Prince Charles backtracking on sex abuse priest support - some are above the Law

Another case of the Elite proving they should be consigned to the trash can.
Was there possible interference in police investigation's?

The accused would not make such boasts if he didnt have a genuine belief that he could have any investigations buried.


www.news.com.au... abuse/news-story/b337921dc4845b8a8e089f341ee6a950

Prince Charles’ deep regret over supporting Bishop Peter Ball who was later jailed for sex abuse PRINCE Charles has told of how his friendship ended with a man, who “deceived” him, before he found out what he did.

The heir to the throne provided a letter to an independent inquiry in London saying that while he had believed Bishop Peter Ball’s denials, he had never sought to influence a police investigation.


Ball had boasted of his powerful friends and repeatedly bragged about his close friendship with Prince Charles, who will become the global head of the Church of England when he ascends the throne upon the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth.

The inquiry was read extracts from a number of letters exchanged between Ball and Prince Charles when abuse allegations began to surface, including one in 1997 where Charles wrote of a victim: “I’ll see this horrid man off if he tries anything.’’

Two years earlier, in 1995, Prince Charles wrote to Ball: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strong about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you.” This letter came despite Ball having accepted a police caution for gross indecency.

“Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt, to my deep regret, that I, along with many others, has been misled,’’ Charles said.
“It remains a source of deep personal regret that I was one of many who were deceived over a long period of time, about the true nature of Mr Ball’s activities.”

Prince Charles wrote that his position had occasionally brought him into contact with prominent people who were later accused of serious wrongdoing.

“Rather than rushing to private judgment I have always taken the view that the judicial process should take its course,’

See "the man off if he tries anything" You couldn't get a statement any clearer that Charles would use his powerful position as Royalty to denigrate, or destroy the victim.

Well played you monstrous pretender. Where is the outcry?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm not surprised. The most powerful people are the most psychotic. I'm surprised there's not restaurants for rich elite cannibals where the poor are killed and eaten.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm not surprised. The most powerful people are the most psychotic. I'm surprised there's not restaurants for rich elite cannibals where the poor are killed and eaten.

My suspicions are there are some really messed up things the elite eat, some after all do believe eating babies rejuvenates them....

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

en.wikipedia.org...(bishop)

In October 2015, Ball was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment for misconduct in public office and indecent assault after admitting the abuse of 18 young men over a period of 15 years from 1977 to 1992.[1][2][3][4] Further charges of indecently assaulting two boys, aged 13 and 15, were allowed to lie on file in a contentious decision by the CPS [5] He was released on licence in February 2017.

In 1993, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers said that "sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence" existed that Ball had committed indecent assault and gross indecency.[9] At the time, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, decided not to prosecute Ball[2] though the CPS believes today that prosecution in 1993 would have been in the public interest.[12]

At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993. There were a further 2,000 letters of support. The Reverend Graham Sawyer, an abuse victim, wants a full investigation and blames corrupt elements in the British Establishment

Phil Johnson, who claims Ball abused him when he was 13 years old, said itlooked like a deal was done between the Church of England, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, and said, "I think there was great effort made to avoid bad publicity and to avoid the embarrassment of trying a bishop in public." David Greenwood, a solicitor acting for some victims, said that "With more power comes the ability to work in a culture where you feel that you can get away with it. It seems Peter Ball has been able to do that

Abuse victim Neil Todd, who later died by suicide, said that:

"It is an investigation which to be honest is well overdue. It [the abuse] stayed with me throughout my life's journey and even this far down the track it doesn't feel like there's any real closure. The abuse was varied. The worst of it was mental abuse. Obviously there was a component of sexual abuse. But basically it was mind games and controlling behaviour. (...) When it came to the abuse, the abuse was sexual, mental and physical. He was just not a very nice human being.[19]

How sad that one of the abuse victims committed suicide.

"were allegedly committed against eight boys and young men, all of whom were at [the] time in their late teens or early twenties, except one who was 12."[23] Three days later, police announced that a further seven people had come forward with allegations of abuse by Ball.[24]

Bobbie Cheema QC said for the prosecution:

[Ball] was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit. For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.[2]

At the Old Bailey on 7 October, Mr Justice Wilkie sentenced Ball to 32 months in prison.[2] He will be eligible for parole after 18 months[30] and is expected to serve under a month for each victim.[31] The late Neil Todd's partner, Marc Hawley, said:
"two years and eight months – for 15 years of sexual exploitation, abuse and grooming of young men who came into his orbit while he was the bishop of Lewes. I am more than glad that Peter Ball now resides at Her Majesty’s pleasure even though the sentence is far too lenient for the gravity of his activities.[15]"

There you have it less than a month for each of his victims.

Let that sink in, how the powerful are protected.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The guy was also close friend's with Jimmy Savile so potentially one of the same circle of abusers.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
And of course Andrew once second in line to the British monarchy also had link's to a pedophile sect.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: dfnj2015

You forget Abramovic? There are a few threads on ATS about this

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I remember about 2-3 years ago running into a thread here that said there were "special orders" of supplies provided by the Red Cross Blood transfusion service that provided fresh blood

a reply to: LABTECH767

Well here is the thing. I made a thread about the power of the Crown...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And got a couple of comments about the Royals and Lizard people - effectively trying to deflect.

When will people wake up to the illusion of those who have power over us, how they get us to fight foreign wars for profit for the MIC or the Royal investments in arms, drug trafficking?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


I am extremely worried that our future king wrote "has" in place of "have".


That's the only surprise for me here.


Read up on the Marc Dutroux case.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well played you monstrous pretender. Where is the outcry?

There isn't going to be one.

The monstrous pretender is allowed to do as "thou wilt"

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well played you monstrous pretender. Where is the outcry?

Where's the proof he knew there was truth to the allegation ?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm not surprised. The most powerful people are the most psychotic. I'm surprised there's not restaurants for rich elite cannibals where the poor are killed and eaten.

Hmmmm, how do you know there isn't?

As another poster above stated, the use of the word 'has' instead of 'have' is suspect. My guess it is a typo by the publisher of the article, or it was not penned by the Royal hand, most likely penned by the Royal PR dept and lawyers.

There has been too many links with the royals and pedo rings for them all to be coincidental, at least that is how I see it. Same with the Clintons and 'accidental' deaths /suicides.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

en.wikipedia.org...(bishop)

In October 2015, Ball was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment for misconduct in public office and indecent assault after admitting the abuse of 18 young men over a period of 15 years from 1977 to 1992.[1][2][3][4] Further charges of indecently assaulting two boys, aged 13 and 15, were allowed to lie on file in a contentious decision by the CPS [5] He was released on licence in February 2017.

In 1993, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers said that "sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence" existed that Ball had committed indecent assault and gross indecency.[9] At the time, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, decided not to prosecute Ball[2] though the CPS believes today that prosecution in 1993 would have been in the public interest.[12]

At Ball's trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—"many dozens" of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993. There were a further 2,000 letters of support. The Reverend Graham Sawyer, an abuse victim, wants a full investigation and blames corrupt elements in the British Establishment

Phil Johnson, who claims Ball abused him when he was 13 years old, said itlooked like a deal was done between the Church of England, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, and said, "I think there was great effort made to avoid bad publicity and to avoid the embarrassment of trying a bishop in public." David Greenwood, a solicitor acting for some victims, said that "With more power comes the ability to work in a culture where you feel that you can get away with it. It seems Peter Ball has been able to do that

Abuse victim Neil Todd, who later died by suicide, said that:

"It is an investigation which to be honest is well overdue. It [the abuse] stayed with me throughout my life's journey and even this far down the track it doesn't feel like there's any real closure. The abuse was varied. The worst of it was mental abuse. Obviously there was a component of sexual abuse. But basically it was mind games and controlling behaviour. (...) When it came to the abuse, the abuse was sexual, mental and physical. He was just not a very nice human being.[19]

How sad that one of the abuse victims committed suicide.

"were allegedly committed against eight boys and young men, all of whom were at [the] time in their late teens or early twenties, except one who was 12."[23] Three days later, police announced that a further seven people had come forward with allegations of abuse by Ball.[24]

Bobbie Cheema QC said for the prosecution:

[Ball] was highly regarded as a godly man who had a special affinity with young people. The truth was that he used those 15 years in the position of bishop to identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable young men who came within his orbit. For him, religion was a cloak behind which he hid in order to satisfy his sexual interest in those who trusted him.[2]

At the Old Bailey on 7 October, Mr Justice Wilkie sentenced Ball to 32 months in prison.[2] He will be eligible for parole after 18 months[30] and is expected to serve under a month for each victim.[31] The late Neil Todd's partner, Marc Hawley, said:
"two years and eight months – for 15 years of sexual exploitation, abuse and grooming of young men who came into his orbit while he was the bishop of Lewes. I am more than glad that Peter Ball now resides at Her Majesty’s pleasure even though the sentence is far too lenient for the gravity of his activities.[15]"

There you have it less than a month for each of his victims.

Let that sink in, how the powerful are protected.

And then imagine what would happen to you if you did the same...to THEIR children.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well played you monstrous pretender. Where is the outcry?

Where's the proof he knew there was truth to the allegation ?

His powerful connections allow him access to more Truth than we ever get. He had the means to find out the truth at the very least.

It's always just a big shocking surprise and no friends or family ever had a clue. It's always convenient. For them.

they are all in on it and the Vatican is running the show behind the scenes

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Charles was willing to use his political connections to do away with anyone causing trouble for his friend.

And when Charles found out his so called friend was Lying to him and made him out to be a fool, he equally used his connections to punish this traitor for nearly taking down the Royal Heir with him! Charles laid down the law and made sure he got punished to the fullest extent the law would allow... No more fooling around! You rape a child, you serve almost an Entire Month for each child. That'll show em!

I don't see how Anyone out there could ever harm a child again, knowing that a similar fate could befall them...

But so help me God, if they catch you smoking weed, you'll have your kids taken away and never see the light of day again until you beg for forgiveness and jump through all the hoops they decide for you.

a reply to: gortex

Where's the proof he knew there was truth to the allegation ?

Sure, systemic interference, go slow on investigations, no fire just plenty of smoke here.

"see him off if he tries anything"

I thought the Royals didn't interfere with judicial process, oh wait they would get MI5 to do something like Diana?

The inquiry was read extracts from a number of letters exchanged between Ball and Prince Charles when abuse allegations began to surface, including one in 1997 where Charles wrote of a victim: “I’ll see this horrid man off if he tries anything.’’

....
I feel so desperately strong about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you.” This letter camedespiteBall having accepteda police caution for gross indecency.

Heres the thing, who do they work for, the Crown Prosecutors, The Crown by chance?

Believe what you like, you really expect to see a smoking gun or paper trail leading back to Charles direct interference.

sheeesh.........

a reply to: 3n19m470

yeah funny that, a month for each victim.

Let that detractors provide similar sentencing of ordinary John Does with the same number of victims getting such a light sentence.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I thought the Royals didn't interfere with judicial process, oh wait they would get MI5 to do something like Diana?

I think it more likely to get another country's secret service to do it , plausible deniability.

Believe what you like, you really expect to see a smoking gun or paper trail leading back to Charles direct interference.

Believe what you like , I prefer not to level accusations of complicity in Pedophilia against people without having the evidence to do so.