and people
Speaker 1: in the establishment. I can also think of Carol Woods,
Speaker 1: a social worker whose crime was to speak out and
Speaker 1: say that social workers were lying and falsifying reports in
Speaker 1: order to take children away from their parents. Babies away
Speaker 1: from their parents. When Carol brought her evidence forward, was
Speaker 1: she listened to? Was she supported? Was she protected?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: The exact opposite occurred and she was placed in the
Speaker 1: succession of psychiatric units in UK, where she was appallingly
Speaker 1: treated and drugged on occasions. I can also think of
Speaker 1: another lady called Emma from Cornwall. Emma's crime was to
Speaker 1: say that she believe that inappropriate photographs were being taken
Speaker 1: of children at the primary school in Cornwall. When Emma
Speaker 1: went to the authorities with her information, was she listened to?
Speaker 2: Know?
Speaker 1: Was she supported? Know? What happened to her? She was
Speaker 1: eventually accused of Well what was she accused of? She
Speaker 1: was accused of nothing really apart from causing trouble. But
Speaker 1: she was then sectioned, taken to a psychiatric facility in Cornwall,
Speaker 1: and we still hold the audio recording of Emma speaking
Speaker 1: from that facility where she is crying and saying they
Speaker 1: want to forcibly medicate me.
Speaker 2: I've just spoke to someone and the time to say that.
Speaker 1: Medications.
Speaker 2: I think they have me to take it if I will,
Speaker 2: well you have any sort.
Speaker 1: Of down them. So I am sitting here, I'm recalling
Speaker 1: these cases from my own memory, but all of them
Speaker 1: were reinforced by evidence at the time. What we can
Speaker 1: see is this practice of psychiatric abuse is being used.
Speaker 1: It is used in UK, it's being used in Europe.
Speaker 1: But what we are seeing the in Peter Hosherer's case
Speaker 1: again is that this system can be brought into use
Speaker 1: across national borders. So this is not something which just
Speaker 1: resides within the UK. In some ways, there's the availability
Speaker 1: to link people in Britain and Austria. And if I
Speaker 1: remember another case, which was a French lady called Kareem Guget,
Speaker 1: where Krene was desperately worried that her two daughters were
Speaker 1: suffering abuse. Karen was also subjected to this psychiatric attack
Speaker 1: and had the police houndinger in both Britain and France.
Speaker 1: And in her case you could see from the documents
Speaker 1: how there was a fluidity in the court attack on
Speaker 1: her moving from the English child protection courts across to
Speaker 1: the French courts, and at the time we began to
Speaker 1: see that the common theme was always children and child abuse.
Speaker 1: This seemed to produce the ultimate linkage as to how
Speaker 1: this type of brutalized, brutalizing behavior was able to move
Speaker 1: between national borders. And I think at that point I'll say, Alex,
Speaker 1: all of the work that I've done on my own,
Speaker 1: the work other people have brought to me, leads me
Speaker 1: to believe that we are encountering a very high level, corrupt,
Speaker 1: organized system of organized crime. But there is something immensely
Speaker 1: dark about it, in its power and the brutality which
Speaker 1: is prepared to unleash on on individuals.
Speaker 2: If people are worried that we've gone off, perhaps too
Speaker 2: far with our enthusiasm or horror by talking about the
Speaker 2: level of corruption involved, I should at this point mention
Speaker 2: a very brief one paragraph letter, an open letter which
Speaker 2: veteran child abuse victims campaigner Robert Green has written today
Speaker 2: the twenty fourth of February twenty eighteen to Baroness Hale
Speaker 2: of Richmond of the Supreme Court, which says this, Dear
Speaker 2: baroness Hale, subject line satanism in the judiciary in the
Speaker 2: family Division question mark and of course the Family Division
Speaker 2: is akin in its secrecy to the Court of Protection,
Speaker 2: which concerns old people. The Family Division concerns child cases.
Speaker 2: Of course, Dear baroness Hale, writes Robert Green, enclosed as
Speaker 2: a letter by me dated the fifteenth of January to
Speaker 2: Sir James Mumby, President of the Family Division. Disappointingly, Sir
Speaker 2: James has failed to respond to this important matter of concern,
Speaker 2: and he was asking, Sir James Mumby, could you confirm
Speaker 2: that there are members of the judiciary in the Family
Speaker 2: Division who may hold Satanist beliefs while serving in the court.
Speaker 2: There was no response, so Robert Green says, disappointing me,
Speaker 2: Sir James has failed to respond. So I would like
Speaker 2: to appeal to you to urge him to provide an
Speaker 2: answer without undue delay, Which is, can judges rule on
Speaker 2: the lives of children or indeed old people as in
Speaker 2: the offshore case, while being Satanists? As Robert Green adds,
Speaker 2: as the matter presents the possibility of obvious risks the
Speaker 2: vulnerable people. Whilst this issue is not being addressed due
Speaker 2: to the widespread and entirely justified concerns about the operation
Speaker 2: of the Family Division in Jeni and in the Offshore case,
Speaker 2: it's the Court of Protection. I have decided to make
Speaker 2: this an open letter. I await your acknowledgment and trust
Speaker 2: that as head of a Supreme Court, I can rely
Speaker 2: on your cooperation in the interests of justice, decency and humanity.
Speaker 2: So right, Robert Green, I suspect you'll get silent or
Speaker 2: a farbov Again.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a very powerful letter, Alex. And I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think the things that our audience might be thinking
Speaker 1: at the moment, and I'm quite sure some people will
Speaker 1: be saying, well, this is just too incredible. And if
Speaker 1: there are people out there at the moment who are
Speaker 1: saying for us to suggest that the seat of this
Speaker 1: very very criminal power in UK and overseas in Europe
Speaker 1: in other countries, comes back to the power of Satanist bodies.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that it is our own government
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom which approves Satanism for use on
Speaker 1: board British warships. So the British Government, in collusion with
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Defense, has not only fully recognized Satanism.
Speaker 1: We don't have to say does it exist. I'm going
Speaker 1: to say it must exist, because the British Government and
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Defense not only say it exists, but
Speaker 1: they think that this is acceptable practice for use on
Speaker 1: board warships. And I can say more or less the
Speaker 1: same breath. It's remarkable that since this has been introduced.
Speaker 1: We know that the incident of very unpleasant bullying and
Speaker 1: assaults and threats going on on board warships is increasing,
Speaker 1: and I have good reason to believe it's also going
Speaker 1: on now in other areas of the military. So remarkable
Speaker 1: that we would have a government that would not say, well,
Speaker 1: we're not too sure about what this practice means, but
Speaker 1: a government that would want to promote it. And today
Speaker 1: I was also informed that there's a job advert for
Speaker 1: a pagan minister to work in Dartmoor Prison, and I
Speaker 1: believe that the salary is about twenty nine thousand pounds
Speaker 1: for an eighteen and a half hour week, which seems
Speaker 1: to me a particularly lucrative job. But I'd like to
Speaker 1: know what this pagan minister is going to do. I'm
Speaker 1: also going to say, because I can perhaps detect some
Speaker 1: of the response from the audience, yes, but that's a pagan,
Speaker 1: and I will then say, well, he might hear or
Speaker 1: she might be. But of course we know that the
Speaker 1: key attributes of Satanism or of Satanism is to infiltrate
Speaker 1: and use other organizations. So if people are fearful of
Speaker 1: what a secret society like the Masonic society is capable
Speaker 1: of doing. When we move to the Satanic society, then
Speaker 1: anything and everything is possible. It's possible to be a
Speaker 1: Christian minister on the surface but be a Satanist underneath.
Speaker 1: It's possible to run a Christian church as a Christian
Speaker 1: church on the surface, but underneath it's run as a
Speaker 1: Satanic system. So we are starting to get on some
Speaker 1: very very dark areas, and of course where people have
Speaker 1: done excellent research in the past in order to get
Speaker 1: some of this truth up to the surface, it's invariably
Speaker 1: the case that they've started to be subjected to harassment
Speaker 1: and threats themselves. And I've got just on my bookshelves
Speaker 1: for the side of me a book called Blasphemous Rumors
Speaker 1: by a gentleman called Andrew Boyd, and he is saying
Speaker 1: is Satanic ritual abuse fact or fantasy? And investigation His
Speaker 1: conclusion is that it's real. But also he was one
Speaker 1: of the several researchers who encountered very vicious threats and
Speaker 1: bullying the moment they attempted to touch on this subject.
Speaker 1: If there's nothing to hide, why would that be.
Speaker 2: And who would be less likely Brian to start talking
Speaker 2: about having been victimized by Satanists and child abusers than
Speaker 2: an apparently secular, balanced, non religiously committed, non fantasizing historian
Speaker 2: of some repute, who, until this tragedy befell him ten
Speaker 2: years ago, had been peacefully writing books about the Napoleonic Wars,
Speaker 2: with no element of conspiracy theory in his writing at all.
Speaker 2: It seems to me that he is the least likely
Speaker 2: person who have made any of this up. And if
Speaker 2: you listen to him speaking in his own voice by
Speaker 2: going to mixcloud dot com and finding Anti Peacher, you
Speaker 2: will provide the link Anti Peacher talking to Peter. You
Speaker 2: will hear he's the most down to earth, unspooked out
Speaker 2: Englishman you could ever hope to hear.
Speaker 1: Yes, and this is really what we should be paying
Speaker 1: attention to. Society should exist on the basis that when
Speaker 1: somebody comes forward and says that they have suffered a
Speaker 1: wrong I was walking along the road and a man
Speaker 1: assaulted me. You may be the only person who was present,
Speaker 1: but society should take your word initially, and it should
Speaker 1: then investigate, and it should consider whether your word against
Speaker 1: the word of another individual is the truth. But clearly
Speaker 1: this is no longer happening because when people come forward
Speaker 1: to say what happened to them, they are shut down
Speaker 1: without that proper investigation. This is what makes John Wedger's
Speaker 1: case so powerful that he recounts in great detail every
Speaker 1: time he tried to warn about what was happening with children,
Speaker 1: the abuse, the grooming, the drug taking, the prostitution, and
Speaker 1: ultimately the little girl being found dead in the gutter.
Speaker 1: There was no proper response from his police colleagues. In fact,
Speaker 1: it was worse than they wouldn't listen to him. He
Speaker 1: was threatened to shut up. And there can only be
Speaker 1: one reason for this that individuals in the Metropolitan Police
Speaker 1: and colleagues within Westminster local authorities charities have an interest
Speaker 1: in covering up anybody who is pointing a finger at
Speaker 1: what is happening to children.
Speaker 2: With that in mind, Brian, I shall read out my chronology,
Speaker 2: which I've boiled down from Peter's own words in his
Speaker 2: call to Andi Pecher, and this is basically in telegram
Speaker 2: style the events and do just interrupt me at any
Speaker 2: point if anything occurs to you, but I think will
Speaker 2: more or less leave the listeners. With this chronology, we've
Speaker 2: done all this build up and now people can get
Speaker 2: a sense of what's happening at what stage in the
Speaker 2: case over the last decade.
Speaker 1: Before you do that, als, we'll just remind our listeners
Speaker 1: that these are, of course the allegations that obeye my
Speaker 1: Peter himself.
Speaker 2: So here we are two thousand and eight. Peter, who
Speaker 2: partly grew up in Germany for years and has dual citizenship,
Speaker 2: and who at this stage lives in Austria. In two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight, rushes back to York to find eighty
Speaker 2: seven year old father ill with a heart condition and
Speaker 2: both parents being neglected. September two thousand and eight, North
Speaker 2: Yorkshire Police make their first attempt to arrest Peter. Social
Speaker 2: Services make the officer investigating the matter disappear from the case.
Speaker 2: January two thousand and nine, died of his second bout
Speaker 2: of bronchitis. Through two thousand and nine, Peter and his mother,
Speaker 2: Barbara adapt a house to keep Barbara safe in having
Speaker 2: been chased out of the parental home which was otherwise
Speaker 2: going to have been Peter's by power of attorney. Autumn
Speaker 2: two thousand and nine, your social services refuse to safeguard
Speaker 2: Peter and Barbara. Twenty ten Peter and Barbara realize they're
Speaker 2: stuck in Austria and find that no British solicitors are
Speaker 2: willing to assist them. That's lawyers for our overseas listeners.
Speaker 2: The Member of Parliament is not interested. Social Services are
Speaker 2: at this point in twenty ten ordered to reinvestigate by
Speaker 2: two independent bodies and ignore the matter. Twy eleven, twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: the Ulster Unionist Lord Ken McGinnis begins raising the case
Speaker 2: in the House of Lords. Home Office ministers replied that
Speaker 2: it's a police matter and that they cannot comment. Lord
Speaker 2: McGinnis tells the Lords that he has shown Theresa May,
Speaker 2: who at this point was the Home Secretary the British
Speaker 2: Interior Minister, hundreds of documents about fraud and corruption in
Speaker 2: North york Shire. Peter's solicitor, Mister Crawford, says that the
Speaker 2: documents would convict the Social Work Department and all North
Speaker 2: Yorkshire Police senior officers. Peter and Barbara lie low in
Speaker 2: Austria during these years two thousand and eleven twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: awaiting ministerial responses. The responses end up being bog off
Speaker 2: right up to the then Prime Minister David Cameron through
Speaker 2: this period. Theresa May is the kingpin of this as
Speaker 2: Home Secretary. July twenty and eleven, when Peter and Barbara
Speaker 2: regain control of the house.
Speaker 1: This is in York.
Speaker 2: Two computer hard drives that's loose from any personal computer
Speaker 2: are found in the house which demonstrably were not there
Speaker 2: before because there had been a bailiff's inventorization of the
Speaker 2: property after the last time that Peter had had access.
Speaker 2: So that's the beginning of the fitting up for the
Speaker 2: child abuse images. Twenty twelve. North Yorkshire Police becomes embroiled
Speaker 2: in scandals and above all the scandal breaks of the
Speaker 2: Jacko Neelly that's the mayor of Scarborough until he died
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety nine, and Jimmy Savile scandal. This was
Speaker 2: just the time Jimmy Savile died. Barbara begins blogging in
Speaker 2: her own right under the name Grandma b. The blog
Speaker 2: is still up at Grandma Barbara dot WordPress dot com.
Speaker 2: Harris meant charges are cooked up, although at law one
Speaker 2: cannot harass by stating true information. May twenty twelve. Lord
Speaker 2: McGinnis's last statement in Parliament on the matter calls for
Speaker 2: a criminal investigation into North Yorkshire Police. There is no response. Also,
Speaker 2: in May twenty and twelve, Peter replies to the Austrian
Speaker 2: court to reopen the case. June twenty twelve, a woman
Speaker 2: at North Yorkshire Police writes to Peter, pretending that he
Speaker 2: is harassing them and that he supposedly must come back
Speaker 2: to Britain immediately. Peter replies, pointing out that she is
Speaker 2: acting beyond authority and that if North Yorkshire Police issued
Speaker 2: a European arrest warrant it would be challenged by the
Speaker 2: Austrians for grounds. She never writes to him again. July
Speaker 2: two thousand and two, well, the same Austrian judge as
Speaker 2: before issues his pronouncement there will be no reopening of
Speaker 2: the case because Peter supposedly lacks mental capacity. Twenty twelve
Speaker 2: to twenty thirteen, Peter fights the mental incapacity allegations in Austria.
Speaker 2: No Austrian mental health professional has ever examined him and
Speaker 2: still hasn't out of twenty eighteen. Austrian courts tell Peter
Speaker 2: in September twenty thirteen that he is going to be
Speaker 2: sectioned confined because of his mental supposed condition. Peter wonders
Speaker 2: what will happen to his mother. Then he says that
Speaker 2: there is obvious Yorkshire and Austria collusion. So in September
Speaker 2: twenty thirteen, Peter and Barbara flee to Guterslaw, which is
Speaker 2: near Paderborn in Westphalia, northwestern Germany, to lie Low. It
Speaker 2: so happens that the town of Gutislow is also the
Speaker 2: site of the one remaining base of the British Army
Speaker 2: of the Rhine. The German local council at Gutuslow agrees
Speaker 2: that North Yorkshire Police and the Austrian Judai are persecuting
Speaker 2: Peter and Barbara. Underward them official German persecuted persons status
Speaker 2: criminal helped Commissar Andreas Fogel of the nord Drinvestfahland Police
Speaker 2: agrees to Peter that he will help him and his
Speaker 2: mother lie Low and says if an arrest warrant is
Speaker 2: issued from Britain, we will ignore it or Austria. January
Speaker 2: twenty fourteen, North Yorkshire Police issue an inter pole request
Speaker 2: for Barbara, who has supposedly been kidnapped. Westphilia police know
Speaker 2: that this is nonsense. February two thousand and fourteen, the
Speaker 2: second such interpole request is sent out and ignored. May
Speaker 2: twenty fourteen, the third such Interpol request is sent out
Speaker 2: and this time Peter and Barbara are raided without warning
Speaker 2: while still in bed one morning. Fogel and he later
Speaker 2: admitted that this was under pressure, organizes the raid because
Speaker 2: it's his patch. Together with his colleague criminal helped Commissar
Speaker 2: villefried Vitkemper. Orders for this can only have come from
Speaker 2: or have been cleared by the Nordry invest Farland State
Speaker 2: Interior Minister and ultimately from the Chancellor of Germany, Missus
Speaker 2: mercle This is because it must have been coordinated on
Speaker 2: the British side from Cameron in Peter to judgment, so
Speaker 2: it would need peer to peer clearance. Folwell told a
Speaker 2: friend when this got back to Peter that I know
Speaker 2: what North Yorkshire police are like, but my hands were tied.
Speaker 2: On the morning of the raid in May twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: ten men in civilian clothes with no id, led by
Speaker 2: a German speaking man, beat up Peter and Barbara, smash
Speaker 2: their video camera, handcuffed Peter and then pepper spray him
Speaker 2: in his face, emptying the rest of the canister on Barbara.
Speaker 2: Barbara is taken back to Britain and never heard from again.
Speaker 2: Neighbours later tell Peter that there were besides the ten
Speaker 2: who raided in their flat, another ten British men involved.
Speaker 2: And they say these were military police, not special forces,
Speaker 2: they said. And this may have been an assumption, you think,
Speaker 2: because around that part of Germany they were used to
Speaker 2: tough British men and they would call them red caps,
Speaker 2: because that's the kind of guys you would see policing
Speaker 2: around the basis. But no, that they were British military police.
Speaker 2: Arresting as a British civilian in Germany is later confirmed
Speaker 2: in the Tees Side court case, which we'll get to
Speaker 2: in a moment, by the Ministry of Defense. So Peter
Speaker 2: says that because the Ministry of Defense and the Foreign
Speaker 2: and Commonwealth Office would both have had to provide Secretary
Speaker 2: of State level clearance for this operation, therefore it must
Speaker 2: have been done in administerial consultation. So in other words,
Speaker 2: the then Prime Minister David Cameron, he says, must have
Speaker 2: done it and missus Maybe's or the Home Secretary at
Speaker 2: the time must have agreed it jointly. Neighbours also spotted
Speaker 2: women in the arresting party, whom these neighbors identified as
Speaker 2: North Yorkshire Police and Social Services. Peter is held for
Speaker 2: only four hours this day and released without charge. So
Speaker 2: it was just a kidnap. Missus Offsherer that this happened.
Speaker 2: It has no further reason after this to stay in
Speaker 2: Germany and goes to stay with a friend I believe
Speaker 2: this was in Austria, while trying to get his mother
Speaker 2: returned to his care. At this point, he contacts the
Speaker 2: Court of Protection, which was set up in the Blair
Speaker 2: government to look after old people's interests. When he says
Speaker 2: my name is mister Hofscherer, they slammed the phone down
Speaker 2: on him. During summer twenty fourteen, he writes a written
Speaker 2: application to the Court of Protection appealing for Barbara to
Speaker 2: be returned to him. These are supposed to be dealt
Speaker 2: with within twenty four hours, but the rejection comes three
Speaker 2: months later late twenty fourteen. Peter is advised, probably correctly
Speaker 2: at this point that a private prosecution is the only
Speaker 2: or best hope in these circumstances, so he contacts York
Speaker 2: Magistrates Court and they claim that Peter can only file
Speaker 2: it in person in York. Peter knows that returning to
Speaker 2: Britain is most likely going to be a trap, but
Speaker 2: it is his only chance of rescuing his elderly mother,
Speaker 2: so he does it. And then in December twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: and this was witnessed by Andy Pecher, Peter walks through
Speaker 2: the court doorway in York and is arrested minutes before
Speaker 2: filing his private prosecution on a technicality. Peter is then
Speaker 2: held on remand mostly down in London at Magister's Britain Wandsworth,
Speaker 2: far from Yorkshire, for two years. This case should have
Speaker 2: come to trial within six months in English legal practice,
Speaker 2: and this two year period is necessary because he's being
Speaker 2: stitched up for supposed possession of child pornography. The two
Speaker 2: computer towers these were additional to his own computers on
Speaker 2: which the supposed images were found, were not listed by
Speaker 2: the bailiffs in an inventory made after the last time
Speaker 2: Peter was in the house, and he does note that
Speaker 2: the number of images supposedly found was six, nine hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty nine. In other words, sixty nine sixty nine
Speaker 2: a possible reference to the year in which the Church
Speaker 2: of Satan was founded in America, which has become a
Speaker 2: general reference to Satanism and or an obscene sexual reference.
Speaker 2: Peter says at this point, quote police had access to
Speaker 2: my personal computers in York since twenty ten. That's five
Speaker 2: years before. I note, by the way, this is Alex
Speaker 2: talking that the same trick was played on Chris Spivey,
Speaker 2: who supported Peter Hofsherer. Chris Spevy had this trick played
Speaker 2: on him by Essex police an hour and a half's
Speaker 2: search of his computer and not being allowed in the
Speaker 2: room and then supposedly an indecent image being found on it.
Speaker 2: And this was in the same timeframe. Now, when the
Speaker 2: trial eventually comes in June twenty seventeen, the judge Tonally
Speaker 2: Briggs Queen's Council refuses to let Peter out, which he
Speaker 2: should have done on time served, which is he's already
Speaker 2: spent longer in prison than the alleged defense was for.
Speaker 2: He refuses to admit defense evidence for Peter Hofsherer, and
Speaker 2: Peter's defense solicitor is uncooperative. Listeners should know that any
Speaker 2: lawyer is an officer of the court and has a
Speaker 2: duty to the court that they won't tell you about
Speaker 2: if you're in a defense situation, but they do. He
Speaker 2: sentences Peter to thirty months and places him on the
Speaker 2: Sex Offender's Register for life. He used the word outrageous
Speaker 2: when sentencing him. By this time the time of the
Speaker 2: trial June twenty seventeen, the original charge on which he
Speaker 2: was arrested in twenty fourteen at the Austrian's request, which
Speaker 2: was writening a threatening email to a judge, has already
Speaker 2: been dropped. The remaining charges relates to items supposedly found
Speaker 2: among his five thousand books within twenty minutes of a search.
Speaker 2: When this is challenged as hard to believe, North Yorkshire
Speaker 2: police go back into his house and then supposedly find
Speaker 2: a pile of forty six videos that they missed the
Speaker 2: first time. The photo's charge was also dropped in the interim,
Speaker 2: and so the only charge on which he was sentenced
Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen was for these supposed videos. Peter has
Speaker 2: never been given a list of the contents of the
Speaker 2: videos he supposedly had in his possession. The number of
Speaker 2: videos mentioned, and also the serial numbers of the charge
Speaker 2: sheets and other police documents seemed to be random and
Speaker 2: different every time Peter mentions it was a six, then eight,
Speaker 2: then fifteen, then forty six, then twelve, and the trial
Speaker 2: itself is moved from York up to Teaside, which is
Speaker 2: a couple of hours drive further north at the last
Speaker 2: minute to keep his supporters out of the public gallery.
Speaker 2: On the day next month, July seventeen, Austria still has
Speaker 2: an arrest warrant out for Peter, so's he's out on
Speaker 2: bail at this point and Austria has an arrest warrant
Speaker 2: out for him so that he can be sectioned mentally.
Speaker 2: And finally Peter is extradited. And this happens after disinformation
Speaker 2: that was put out by some of his supposed supporters.
Speaker 2: These false allegations thrown into the mix were that Peter
Speaker 2: had skipped bail and some insinuated that Peter had been
Speaker 2: responsible while on bail for a sexual assault on the
Speaker 2: child nearby. Now the Austrians issued an European arrest warrant
Speaker 2: and this related to defamation of a judge, because in
Speaker 2: the Austrian model, that's the equivalent stitch up to in
Speaker 2: Britain what you get with harassment to deal with people
Speaker 2: who you don't like. And he says, when I was
Speaker 2: transferred to Gratz jail and was held on demand there.
Speaker 2: This is still July twenty seventeen. He says there were
Speaker 2: five hundred inmates there, forty of whom were journalists or
Speaker 2: other political prisoners, nearly ten percent. And then he mentioned
Speaker 2: at this point that he'd previously, for the only time
Speaker 2: in his life, had a mental health professional assessment by
Speaker 2: a doctor Gethins, and this was to answer an English
Speaker 2: courts request. And she writes on completion of a screening questionnaire.
Speaker 2: He quotes from this document that he still has with him.
Speaker 2: Doctor Gethins writes, on completion of a screening questionnaire, he
Speaker 2: did not score above three on any item, suggesting that
Speaker 2: he does not have a personality disorder. At her concluding sentences,
Speaker 2: on the basis of the evidence before me, I can
Speaker 2: find no evidence to suggest that mister Hofscherer is suffering
Speaker 2: from a mental illness. I am of the opinion that
Speaker 2: there is no current role for mental health services in
Speaker 2: the onward management of the case. That is the chronology. Brian,
Speaker 2: I don't know what you make of that. It's really
Speaker 2: too bizarre for words.
Speaker 1: It seems bizarre. It will certainly seem bizarre to some people.
Speaker 1: But from me, as you moved through it, and as
Speaker 1: this gentleman has produced this information, I see that there
Speaker 1: are certain attributes other with other cases that comes into
Speaker 1: my mind. I'm sorry, I'm shuffling some papers here while
Speaker 1: I'm talking to you, So there's a little bit aboutground noise.
Speaker 1: The French lady Kareem Gauget, who I've already mentioned, was
Speaker 1: a child protection case around her, but also she had
Speaker 1: been doing exceptionally good work exposing a Spatan but she
Speaker 1: saw the cases moved flexibly between the UK and France,
Speaker 1: with documents being changed, with very strange things happening. We've
Speaker 1: got the Interpole request being put out. And the case
Speaker 1: that came into my head then was for Leanne Smith,
Speaker 1: the mother who went on the run with her children
Speaker 1: and then tragically murdered the two children in Spain. But
Speaker 1: they were being hunted as a result of actions by
Speaker 1: social services in Cumbria, principally in Cumbria, and Leanne describes
Speaker 1: what was happening to them after the Interpol became involved,
Speaker 1: was being hunted. You've mentioned that Merkele should know, and
Speaker 1: you've certainly mentioned that Theresa May as Home Secretary, would
Speaker 1: know what was going on, and possibly even David Cameron.
Speaker 1: I say it would appear to be the case that
Speaker 1: they must know. But we could also say, is it
Speaker 1: actually the case that the people running the country at
Speaker 1: the very top, the Prime Minister, are simply puppets and
Speaker 1: these decisions are made around them and they are totally unaware.
Speaker 1: I could accept both standpoints. I can accept complicit and
Speaker 1: I could accept that they don't know anything. They are
Speaker 1: just ignorant. You said about Barbara being taken back to
Speaker 1: Britain and never heard from again. Another case comes into
Speaker 1: my mind, and this is the Linda Lewis case, the
Speaker 1: Bonnie Lewis case in South Wales, where a mother takes
Speaker 1: her daughter to Florida to get a medical opinion and
Speaker 1: her daughter is taken from the American hospital at gunpoint
Speaker 1: with nith Port Talbot's Social Services in the American police
Speaker 1: and the little girl is flown back to Britain on
Speaker 1: a false passport and is then held in a psychiatric
Speaker 1: unit and told that her pain was her imagination and
Speaker 1: since the mother had proved by going to that American
Speaker 1: hospital that the little girl had multiple ulceration of her
Speaker 1: gut Zollinger's disease, she was in intense pain, but the
Speaker 1: local social services took her to a psychiatric unit where
Speaker 1: they said she was imagining it. And I'm fascinated that
Speaker 1: the Red Caps appear to have been involved in this, because,
Speaker 1: of course the military police do have a role to
Speaker 1: investigate child protection issues. That's part of their military policing job.
Speaker 1: And I can say the military police did attempt to
Speaker 1: help in the Korean Gouget case. But it's also true
Speaker 1: to say that some of them were very careful to
Speaker 1: say there was only so much they could do, and
Speaker 1: it was said in a way that I believe they
Speaker 1: were trying to say that they couldn't do some things
Speaker 1: because pressure was being put on them. And your comment
Speaker 1: about Lord McGinnis, the Ulster Unionist, trying to do something
Speaker 1: but being told with the Home of it's a police matter.
Speaker 1: Into my head came Mike Penning, the Policing Minister, who
Speaker 1: of course did try to help John Wedger in blowing
Speaker 1: the whistle on child abuse. But Mike Penning MP is
Speaker 1: also saying that the Home Office simply refused to help. So,
Speaker 1: with the advantage of our experience of many other cases
Speaker 1: coming forward, we have seen people being taken out of
Speaker 1: the country. We've seen them being put in psychiatric units
Speaker 1: or imprisoned and there is a pattern here, there's a template,
Speaker 1: and the template to me seems to be a template
Speaker 1: to make sure that anybody that gets too close to
Speaker 1: the dark heart of the deep state. And I'm choosing
Speaker 1: those words. I'm using them because I think they're the
Speaker 1: right words. Anybody who gets too close to the really
Speaker 1: dark heart of the deep state has got to be silenced,
Speaker 1: fitted up, put in prison, held without trial, or ultimately
Speaker 1: to disappear in a psychiatric unit. And I believe that
Speaker 1: in the Melanie show case, and of course, alongside Melanie's
Speaker 1: whistleblowing on the abuse and death of children in so
Speaker 1: called care, Melanie was herself a survivor of SRA of
Speaker 1: Satanic ritual abuse. I think the plan for Melanie was
Speaker 1: to get her to disappear into a psychiatric institution. But
Speaker 1: because Melanie had told her story and was at that
Speaker 1: stage already well known to the public. I believe that
Speaker 1: she was too hot to handle. They didn't dare disappear her.
Speaker 1: What they've done is a lesser crime. They've held her
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement on some unknown charge for nearly two years.
Speaker 1: But this is happening in UK. Can we end alex
Speaker 1: on a positive note.
Speaker 2: I have a positive note for you, Brian, which came
Speaker 2: in just an hour or two ago today, the twenty
Speaker 2: sixth of February twenty eighteen, from a lady doing sterling
Speaker 2: work for Peter Hofscherer from the other side of the
Speaker 2: world in British Columbia, Canada. She's originally from the Scarborough
Speaker 2: area or nearby, so she saw this happening firsthand growing
Speaker 2: up and was warned in veiled terms not to get
Speaker 2: too close to certain people as a child, so that's
Speaker 2: why she's motivated to help. Anyway, this fine lady says
Speaker 2: this to me today and I have a good word
Speaker 2: to put in here for my former colleagues in the
Speaker 2: Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Here, well done, she writes Alex,
Speaker 2: I heard from someone by email today. They said that
Speaker 2: they had contacted the British Embassy in Vienna and asked
Speaker 2: them to do a welfare check on Peter Hofscher. I
Speaker 2: think that this is the place that Andy Peacher already contacted.
Speaker 2: This is after making the phone calls to Peter in
Speaker 2: the ward and they that's the Foreign Office, are sending
Speaker 2: Peter a letter for him to sign to authorize their
Speaker 2: contact with his lawyer. Peter said that first they contacted
Speaker 2: doctor Meyer maai e Er, who is the treating doctor,
Speaker 2: the head of the signal defreud Clinicum, there so effectively
Speaker 2: the man responsible for the care. And Peter says that
Speaker 2: the attitude in the ward has changed radically since then,
Speaker 2: and that Dr Meyer now looks very nervous, and I
Speaker 2: think that would be true of Dr Weisenstein at the
Speaker 2: underling as well, because she has already breached medical ethics
Speaker 2: and the law and constitution of Austria by screaming at Peter,
Speaker 2: I will not contact your general practitioner or family doctor
Speaker 2: for you on your request, so that family doctor, by
Speaker 2: design does not even know that the perfectly saying Peter Hofscherer,
Speaker 2: whom he's treated for twenty years for physical ailments, is
Speaker 2: locked up in a shushka setting treating Dr Meyer. It
Speaker 2: is at the express request of Peter Hoffscher yesterday as
Speaker 2: I'm giving it. Email him. Be polite and lawful at
Speaker 2: Manfred n fr ed dot Meyer mai e Er at
Speaker 2: car guess kag e s for Sierra, dot at for Austria,
Speaker 2: ask politely and professionally why Dr Meyer is treating a
Speaker 2: man who has been detained under mental regulations for life
Speaker 2: without any psychiatric assessment, and why Peter's own Austrian family
Speaker 2: doctor does not know that he has been confined. Dr
Speaker 2: Meyer may be doing a bit more sweating. If a
Speaker 2: few more of us address this correctly, there's plenty we
Speaker 2: can do in this case as well. There is time
Speaker 2: pressure on it, because God forbid, the application has already
Speaker 2: gone into the court. I believe it is to inject
Speaker 2: Peter forcibly with brain destroying chemicals to stop him from
Speaker 2: speaking more about what's going on. One idiot has already
Speaker 2: taunted the doctors by sending them links to the interviews
Speaker 2: which Peter has given by phone, which are up at
Speaker 2: Anti Peacher's site. Secularly bad and childish idea. We need
Speaker 2: adult professional responses, particularly from people in the medical or
Speaker 2: other responsible professions, to contact Dr Meyer and also to
Speaker 2: get on to the consular services the good people of
Speaker 2: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Vienna about this. It's
Speaker 2: possible that Peter could be sent as a dual citizen
Speaker 2: of Britain or Germany to a medical equivalent treating facility
Speaker 2: in Britain or in Germany. Of course they should if
Speaker 2: they're not meant, take one look at him on arrival
Speaker 2: and say you're not that. There's nothing wrong with you.
Speaker 2: You don't have the psychological or personality disorders that you're
Speaker 2: said to have. As Peter says, I'm only mad in Austria.
Speaker 2: So this may be difficult to accomplish, but it is
Speaker 2: what Peter wants to happen, and all his European Convention
Speaker 2: on Human Rights entitlements totally separate from the EU. This
Speaker 2: is the ECCHR rights. The rights to a fair trial
Speaker 2: and representation have been breached.
Speaker 1: Alex, thank you very much for that. I will just
Speaker 1: add that the more measured, the more polite, the more
Speaker 1: reasonable people are when they may cause or they send emails,
Speaker 1: the more powerful they are because the state as it
Speaker 1: stands is well geared up to deal with people who
Speaker 1: are rude, aggressive or threatening or vexatious as it likes
Speaker 1: to call them. But for people who remain quite polite,
Speaker 1: reasonable in asking questions in particular, that is the powerful
Speaker 1: way to do it. And I will also add so that,
Speaker 1: of course Robert Green, who was also facing accusations that
Speaker 1: he was mentally ill, at one stage it appeared in
Speaker 1: Scotland that there was a concerted effort to see whether
Speaker 1: they could section him. The psychiatrist in that particular occasion
Speaker 1: deemed him perfectly sane, of course, but nevertheless that tempt
Speaker 1: was made. But one of the things that Robert says
Speaker 1: as a means of lifting spirits in these very dark
Speaker 1: subjects is to lift the stones. If you lift the
Speaker 1: stones to expose what is going on, the other side
Speaker 1: is terrified of what you're doing. And this is absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: So if you're beginning to get concerned as to what
Speaker 1: we're talking about, if you're going to take some form
Speaker 1: of action, it's the simple exposing of what the other
Speaker 1: side is doing that has enormous effect.
Speaker 2: Do not say anything stupid, rude, or aggressive. Peter's life
Speaker 2: depends on it, but it also depends on numbers to
Speaker 2: tell doctor Manfred Meyer that the world knows what's going on.
Speaker 1: Alex, thank you very much. Well, that was an extremely
Speaker 1: long dispatches tonight. We must end there. I think, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for taking us through that great detail
Speaker 1: of the case. There is of course a lot more
Speaker 1: that we know about which we can't talk about at
Speaker 1: the moment, but we hope at least we've given an
Speaker 1: insight in some very dangerous things which are taking place
Speaker 1: in UK and Europe. Can it be stopped? Yes? How
Speaker 1: can it be stopped by enough people simply saying we
Speaker 1: see it and we're not having it. So think about that,
Speaker 1: think with what you can do, Think about what you
Speaker 1: would wish if you were in the same position, and
Speaker 1: that's probably the best guidance we can give you to
Speaker 1: tackle this. Alex, thank you very much. We'll leave it
Speaker 1: there good night.
Speaker 2: I will also give listeners the email address of the
Speaker 2: man who originally wrote the diagnosis last summer that put
Speaker 2: Peter in mental sectioning for life without ever having seen him.
Speaker 2: That is Dr Manfred Waltsel wl z L. His email
Speaker 2: address for polite professional communication asking him why he did
Speaker 2: this is wal z l at a O N for
Speaker 2: November dot a T for Austria. W al z l
Speaker 2: at ao N dot a T ask Doctor Valsel at
Speaker 2: Peter's request why he sectioned Peter for life without ever
Speaker 2: having seen him. I would also add that since we
Speaker 2: recorded this podcast, Peter has let us know that pressure
Speaker 2: is already causing some alleviation of his conditions on the
Speaker 2: closed ward and he very much hopes that people will
Speaker 2: continue to ask doctor Meyer and doctor Valsel what is
Speaker 2: going on to prevent Peter from being injected with irrevocable drugs. Finally,
Speaker 2: if anyone has further details about the case or related
Speaker 2: or corroborating information, whether from Britain, Germany, Austria or elsewhere,
Speaker 2: they are very welcome, indeed, including on behalf of Peter.
Speaker 2: To contact the UK Column you can email Brian go
Speaker 2: Irish at Brian at ukcolumn dot org, uk c O,
Speaker 2: l U m N dot org, or use the contact
Speaker 2: form on the UK column dot org website. H