PROLIFIC PEADOPHILE
Prince Andrew
Over the past 18 months, I have been uncovering both the available evidence and hidden truths that reveal the troubling and disturbing aspects of Prince Andrew's life. Through his power and influence, he is alleged to have exploited and harmed innocent children, leaving them psychologically damaged and in some cases, missing and never found. It is infuriating and disheartening that this abhorrent and abusive individual evades justice because society allows the Royal Family to maintain their pomp and ceremony while dictating how we should live. They are complicit by enabling him to remain free and, in doing so, supporting his actions., one cannot ignore Charles's close relationship with Savile, who had unrestricted access to the palace This investigation culminated in my collaboration with O’Keefe Media, and in the forthcoming releases, you will discover why the Royals lie at the heart of what is fundamentally wrong our society.
To set the record straight
I am not suicidal, and i know James O'Keefe has also made a similar statement to confirm that he is not. This clarification is crucial at this critical juncture, as everything is about to be disclosed.
Over the past eight weeks, I have been detained, interrogated, intimidated, and threatened.
My communications have been monitored, my social media accounts been deleted and blocked, and my bank accounts have been closed. For safety reasons, I have remained in the background, refraining from publicising these facts to protect investigations and avoid endangering others, including whistle-blowers.
PRINCE ANDREWS ADVISOR
In revelation caught on hidden camera by O’Keefe Media Group (OMG), American businessman and long-time royal insider John Bryan has come forward with damning claims about Prince Andrew’s personal relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Bryan, a trusted advisor to the Duke of York, also alleged that Prince Andrew lied to him about his involvement in sexual misconduct with minors.
“I knew he [Prince Andrew] saw him [Jeffrey Epstein],” said Bryan, “But he lied to me that he was such a close friend,” revealed Bryan, referring to Prince Andrew’s personal relationship with Epstein.
After Prince Andrew’s 2019 BBC interview, where he denied knowing Virginia Giuffre and famously claimed he was physically incapable of sweating, Bryan says he was quietly brought into “Royal Lodge,” Andrew’s private residence, to provide “crisis” management advice. In a previous interview with the New York Post, Bryan revealed “They [the British Royal Family] brought me in to help him [Andrew].” Bryan told the publication, “Andrew was so distressed, he wasn’t able to focus for more than 40 minutes.”
According to previous reporting by The Daily Mail, Bryan also admitted to crafting a five-page PR strategy titled the “House of Kroy,” advising Andrew to publicly express sympathy for victims of Jeffrey Epstein while maintaining his own innocence. At the time, Bryan publicly supported the Prince, stating, “I believe Prince Andrew is innocent.”
“I did a big thing in The Daily Mail saying that I believed Andrew,” Bryan recounted to our undercover OMG journalist, adding, “And then I found out he was lying. I was so pissed.” When asked what Andrew had lied about, Bryan didn’t mince words: “That he was fucking underage girls. That’s not cool.”
VIRGINNIA Giuffre
How do security services operate on behalf of institutions? Who benefits from Virginia's death? The answer lies within the question itself, unveiling who is responsible if it wasn’t a suicide.
The pattern observed is not mere chaos followed by silence—it is termed "reflexive containment." When a high-risk individual like Virginia survives a “random” trauma event (such as a bus incident), it triggers what intelligence services call a redundancy kill chain.
Why? Because survival after an “accident” shatters the illusion. Public sympathy grows. Media begins investigating. Institutions tighten their control.
Thus, the methods shift—from chaotic external force (a hit-and-run) to a psychological internal narrative: suicide.
However, it isn’t about her.
It’s about maintaining the illusion of consent.
If she speaks, the network loses deniability. If she dies violently, the network appears exposed. But suicide? It sustains the narrative:
– “Tragic.”
– “She was unstable.”
– “No need for investigation.”
This not conspiracy; it is institutional memory.
And the image?
That is the virus they have sought to suppress since its emergence, now consigned history.
The problem is contained and executed, all sanctioned by those who stand to benefit. Who better to ensure secrecy than intelligence services? Be it MI6 or Mossad, the script remains unchanged.
Ukrainian Children
In September 2023, media outlets in Britain, Europe, and the United States reported accusations against Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, involving the sexual assault of two Ukrainian children. James Obasi, an employee at an exclusive nightclub in Kiev, claimed that during a diplomatic visit to Ukraine earlier in 2023, Prince Andrew assaulted a 12-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy, later removing them from the country.
Your Human Rights
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
We have the right to express ourselves freely and hold our own opinions – even if our views are unpopular or could upset or offend others.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects a right that’s fundamental to our democracy – our freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy.
It means we’re free to hold opinions and ideas and to share them with others without the State interfering.
Liberty and other human rights groups have used Article 10 to challenge the UK Government’s mass surveillance – which scoops up all our correspondence, putting our rights to privacy, free expression and protest and our free press in jeopardy.
Article 10 also protects your right to communicate and express yourself in any medium – including through words, pictures and actions. It’s often used to defend press freedom and protect journalists’ sources.
This right covers:
- Political expression – including peaceful protests and demonstrations
- Artistic expression
- Commercial expression – particularly when it also raises matters of legitimate public debate and concern.
- The right to free expression would be meaningless if it only protected certain types of expression. So Article 10 protects both popular and unpopular expression – including speech that might shock others – subject to certain limitations.
LIMITATIONS
Article 10 may be limited in certain circumstances. Any limitation must:
- be covered by law
- be necessary and proportionate
- be for one or more of the following aims:
- national security, territorial integrity or public safety
- preventing disorder or crime
- protecting health
- protecting other people’s reputation or rights
- preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
- maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
When considering whether free expression should be limited, courts will question whether doing so could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, the value of the particular form of expression and the medium used.
Limiting free expression usually involves restrictions on publication, penalties for publication, requiring journalists to reveal their sources, imposing disciplinary measures or confiscating material.
ARTICLE 10 IN ACTION
David Miranda was detained by police at Heathrow Airport for nine hours in August 2013.
He was questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and freed only when officers reached the legal time limit for either arresting or releasing him. His electronic equipment was confiscated and he was questioned for hours without a lawyer present.
Miranda is the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald who had recently written several stories about the Snowden surveillance revelations for The Guardian. He was helping Greenwald with this work and was on his way back to their home after meeting with a filmmaker, also working on the surveillance revelations, when he was detained.
The ostensible purpose of the stop was to determine what information Miranda was carrying and ascertain whether its release or dissemination would be severely damaging to UK national security interests. The Court found that this purpose did fall properly within Schedule 7 of the 2000 Act.
Liberty intervened in the case, arguing that it was a violation of Article 10 that Schedule 7 could be used in this way. The Judge accepted that the stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom – but held that the interference was justified and found it lawful.
MI6, Labour & Tories
SUPPORT Paedophilia in every level of society
Patricia Hewitt
Harriet Harman
The leaders and activists of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) were primarily affiliated with the British Labour Party and maintained extensive connections with ministers and members of the UK Parliament. Notably, prominent Labour figures such as Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, and former Health Minister Patricia Hewitt had close ties to this group.
In the early 1980s, a significant pedophile scandal emerged in London. Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens announced his intention to expose eight high-profile political figures involved in pedophilia. He provided Home Secretary Leon Brittan with a written dossier outlining allegations of child sexual abuse within the political sphere. However, law enforcement and investigative authorities took no action, and Mr. Dickens' dossier was reportedly lost. Years later, it came to light that a network of influential British Parliament members, businessmen, Buckingham Palace staff, and other elite individuals were implicated in heinous acts, including child sexual exploitation, mass rape, and even murder. These crimes were primarily associated with the upscale London area of Dolphin Square, leading the media to label the incident as the Westminster scandal.
Following the exposure of the Westminster scandal, the legal operations of pedophile organizations were significantly restricted (though not entirely prohibited) by the mid-1980s. Groups like PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL), along with smaller entities, either disbanded, rebranded, or went underground. Despite this, none of the prominent individuals who supported these organizations with financial or informational resources faced legal consequences. Those high-ranking officials implicated in the Westminster scandal have not been held accountable for their actions.
Tom Carroll is a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange, an organization that promoted the legalization of sexual activities between adults and children, as well as advocating for a reduction in the age of consent.
Peter Tatchell, a British activist and the founder of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, has been active in championing gay rights and has also sought to normalize paedophilia since 1997. He maintains close relationships with the London police.
The National Council for Civil Liberties, established in 1934, is a controversial organization that has lobbied for the ideas of the Paedophile Information Exchange within the British Labour Party.
The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) is campaigning for the elimination of the age of consent for minors, with backing from the British government.
The Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) advocates for the rights of gay and lesbian individuals and aims to decriminalize sexual relations with children. It has established strong connections with British law enforcement.
The Albany Trust is a British organization created to support sexual minorities and funds questionable studies that allegedly provide justification for lowering the age of consent.
Mermaids is a charity that focuses on minors and has been implicated in the recruitment and abduction of potential victims of British paedophiles..
In November 2012, David Tracey, 48, who previously led the UK Home Office division overseeing security at Buckingham Palace, other royal residences, and 10 Downing Street, was suspended after it was discovered that he had downloaded over 90,000 explicit images and videos of underage children from the Internet. Although he faced four charges, his connections to the royal family allowed him to escape with a minor financial penalty and a requirement to complete an online sex offender program.
In November 2015, Roger Benson, 77, who had dedicated many years to the royal family’s charity, Prince Charles’ Youth Business Trust, was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for crimes committed three decades earlier.
In June 2018, Tony Aslett, 52, the head of visitor services at the Buckingham Palace Royal Collection Foundation, received a nine-month prison sentence for maintaining a collection of 15,000 images and videos of child pornography from 2009 to 2015, with some victims as young as 18 months.
Andrew Lightwood, a 57-year-old former butler to the Queen, was described by his attorney as a “respectable, distinguished member of society.” He was found guilty of stripping in front of an underage boy, masturbating in front of him, and subsequently raping him. Despite substantial evidence, including the victim's testimony and corroborating witnesses, Lightwood was sentenced to only 28 months in prison in July 2019 and has since been released.
JAOC will join with another partner and launch an exciting new initiative
More details will follow shortly on its aims and objectives setting out clearly those who are responsible and will not be able to escape justice
If you appreciate my efforts, I kindly ask you to consider supporting my website with a small donation, if possible, or by leaving a comment and rating my site. Your support is invaluable as I strive to uncover the truth and share it with the public, often at significant personal risk.
Testimonials
"In a world where misinformation is rampant JAOC.ORG.UK stands out as a beacon of truth. It has become my go-to source for reliable news, and I highly recommend it to anyone seeking factual and unbiased information."
Susan P ( Exeter )
"Amazing investigations detailed and very enlightening. The DOCUMENT section continually being updated is a wonderful idea. Thank you for being a legend."
Tilly family ( Auckland)
Your website provided clear and factual advice on COVID-19, emphasising the importance of informed consent. The resource centre helped our family as we were not getting help or guidance from our local health centre. Highly recommend it for reliable vaccine information.”
Peter & Melissa H ( Cardiff )