Friday, 14 September 2018

The Strange Russian Alibi 839 by Craig Murray

Craig Murray
Like many, my first thought at the interview of Boshirov and Petrov – which apparently are indeed their names – is that they were very unconvincing. The interview itself seemed to be set up around a cramped table with a poor camera and lighting, and the interviewer seemed pretty hopeless at asking probing questions that would shed any real light.

I had in fact decided that their story was highly improbable, until I started seeing the storm of twitter posting, much of it from mainstream media journalists, which stated that individual things were impossible which were, in fact, not impossible at all.

The first and most obvious regards the weather on 3 and 4 March. It is in fact absolutely true that, if the two had gone down to Salisbury on 3 March with the intention of going to Stonehenge, they would have been unable to get there because of the snow. It is therefore perfectly possible that they went back the next day to try again; and public transport out of Salisbury was still severely disrupted, and many roads closed, on 4 March. Proof of this is not at all difficult to find.

Read more: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-strange-russian-alibi/

Lynch Mob Mentality by Criag Murray

Craig Murray
I was caught in a twitterstorm of hatred yesterday, much of it led by mainstream media journalists like David Aaronovitch and Dan Hodges, for daring to suggest that the basic elements of Boshirov and Petrov’s story do in fact stack up. What became very plain quite quickly was that none of these people had any grasp of the detail of the suspects’ full twenty minute interview, but had just seen the short clips or quotes as presented by British corporate and state media.

As I explained in my last post, what first gave me some sympathy for the Russians’ story and drew me to look at it closer, was the raft of social media claims that there was no snow in Salisbury that weekend and Stonehenge had not been closed. In fact, Stonehenge was indeed closed on 3 March by heavy snow, as confirmed by English Heritage. So the story that they came to Salisbury on 3 March but could not go to Stonehenge because of heavy snow did stand up, contrary to almost the entire twittersphere.

Once there was some pushback of truth about this on social media, people started triumphantly posting the CCTV images from 4 March to prove that there was no snow lying in Central Salisbury on 4 March. But nobody ever said there was snow on 4 March – in fact Borisov and Petrov specifically stated that they learnt there was a thaw so they went back. However when they got there, they encountered heavy sleet and got drenched through. That accords precisely with the photographic evidence in which they are plainly drenched through.

Another extraordinary meme that causes hilarity on twitter is that Russians might be deterred by snow or cold weather.

Well, Russians are human beings just like us. They cope with cold weather at home because they have the right clothes. Boshirov and Petrov refer continually in the interview to cold, wet feet and again this is borne out by the photographic evidence – they were wearing sneakers unsuitable to the freak weather conditions that were prevalent in Salisbury on 3 and 4 March. They are indeed soaked through in the pictures, just as they said in the interview.

Russians are no more immune to cold and wet than you are.

Read more: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/lynch-mob-mentality/

Exposing UK Financial Services Corruption


 

Subscribe to Expose UK youtube channel- Exposing UK Financial Services Corruption :


It's time to stand up and be counted, because disability discrimination and corruption matters!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK2NTUwpt_wzAw-2EXnv0jA

 



Sunday, 2 September 2018

El Coyote from Hoaxtead Research Revealed to be Karen Irving

El Coyote from the Hoaxtead Research blog has been revealed to be Karen Irving, a self-employed writer living in Reading, England.


A keen botanist, Karen Irving aka El Coyote has been the main contributor to the Hoaxtead Research website, alongside it’s founder Scarlet Scoop, which claims to refute the scurrilous allegations of the Hampstead satanic case.

A central meeting point for self-confessed Satanists and GCHQ operatives, the Hoaxtead Research website has achieved great success since it’s launch in May 2015 with over 1.5 million hits.

Started as a parody in response to the now defunct blog called Hamstead Research, a blog which supported the Hampstead kid’s version of events, Hoaxtead Research has become the go to place for trolls, satanists and cretins. 

Long thought to be the alleged satanic cult leader himself, the one and only Ricky Dearman; Karen Irving has confirmed that she is indeed El Coyote.


Viewed by many of her victims to be a cruel, vindictive and malicious, Karen Irving makes no apologies for her stance against anyone who believes the Hampstead children’s testimony, that they are involved in a nationwide satanic paedophile ring.

A home-grown sleuth, Karen Irving has come to the conclusion that the Hampstead children, P and Q, were beaten and brainwashed by their mother, and their mother’s boyfriend, to construct an epic story of satanic ritual murder, rape and cannibalism, with the purpose of winning sole custody of their children, from her estranged ex-husband, actor Ricky Dearman.

Acting as a Ricky Dearman fan club, the Hoaxtead Research collective are unashamedly supportive of the alleged satanic cult leader, and will systematically round on anyone who criticises him.

As these comments demonstrate:

 

King of Slime

Ricky Dearman with his kids, P & Q
Intent on pressing harassment and stalking charges against anyone who comments on his case; myself included; Ricky Dearman has appeared in the public, flanked by his children, runners up in an Ebay business competition for making slime.

Having won an all-expenses paid trip to Florida, America, any mention of Dearman using his children for publicity purposes, is roundly justified by the Hoaxtead Research crew; while lambasting other people with less of a public profile for doing the same.

Take for example my own case. As any reader of Guerrilla Democracy News knows, I promote myself as a controversial writer, satirist and a contender to be the next Prime Minister of Great Britain.



Having published a number of promotional videos on my youtube channel www.youtube.com/user/taylormotm, I’ve recently included clips of my children. I do so because I want to. Because I find the clip relevant to the subject matter and because as a part of my life, I want the public, of which I’m promoting myself to win their votes and support, to see me as a family man, with two happy children, whom love me and whom I love equally.

As the following comments from a Hoaxtead Research operatives makes clear.


The Hoaxtead Research crew are clearly malicious and angry people intent on smearing and destroying the lives of people, who question the official narrative of the world around us.

 
But of-course when Ricky Dearman promotes his children to sell slime; the Hoaxtead crew are full of praise and support; mind you, even some members of the Hoaxtead Research crew couldn’t hide her misgivings about him using his kids to promote slime, after the ordeal they went through by publicly exposing the satanic cult practices, (of which they claim their father was the leader); but which Karen Irving does her best to sooth away any concerns with her assures that whatever Ricky Dearman does is only right and proper, while admitting at the same time that she wouldn’t have taken that risk, if she was in his place!

 
While El Coyote, Scarlett Scoop and every other member of the Hoaxtead Research crew hide behind a cloak of anonymity to hide their harassment and on-line stalking of prominent members of the Truth Movement; their actions are hurting people on a daily basis and causing great distress and alarm.

As Mary McDermott comments in relation to El Coyote, “You have nearly drove people to suicide. You are evil.”

And commenting on the Hoaxtead Research crew, she has this to say, “They are being paid by GCHQ. They are trying to cover the Hampstead case up. Very dangerous people.”

The Peaceful Warrior, John Paterson, himself a victim of Hoaxtead abuse and harassment posted this video, which tells of his own experience.
 
FURTHER READING:

Saturday, 1 September 2018

MORE GUERRILLA DEMOCRACY NEWS - POPE FRANCIS


GUERRILLA DEMOCRACY NEWS - CHARLES WINDSOR


 
 

The Serial Killer THERESA MAY...

An email from John Paterson...


On 8th July 2014, Theresa May as Home Secretary, oversaw the appointment of Baroness Butler-Sloss to the inquiry set up to investigate child sexual abuse by prominent politicians and clergy in the previous decades. Within 6 days of the announcement of Baroness Butler-Sloss as chair, she was forced to stand down for obvious conflicts of interest.

Theresa May had selected somebody whose brother was Attorney General during some of the periods being investigated. Later the same year May chose the then Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, to chair the inquiry.

Fiona Woolf had to stand down when it became apparent that she had lived near Leon Brittan, who had also been accused of alleged sexual abuse.

To get things so badly wrong must be almost impossible. Theresa May never seemed to meet any of her immigration targets as Home Secretary, and it is truly hard to name her recorded achievements whilst she has been in office. But the inquiry into child sexual abuse seems to be something Theresa May does not want to face. My thoughts are that the investigation will focus on Tory MP’s who frequented the infamous Elm Guest House, but also the Diocese of Chichester, once the ecumenical home of her Father Hubert Brasier. So what is it that you fear Mrs May?

The truth about your colleagues, or is it something much closer to home?

Maybe May is terrified of people connecting her with the name Brasier?

I have done my best to build an accurate jigsaw from all the pieces I could locate, but it may need a different set of eyes to see the real picture.



 
 

Saturday, 25 August 2018

Prince Charles's Statement Analysis by Matt Taylor

Prince Charles's statement in full

This is an analysis of Charles Windsor's full statement, presented to the Child Abuse Inquiry, in relation to his 20 year relationship with ‘yet another paedophile’, Peter Ball.
Peter Balls and Charles Windsor
 
 🆘 Three others which we know about include Jimmy Savile, Lord Mountbatten, the Queen’s Butler and other staff 🆘

With experience of royal military police interview training, focusing on word analysis, as a freelance writer; I've been able to reveal hidden truths and expose lies, which the casual reader would otherwise have missed.

This is the only analysation of Charles Windsor’s statement, written and released in the public. I suspect the more well-established journalists would love to do what I’m doing, but haven’t got the go-ahead from their editors.

I’ve spent considerable time analysing word by word, what he said and the words he used to say it. The choice, pattern and usage of words reveal many hidden truths and expose many lies. I’ve been able to reveal a dark secret about our ruling royal family, which the media, police and state don’t want the public to know.

The inconvenient truth is Charles Windsor makes lifelong friendships with paedophiles.

Anyone who analyses his statement, as I have, will come to the same conclusion that Charles has lied to the Child Abuse inquiry.

I fear for my life and liberty having analysed Charles Windsor’s statement; but have done so in the public interest to know whether or not; is our future King is a paedophile?

I do not intend to cause alarm and distress to Charles Windsor, but worry that this analysation of his statement to the Child Abuse inquiry, will indeed cause him (and his family), considerable alarm and distress.

Please leave a comment, like and share.

His statement starts:

1. Thank you for inviting me to offer context on how I came to know former Bishop Peter Ball and on my dealings with him over the years, to assist your important Inquiry.

Let's interrupt straight away and look at the very first sentence. Charles lies from the very outset. "Thank you for inviting me to offer context on how I came to...."

He's not grateful for the invitation because we know from the Telegraph article on 23 July 2018; Charles had instructed his lawyers to do all they could to prevent him from having to write the letter in the first place.

The Telegraph reports:

Lawyers for the Prince of Wales used human rights law to object to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement in the format used by the inquiry, instead sending a signed letter. 


While he acknowledges the inquiry is important, the last thing he wants to be doing is discussing in public his “dealings” with the convicted paedophile Bishop Peter Ball.

The very word “dealings” is interesting in itself. Some people would have referred to a 20 year association as a 'friendship' or even as an 'Acquaintance.'

“My dealings” implies something very different. First it takes ownership of the transaction with the “my”, and then implies an agreement in which a commodity is ‘dealt’. Any skeptic will infer paedophiles deal with illegal pornographic pictures of children, or even children themselves.

It's not a good start and I've only analysed the first sentence.

I want to begin by applauding your work to ensure that the abuse of children is properly investigated and appropriate measures are taken to ensure they are fully protected.

“Want” is the operative word in this sentence. If he genuinely wanted to applaud the work safeguarding children, he would have naturally started the sentence, “I applaud your work.....” But instead he uses the word “want.” This implies that deep down he doesn’t want to ensure child abuse is properly investigated and the appropriate measures taken, because if a proper investigation was conducted and the appropriate measures taken; he knows better than anyone that he’d never be King and would be in the Tower of London for the next 20 years.

That is why I am pleased, on this occasion, to offer the following information, which I have set out to the best of my recollection after the passage of 25 years.

Again he is not “pleased” to offer any “information” because we know he instructed his lawyers to fight tooth and nail to stop him from having to give any information.

The initial two sentences quite literally cover his nose in the brown smelly stuff. I'm surprised he can breathe with his nose so far up the arse of the chair-person of the inquiry.

He's kissing arse because he knows he’s about to lie through his teeth, and subconsciously buttering up the recipient in preparation. 

2. Over the years I have had, and continue to have, many interactions with the Clergy of the Church of England and of other Faiths, often on a daily basis.

This is very interesting and something which I would otherwise not have known about our future King.

He has many interactions with the clergy of the Church of England and other faiths, often on a daily basis.

How very interesting! This implies Charles is deeply religious. We know that as future King, he’ll be the defender of the Faith, but to admit he enjoys a near daily engagement with the clergy of the Church of England, is quite an admission considering most clergy of the Church of England are suspected to be paedophiles themselves.

Churches across the world allow the perfect structures and systems, to operate successful paedophile rings. When one paedophile is identified by the clergy, rather than be sacked with immediate effect and turned over to the police like any other profession in society; paedophile priests were moved to new areas, free to begin their abuse afresh.

As the truth comes out, we now know the Vatican has been operating the biggest paedophile ring the world has ever seen.

In this week alone, the stories of church child-abuse hitting the headlines are that 301 Roman Catholic priests in Pennsylvania molested more than 1,000 children, while senior church officials, including the now archbishop of Washington, D.C., systematically covered up the abuse.
  • A priest forced a boy to wash his mouth out with holy water after making him perform oral sex 
  • A priest raped a seven-year-old girl while visiting her in hospital after she'd had her tonsils removed 
  • A ring of pedophiles whipped little boys and allowed other men to rape them for a fee 
  • Another priest, groomed his middle school students for oral sex, teaching them how Mary had to 'bite off the cord' and 'lick' Jesus clean after he was born 
  • Priests had children wear gold crosses to mark for abuse
  • A priest went to work at Walt Disney World, with a glowing recommendation letter from the church, after quitting over complaints about him abusing children 

In other news it’s revealed the Vatican has spent nearly $4 Billion in paying out compensation to church abuse victims.

We can insert links alleging the current Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby is a paedophile, and worst, a link to a Vatican whistle-blower alleging the current Pope Francis, is a satanic cult member who sacrifices and eats babies.

·         Justin Welby’s Deep Shame


·         Eye Witness testifies Pope Francis raped me


·         More than 300 Pennsylvania Priests committed sexual abuse over decades


Set in that context, I first became aware of Peter Ball sometime during the 1980s, when I heard him preach. At that time, he came across as an interesting and engaging person.

Yes; its all about the “context”; another interesting choice of word because the conditions and circumstances of the situation and events are absolutely relevant to the truth that Mr Windsor, has a persistent persuasion to form relationships and close friendships with paedophiles.
 
🆘 and murderers 🆘

The sentence tells us that Charles values a good speaker. He values passion, conviction and delivery. As a public speaker himself, he would no doubt identify good practice of the art of public speaking when he sees it. He confirms this when he says that Peter Ball came across as “interesting” and “engaging.”

He was later appointed Bishop of Gloucester, in 1992. Sincerely he had become my local Diocesan Bishop, near my home in Gloucestershire, I attended his Installation.

An up and coming member of the clergy, Charles evidently followed Ball with interest and appointed Bishop of Gloucester in 1992, and being so local, I expect Ball would have become a daily feature in his life. We can assume that from 1992, Ball was a good friend of Charles, so much so that Charles attended his Installation. The word “Sincerely” at the start of the second sentence reveals a deep warmth, respect and love towards Peter Ball.

It would of course be interesting to know how many other installations he's been too. Quite a few I expect. Charles is happy to paint himself as a great fan of the Church of England Clergy, and a close friend and confidant of many priests.

He gave an impressive Address, which brought him to my attention again.

Yes, we know Charles was at this time impressed with him, though he feels it's important to stress this point by praising Ball for his “impressive” address, which again caught his attention.

At the same time I recall becoming aware of Michael Ball (Peter Ball's brother) who was later appointed Bishop of Truro, to which I am also closely connected through the Duchy of Cornwall.

And now we are introduced to Michael Ball, Peter’s brother. I‘m correct to say that while Michael Ball has never been accused of inappropriate conduct towards children, he has proactivity worked to defend, resource and champion known child abuse offenders.

·         Former Bishop of Truro Michael Ball and his paedophile ex-bishop twin Peter want to become Catholics so they can live in anonymity


This is another damning indictment on Charles’s choice of friends.

Over the whole of my life, I have met countless senior Clergy who have been invited to preach and, on various occasions, I have myself invited them to give Holy Communion at my home.

I never knew Charles was so religious and that his day revolved around religious doctrine and practice.

The very fact that he's spent his whole life around priests is worrying due; to the uncomfortable tendency of paedophiles to routinely gravitate towards professions which afford them an air of respectability, access to children and good standing in the community.

The very fact he's invited them into his home and entertained them is further evidence that Charles habitually surrounds himself and socialises with people who shares his own core values, interests and hobbies.

Its only human nature after all, to surround herself with people you feel comfortable with.

It’s highly likely and easy for anyone can make their own aspersions, that if he surrounds himself with paedophiles 24-7, 365 days a year; he is a paedophile.

I extended such invitations to Peter Ball from time to time, starting in 1993.

We now know Ball was giving Charles Communion in the privacy and comfort of his own home from 1993 onwards. No wonder he didn’t want to divulge this information…

3. As is well known, I maintain correspondence relationships with a great number of individuals.

I never knew it was well known that Charles maintained correspondence relationships with a great number of individuals; did you?

But now that we know, it's interesting that Ball felt it appropriate to put down on paper matters of a ‘private’ and ‘spiritual’ nature, rather than verbally tell Charles on their near daily engagements.

Peter Ball occasionally wrote to me in respect of private, often spiritual, matters.

Wouldn't it be beneficial to the inquiry, to assist in the proper investigation of the inquiry to learn what these “private” and “often spiritual” matters were?

We know from psychological research that paedophilia doesn't just spring itself on you. It's a slow progression that often starts pre-puberty. Being a paedophile at 40 years old, would often imply that you've been harbouring paedophile urges since 14 years old.

Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination; that the “private” and “spiritual” matters discussed between Ball and Charles; may have touched upon the subject of paedophilia?

On each occasion I naturally replied as I believe that to be the polite thing to do, although there was often a significant delay on my part given other priorities which demanded my attention.

I find it very admirable of Charles that he was polite enough to reply, even though he's a very busy man with a wealth of other priorities demanding his attention.

My recollection is that these exchanges were normally instigated and driven by Peter Ball, in addition to a handful of telephone calls during the decades of our correspondence.

Charles is clearly distancing himself. It's wasn't me governor, it was him. We are now entering the grounds of open and hostile lying, with intent to deceive, slander and deflect.

The pertinent snippet of information which further confirms their close relationship is that they spoke over the telephone too. They were hanging out at home, exchanging letters and talking over the phone. Charles Windsor is a busy man, with a Kingdom to run, but always seems to find time to touch base with Peter Ball. It’s safe to conclude Peter and Charles were very close; very close indeed.

Having refreshed my memory of our correspondence to try to help your Inquiry, I note this is borne out by the contents and dates of the letters in question.

So it's evident Charles refreshed his memory by re-reading all Balls letters, but yet he retracts having any recollection of the letter’s contents, by claiming he can't recall with sufficient certainly, due to the significant passage of time; whether or not Ball was a paedophile.

4. With the significant passage of time, I cannot now recall with sufficient certainty when the following exchange took place and whether there was one particular conversation that concerned the reflections I offer below or more than one.

Ok, he's building up to the big reveal. Did he know or didn't he know?

In the words of Chris Spivey, who has written his own blog on Charles Windsor, linked here, ‘Of course he fucking knew!’

5. Peter Ball told me that he had been involved in some form of "indiscretion", which prompted his resignation as my local Bishop at Gloucester.

With the use of quotation marks, Charles claims Ball used the word ’indiscretion’ to describe the actions and events which lead to his resignation as the local Bishop at Gloucester.

Indiscretion means being imprudent and tactless!!! Rash, heedless and indiscreet. A sense what is fitting and considerate when dealing with other people, as so not to give offence, but to maintain goodwill.

This is a very insightful revelation which tells us how paedophiles consider their crimes. They aren’t necessarily breaking any moral or legal laws, but rather, just being naughty and brave. They must be able to shrug off their crimes as ‘indiscretions’, because otherwise they’d have to face up to themselves and acknowledge, the monsters they’ve become, and the damage inflicted on their victims.

Note the extra word “my”, which Charles chooses to include. This implies how personal it was to him, and how he owns it. 

He emphasised that one individual, who I now understand to be Mr Neil Todd, had made a complaint to the Police; that the Police had investigated the matter; and that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had decided to take no action. This sequence of events seemed to support Mr Ball's claim that the complaint emanated from a single individual; that the individual bore a grudge against him and was "persecuting" him; that the complaint was false; but that the individual had nonetheless profited from the complaint by selling his story to the newspapers. The matter was described by him as "closed". Peter Ball added that various people within the Church did not like him and had themselves used the complaint to curtail his ministry and force his resignation. When this exchange took place, I did not know about the nature of the complaint.

Wow, that’s quite a mouthful, packed with loads of interesting and important information. It’s a mouthful of facts, irrelevance, distraction and guile, all designed to introduce a mockingly huge lie at its end.

Charles names names, which is significant because it shows confidence in what he’s saying. He would have heard the name ‘Neil Todd,’ many times, because Peter Ball would have been bitching about him during their three times a week private discussions and Holy Communion.

He goes into detail that two competent and trusted government bodies, (namely the Police and CPS) had investigated the matter (or rather, ‘indiscretion’) and decided to take no action.

Case Closed.

As far as Charles was concerned, Neil Todd was a particular individual who bore a grudge against Peter Balls, and who publically persecuted him by making false stories about him and selling his story to the newspapers.

Of-course Charles could sympathise with this; having been on the front pages of hundreds of newspapers and magazines, with scandalous stories like planning his wife’s fatal car crash, raping his man-servant, fathering illegitimate children, to having gay sex relationships, to his notorious 20 year friendship with the country’s most defiled paedophile, satanic member and child murderer, Jimmy Savile.

Charles is more seasoned at handling false allegations, than anyone else in the world.
 



 
Now here is where it gets interesting and very important:

Charles let slip that Peter Balls had also told him “that various people within the Church did not like him and had themselves used the complaint to curtail his ministry and force his resignation.”

This is a gem of information because it tells us that Ball had enemies; “various” enemies to be precise. And if you think enemies is too harsh a word, need I remind you that Ball’s colleagues were willing to do anything it took to “curtail his ministry and force his resignation.”

In plain English, that means stopping him from what he’s doing and getting him the hell out of there.

Justin Welby
I know from later on in his statement that Charles recalls how the Archbishop, Justin Welby, was supportive of Peter Ball and “thought him a good man and priest.”

He even recalls the detail that perhaps the Archbishop was thinking at some stage; of trying to bring [Peter Ball] back to public ministry.”

Of-course Justin Welby would have known the up-hill struggle it’ll be getting Ball’s back his ministry, especially after the success of the “various people within the Church” who wanted him out in the first place. “At some stage,” being the operative words.

What did the “various people within the Church,” want him out for? He was evidently fiddling with their children and his Ministry said enough was enough.

All delivered with rigour, passion and conviction, Charles then mocks us with the lie; “When this exchange took place, I did not know about the nature of the complaint.”

He most definitely did.

The very fact he added this 15 worded sentence onto the end of an already mighty mouthful, subconsciously reveals the lie he’s been meaning to say all along, but didn’t because he feared what a huge lie it is.

The Angel on his shoulder would be confessing; ‘Of course I knew when the exchange took place and the nature of the complaint. I hang out with Clergy all day, every day. What Balls did was huge and we all knew the details.’

6. The true context and details of this complaint, and I now understand many others, against Peter Ball did not come to my attention until the time of Mr Ball's trial and conviction in 2015.

‘Lies, lies and all lies’, but what has Charles got to lose? Everything! He’s already committed himself to lie, having jumped in with both feet, after the mouthful of words, preceding the lie that he didn’t know of the nature of the complaint.

Now he’s going full steam ahead, safe in the knowledge he’s protected by his mother; that the truth, as he now knows it to be; didn’t come to his attention until the time of Mr Ball’s trial and conviction in 2015.

Naughty Charles Windsor; naughty naughty naughty…

“I now understand many others….” have made complaints!

No wonder “various people within the Church”, (of whom Charles pretends not to know, seized on the complaint, of which Charles himself dismissed as “a grudge,” “false”, and a ‘persecution’ against Ball, by someone who went onto make money from selling his story to the papers;) wanted to curtail his Ministry and force his resignation.

My main source of information before this was Mr Ball himself, though I should add that I was so fully occupied by my public role that Mr Ball's situation was rarely at the front of my mind.

Charles defends himself by pretending Ball’s is an outstanding member of society, praised at public speaking and a glowing star in the Church; and that everything Ball’s had every told him about the criminal complaints against him and the campaign by his colleagues to have him resign; was all down to a conspiracy involving one man, who make a false allegation against him.

He wants us to believe that he’s never spoken to anyone else about Peter Ball’s situation, but confesses later on in his statement, to have had a discussion about Peter Ball’s situation, with Justin Welby, the Archbishop.

He’s distancing himself from Peter Balls now, because the 2015 conviction is now public knowledge, and all he can do is now hide the knowledge of his knowledge, that he’s known Peter ball’s sexual preferences for the last 20 years.

He’s defending himself by using his Kingship. As he gently and deceivingly adds, “I was so fully occupied by my public role that Mr Ball's situation was rarely at the front of my mind.”

Or in plain English for us peasants; I’m so busy being the future King, I haven’t got time to think about Mr Ball’s situation.

Which is a lie, because Peter Ball has spent the last 20 years sending him letters, calling him and hanging out at his palace, taking Holy Communion, amongst other things. He is constantly reminding Charles of his situation, to such an extent, Charles occasionally gives him small gifts of cash and a house to live for nearly 15 years.

As context, it seems important to say that in the 1980's and 1990's there was a presumption that people such as Bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence. That has changed over the years, as evidence has caused us all to be more challenging of what we hear and what we are told. But, at the time, there was on my part a presumption of good faith. I believe I was far from alone in taking this view.

Again, this is a wonderful insight into Charles’s most inner thoughts. He wants us to agree with a truth, that during 1980’s and 1990’s, there was a presumption that people such as Bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence.

Now, to refer to it as ‘a truth,’ because it’s certainly not ‘his truth’.

Charles Windsor is better placed than anyone, to understand the presumptions people make, about the people who hold high office. From an early age he’s been privy to the scandals kept secret about the country’s most influential and important people.

While he acknowledges that over time, the public have seen through the lies, he’s clinging onto the excuse that most people would trust a Bishop, just as he did.

There is always a presumption of good faith. The presumption of good faith allows us all to make new friendships and relationships. It allows us to trust other people and embark on new adventures. But if he believes he is far from alone in taking this view concerning Peter Ball; he’s failed to take into account the break-down of good faith, which various people within the Church highlighted and exploited, to ultimately “curtail his ministry and force his resignation.”

It would seem Charles was alone, in taking the view that Peter Ball had not committed a crime.  

7. I was certainly not aware at the time of the significance or impact of the caution that Peter Ball has accepted, or indeed sure if I was even told about it.

This is worrying, because as the Defender of Realm, one must really know one’s Law, of which you enforce over your subjects.

He uses the word “certainly” to reinforce his genuine ignorance, of the significance or impact of the caution that Peter Ball had accepted.

He even goes onto even deny any knowledge of even being told about it. Nothing to do with me Guvnor!

As far as he was concerned, allegations of wrong-doing always swirl around dodger characters suspected of child abuse.

Peter Ball was no different, and with only an interest of whether the public views Peter Ball as a criminal or not, Charles couldn’t care use as to the issue of guilt. Its the perception of guilt that matters.

No wonder he had no knowledge that accepting a police caution, is admission of one’s guilt.

Whilst I note that Peter Ball mentioned the word in a letter to me in October 2009, I was not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an acceptance of guilt. I was aware that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to pursue a case against Mr Ball. This seemed to support Mr Ball's defence of his position set out in his letter.

Charles wants us to believe that for six years, from 2009 to 2015, he never enquired with anyone, as to the significance or impact of a caution.

He notes that Peter Ball mentioned the “word” in a letter, but it never crossed his mind to understand it, even though it seemed to support Peter Ball’s defence, that he was a victim of persecution, lies, fake news and a grudge.

8. I recall that Peter Ball told me that following his resignation as Bishop of Gloucester he would lose the house in which he lived and that, as a consequence, both he and his brother Michael would become homeless.

Charles is indeed a generous and thoughtful man. Peter Ball’s must have felt confident of help, when he begs for help, while facing destitution and homelessness.

He told me that their monastic vows meant they had very little money. In this context, I occasionally sent the brothers small gifts of money, as I do for many people in need, and Pete Ball's interest in becoming a tenant of a Duchy of Cornwall property then arose.

Charles seems to imply that he felt more indebted to help because of Ball’s monastic vows, which kept him devoid of money. As if it’s a virtue, and something to be admired and rewarded.

It’s interesting to know what “small gifts of money,” mean to the future King of Great Britain, himself an heir to one of the world’s richest families.

£20, £50, £100, £200, £2000. What is small, what’s medium and what’s large, to the richest man in the world?

Not only does Charles go out of his way to financially support Peter Ball, as he says he does for many people in need, he then goes further by providing him with a Duchy of Cornwall property.

WOW! Charles is one generous man indeed.

A significant part of the Duchy's business is in arranging and managing leases for properties and I mentioned the situation of the Ball brothers to the Duchy, as I do for others from time to time. The details of the eventual rental were handled, as usual, by Duchy staff. I was aware of the transaction but did not assist with the selection of the house. Some time later, in 1997, Peter and Michael Ball became tenants of a Duchy property until early in 2011, when they moved on.

This is like the legal bits, TV presenters have to recite, preceding their telephone call in competitions. Charles repeats the point that Peter Balls isn’t the only person to benefit from his good nature and generosity. “As I do for others from time to time,” to “as I do for many people in need.”  It would be beneficial to the panel, as to who else these people are, their circumstances and situations.

Charles feels the need to reiterate his good nature and character. This often precedes a tendency to cushion the blow or a forthcoming lie.

Which brings us onto the Police investigation. 

Police investigations

9. At no stage did I ever seek to influence the outcome of either of the Police investigations into Peter Ball and nor did I instruct or encourage my staff to do so.

And the blatant lie, as I just mentioned. Liar liar, pants on fire. Charles Windsor has sought to influence the outcome of either of the police investigations into Peter Ball, and he did instruct and encourage his staff to do the same.

The only way he can avoid guilt in this instance, is to call the whistle blower a liar.

10. I understand from document ANG000021 that a member of Gloucestershire Police seems to recall that he "came under pressure" in 1992 or 1993 which related in some way to some form of interest from myself and my staff in Peter Ball. This is untrue.

Charles Windsor has no alternative but to call the Gloucestershire police officer a liar, for saying he ‘came under pressure’, in 1992 or 1993, from himself and his staff.

We must keep count of how many people Charles accuses of lying, in order to hide his own lies.

One and counting…

Indeed, at the time of this Police investigation I had no knowledge of these particular matters. It follows, therefore, that I did not authorise - and could not have authorised - any such action. And nor would I have done.

Yes okay Mr Windsor, pull the other one… This statement is purely to reassure himself that he’s reciting the lie and reciting the lie correctly.

11. Likewise, I have no recollection of any contact by one of my Personal Protection Officers or indeed any member of my staff with Gloucestershire Police.

As Charles has previously said during this statement, “I was so fully occupied by my public role, that such matters (about Mr Ball's situation) was rarely at the front of my mind.”

Why would he have any recollection of any contact between his Personal Protection (PP) Officers, or any of his staff, with Gloucestershire police?

According to Charles, the Gloucestershire police officer who said he came under pressure, from himself and his staff is lying…

Case closed.

I was clear at the time, as I have remained clear, that the Police must be able to carry out their investigation in the proper manner without external pressure or influence.

Reiterating the blinding obvious.

We have looked at our files and can find no record of any of these matters.

He’s stalling for time.

It is always possible that my name was taken in vain, as can unfortunately happen from time to time.

And now he’s playing the victim; pleading innocence.

As I make clear elsewhere in this Statement, there is a gap between rumour and fact.

Yes indeed, there is a gap between rumour and fact. And it’s interesting to note that he hadn’t yet in his statement make reference to the gap between rumour and fact. The fact that he’s brought it up at all, is that it’s on his mind and he’s eager to introduce his own theory, which explains the gap between the rumours about his relationships with paedophiles, and the facts, as he wants the public to see them.

12. In a similar vein, I do not recall receiving a letter from Michael Ball in April 2013 as described by Detective Superintendent Carwyn Hughes (OHY000203).

“In a similar vein”, which means, ‘While I continue to lie,’… Charles continues to call a second police officer, this time Detective Superintendent Carwyn Hughes; a liar.

He defends his statement by saying he couldn’t find any record of such a letter in his files. Of course, the occasional letters he did receive from Michael Ball were of a private and social nature, but never was he aware of any interest from Sussex police into his correspondences with paedophiles.

Having looked at our files we cannot find any record of such a letter. The occasional letters that I did receive from Michael Ball were of private and social nature and I am not aware of any interest from Sussex Police in this correspondence.

With nothing to hide in relation to his correspondence with Michael Ball, Peter’s brother, Charles is happy to be a transparent as Larry.

Nevertheless, I have made available to you copies of the private correspondence received from Michael Ball, in case that could help your Inquiry in any way.

And here Charles proves that everything he’s said in his statement, has thus far, been a pack of lies.

I understand that a conversation took place between Sussex Police and the Metropolitan Police Royalty Protection team in 2013, and that Sussex Police informed the Metropolitan Police that they visited Peter Ball's home and removed items which included a letter sent from me.

Okay, let’s get this straight, because serious allegations and implications are about to get thrown about.

Until this point, Charles has only confessed to have known that Peter Ball was ‘cautioned’ in 2009, for what Peter Ball described as an ‘indiscretion,’ to which Charles says he took at face value.

But now, its revealed Sussex Police told his PP officers in 2013, that Peter Ball had been arrested, his property searched, and items removed including a letter sent from himself.

Charles may plead ignorance of the law, (take the case of the ‘caution’ as an example), but he cannot ignore the police procedure of only searching a suspect’s property, after the suspect has been arrested for a criminal offence.

I believe the Metropolitan Police asked whether or not this letter was relevant to the inquiry. I further understand that the Metropolitan Police emphasised clearly that they were not enquiring about the investigation itself and specifically wished to avoid any appearance of influence over it. They wished only to establish the facts about the property that had been removed and its correct ownership. The Metropolitan Police were told that the letter in question was not relevant and that it was to be returned by Sussex Police to Peter Ball.

Here Charles makes a big deal of a minor matter. We get an insight into how much influence the Royal family has over the Metropolitan police, with their confession that they wished to avoid any appearance of influence of the Sussex police investigation; and again as far as Charles was concerned, the case was closed, because Sussex police deemed his letter to be irrelevant, and it was returned to him.

The Church of England

13. Probably late in 1994 (although I cannot now be certain of the date) I recall seeing the then-Archbishop of Canterbury at an event and taking that opportunity to ask, among other issues, about Peter Ball as he had lately been my local Bishop. I remember the Archbishop was supportive of Peter Ball and thought him a good man and priest. I do not think we discussed any detail, though I recall that the Archbishop was perhaps thinking of "trying to bring [Peter Ball] back to a public ministry" at some stage. I understood there were some complications, but these were not described. As this was clearly a matter for Church authorities, I took no personal position on it.

Again, a mouthful of useful information, made all the worse, because it was only said to butter up the recipient for a cruel and blatant lie.

“I took no personal position on it.”

We know he took a personal position in Peter Ball’s situation, by occasionally giving him small gifts of money and providing a roof over his head for nearly 15 years.

Would anyone else in the world take care of a pair of brothers, feed them and house them, without taking a “personal position” on their situation? 

You are a liar Charles Windsor, and your own statement proves it.

14. Other than this conversation with the then-Archbishop, I do not recall any specific conversations regarding Peter Ball, although I was aware that Mr Ball was himself keen to persuade the Church to "restore [him] to some form of Ministry in the Church".

Whatever Charles now says is tainted and unworthy of further consideration. We can no longer take anything he says at face value. The truth is whenever the Arch Bishop and Charles Windsor meet at social and religious occasions, they would regular discuss Peter Ball’s situation. We know that Ball keenly persuaded the Church, just as Ball keenly persuaded Charles, for help on restoring his Ministry.

The general view of members of the Clergy who occasionally mentioned him to me was that he was a capable and well-liked priest.

Omitting to add that various people within the Church, wanted to curtail his Ministry and force his resignation.

15. The Inquiry has asked about a note made by Andrew Purkis, of Lambeth Palace, following a lunch he had with my then-Private Secretary, Richard Aylard, on 30th August 1994 (ACE003034). My Private Secretary meets regularly with members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Office to discuss a range of matters. Having reviewed the document it is clear that the meeting took place in the normal course of business and was for the purpose of discussing matters other than Mr Ball. I cannot shed any light on what appears to be a brief mention of Mr Ball at the end of the meeting. I have no recollection of discussing the matter. I have also been shown a copy of my letter of 14th December 2001 addressed to Peter Ball. As far as I can recall, this letter conveyed that I could not assist Peter Ball in any approach he was thinking of making to the Archbishop to seek a return to public ministry. I recall Peter Ball repeating this request around this time and again some time later and my declining to assist. It follows therefore that I was not involved in "any discussion with Lambeth Palace" on this matter.

This perfectly demonstrates how Peter Balls is at the centre of Charles’s life. From the garbage above it would seem that Charles discusses Peter Ball without even remembering to do so.

As part of the job of being a Private Secretary, to the Prince, and future King of England, you will regularly meet with members of the Archbishop’s office to discuss a wide range of matters; as Charles admits himself.

It’s at these meetings that the truth of Peter Ball’s situation would have been discussed, and it’s these discussions which the Private Secretary would repeat to Charles.

16. You have asked about contact between myself and institutions in respect of Peter Ball between 1993 and 2015. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have dealt with these contacts in the information I have volunteered above, and I can only hope this will be of some assistance to you.

Now Charles is getting bored and wishing it was all over. He feels aggrieved having to lie twice over one truth. He regular influences institutions, to do as he wishes, and instead of having to say it all again, he’d refer to the lie, he made before.


17. I have been shown an extract from an interview conducted by the Chair of the Church of England's Inquiry into Peter Ball last year, Dame Moira Gibb, with Elizabeth Hall of the Church of England, suggested there were some rumours of an interest from me in Peter Ball being given some alternative employment (INQ000682).

So not only has Charles financed a convicted paedophile, he’s also housed one and sought to employ one too.

I can confirm that this is untrue: not for the first time, and as the Gibb Inquiry concluded in respect of my contacts with Peter Ball over the years, there is a gap between rumour and fact.

But no, for the second time now, Charles has been forced to call another person a liar, to hide his own lies. This time and for the third time; Elizabeth Hall of the Church of England.

And here we are introduced to the ‘Gap between rumour and fact’ theory, which Charles referred to earlier, and is so eager to promote and foster.

I did not seek any such roles for Mr Ball and did not ask others to do so on my behalf.

Or rather, he has no recollection, as he often has no recollection of discussing Peter Ball.

And now we reach the heart of the message.


18. I regret that I am unable to shed any light on references made in a letter dated 23rd March 1997 to a "horrid man" or a "frightful and terrifying man".

Yes, this appears to be a mystery to us all. Who is the “horrid man” or a “frightful and terrifying man?” Only Peter Balls knows, because we can only assume the references made in the letter dated 23rd March 1997, were his.

This seems to be a manner of speaking in the midst of a long letter written more than twenty years ago.

Charles trying to defend references, which in his own admission, he is “unable to shed any light on.”

I do recall that Peter Ball felt that numerous individuals, including his critics in the media, were doing all in their power to disadvantage him unfairly.

Perhaps he was referring to Neil Todd, his accuser? His statement is starting to unravel, because the experience thus far has totally exhausted him.

I suspect, but cannot be certain, that the reference is to this issue in some way.

While Charles has said from the outset that he cannot shed any light on the references, he is going out of his way to solve the mystery, and win favour before winding up the letter and saying goodbye.

It of course needs to be read in the context of my understanding at the time, namely that Peter Ball had been falsely accused of a single offence (the nature of which was unknown to me) by an individual whom the relevant judicial authorities and many others had themselves not believed.

And this is the backbone of his defence. Charles claims to not know what he had done.

Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt, to my deep regret, that I, along with many others, had been misled and the reverse was true.

Sadly it doesn’t ring true, because in this particular case, the gap between rumour and fact is very small.

He uses some interesting phases here, “beyond any doubt,” and to “my deep regret.” As we’ll learn from a few sentences later, Charles will by default refer to the rule of Law, to determine the truth and how the truth of a subject, reflects on him personally, and further, on his family.

So when he writes, “Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt,” he’s obviously referring to the court conviction, proving Ball’s criminality; to which Charles harboured his “deep regret,” do you notice he used the hook word “my”, again to own it; that Ball had been exposed, and deep regrets he had to face the music.

With one last attempt to share the blame with others, by saying he had been misled, “along with many others”, the inconvenient truth was that various people within the Church worked hard to curtail his Ministry and force his resignation, because they had not been misled and they believed he was a practicing paedophile who needed to leave the area immediately.

The inconvenient truth was that Charles Windsor enjoyed a close friendship with Peter Balls, meeting him weekly, taking Holy Communion from him, supporting him with small financial gifts, and an exclusive home on his Duchy of Cornwall.

Having exchanged regular correspondence with Peter Ball over 20 years, sharing private and spiritual matters, Charles Windsor would be better placed than anyone else in the Church, if not the world, (bar his brother); to know all about his paedophile activities.

At the time, however, it would have followed that people seeking to disadvantage Peter Ball, including from gaining employment, were behaving unfairly.

He just can’t help himself from defending his dear lifelong friend, Peter Ball. Even after molesting a number of boys in his Ministry, he still insists Peter Ball was treated “unfairly” by the various members of the Church who wanted him gone!

What I can say with certainty is that I did not express this view to anyone else or take any action associated with it.

I can say with certainty that Charles did express his views about the unfair treatment of Peter Balls, to many people, urging them to take action to remedy his situation.

19. In conclusion, I would like to state that, throughout my life, my position has occasionally brought me into contact with prominent people who have subsequently been accused of serious wrong-doing.

And now it gets juicy. Charles could be referring to no one else expect the Prince of Darkness himself, Jimmy Savile.

This also refers back to his previous point that in the 1980's and 1990's there was a presumption that people of high office, were worthy of trust and confidence.

He’s admitting an awareness of prominent people, (worthy of trust and confidence) who have subsequently been accused of serious wrong-doing. The most obvious person who springs to mind is Jimmy Savile; second Rolf Harris, third, his mother’s butler, fourth Lord Mountbatten, fifth, his father, sixth, his brother. The list goes on with further investigation…

It’s funny that he singles his class out, as the class most likely to associate with prominent people who have subsequently been accused of serious wrong doing.

Doesn’t any position in life occasionally bring you into contact with prominent people, who have subsequently been accused of serious wrong-doing?

I’m at the other end of the class spectrum, and I’ve occasionally come into contact with prominent people who have subsequently been accused of serious wrongdoing; my priest is first to spring to mind; following the scandal of taking a young boy to the South of France and sexually assaulting him; to the Chief Constable of Sussex police accused of serious misconduct in public office.

The lie here is that he occasionally and accidentally associates with criminals and paedophiles. The truth is that his position routinely brings him into contact and association with a large number of criminals, killers, drug dealers, paedophiles and other characters accused of serious wrong-doing.

Heir to the family ‘Firm’, Charles is better aware of the Dark Forces at work, than anyone else in the country.

That has changed over the years, as evidence has caused us all to be more challenging of what we hear and what we are told. But, at the time, there was on my part a presumption of good faith. I believe I was far from alone in taking this view.

Here Charles is further distancing himself from his past paedophile associations with a number of individuals, but has let slip some interesting truths, which the casual reader may have missed.

Here is an acknowledgement that his PP officers, routinely challenge what they hear and told about the people he associates with and with whom he shares Holy Communion.

This tells us that his PP officers told him everything he needed to know about Peter Balls, weeks after first getting to know him.

The term “more challenging,” is an acknowledgement on Charles’s part, that he will afford his PP officers more leverage in stopping himself from getting into any more trouble.

He acknowledges his own responsibility of making his own friendships, even being warned not to, by again taking ownership of the event with the word “my,” and then making clear that the “presumption of good faith,” was his alone and not the advice of his PP officers. 

But then again, he just couldn’t help himself, and throws in the lie that he believed he wasn’t “alone in taking this view”, when we know that various other people in the Church were ringing the alarm bells about Peter Ball.

Rather than rushing to private judgement, I have always taken the view that the judicial process should take its course.

Pull the other one; everyone rushes to private judgement. Just as Charles admits to have taken, when in 1997, he started supporting Peter Ball by giving him small financial gifts and a Duchy of Cornwall property.

It’s also a bit rich of him to let the judicial process take its course, when in truth, he has no idea how the judicial process works.

I am then able to ground my opinions in facts tested by law, rather than hearsay.

Drivel, pure and simple. “To ground my opinions in facts tested by law, rather than hearsay”. Oh how convenient to adopt such a state of mind. It means you can ignore all rumour and whisper, keeping the gap from rumour to fact, as wide as possible; only forced to address the truth once the accused is facing a judge in a court of law.

This is exactly what he did with Peter Ball. Dismissed all hearsay, but believed without question, the hearsay from Peter Ball’s own mouth; and then publically dumping Peter Balls like a sack of shit, as soon as his facts were tested by Law.

It’s the perfect get-away route for any prominent figure willing to socialise with criminal figures.

In many cases, including two very prominent cases of false accusation last year, this has proved a sensible course. It follows that I ceased contact with Mr Ball once the judicial process had concluded and he was found guilty of serious offences against young people.

Even though he has been forced to admit his best friend of 20 years, was found guilty of serious offences against young people, (kids), he still couldn’t help himself from referring to two cases of “false accusation,” which he felt compelled to include, to make the point that “false accusations” are a real and present danger for prominent people of high office, worthy of trust and confidence.

My heart goes out to the victims of abuse and I applaud their courage as they rebuild their lives and, so often, offer invaluable support to others who have suffered.

It’s an empty gesture which falls on deaf ears. But it has revealed an admission that child abuse destroys lives and is a generational problem.

As heart felt as it’s meant to sound, the truth is more in the interpretation that his heart breaks due to the abuse he himself has actually endured during his lifetime. The struggle and courage he’s had to find, to rebuild his own life, after a childhood of abuse from his uncle, illegitimate children and his failed marriage with Diana Spenser.

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.

He only regrets his friendship with Peter Balls was made public, and that the true nature of Ball’s activities being exposed in a court of Law. Remember, if it wasn’t for the court case, Peter and Michael Balls would still be living at the Duchy of Cornwall in an exclusive property, receiving occasional small gifts of money from the future King of England himself…

That is why I wanted to volunteer the facts in this letter, which I believe to be true, in the hope that they might be able to help your important work.

And he rounds off with a barrage of lies, while he says goodbye.

We know he never wanted to volunteer the facts in this letter because he instructed his lawyers to stop him from having to write this letter.

The Telegraph reports:

Lawyers for the Prince of Wales used human rights law to object to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement in the format used by the inquiry, instead sending a signed letter. 


“Which I believe to be true,” ‘Believe’ being the operative word, because ‘know,’ would have been better to use. ‘Which I know to be true,’ verses, ‘Which I believe to be true.’

“In the hope that they might be able to help your important work.”

I feel sick. Charles Windsor has shown nothing but contempt to the Inquiry.

Lies litter his statement.

Let’s not forget that’s he been forced to call a Gloucestershire police officer a liar and a member of the Church of England a liar; to hide the truth that either himself or someone else from his staff, (including his Palace Protection officers); exerted influence to alleviate the situation which Peter Ball found himself in.

My analysis reveals a liturgy of lies and deceit throughout his statement.

It’s my conclusion, that in all probability, Charles Windsor has a case to answer, as to whether he’s a paedophile?

I’ve been accused of being a paedophile having had two illegal and prohibited digital photographs found in my possession; Charles Windsor habitually forms lasting friendships with people who have gone onto be revealed as dangerous paedophiles, murderers and satanic cult members.

Jimmy Savile springs to mind.

This is the inconvenient truth, our nation doesn’t want to address or acknowledge. Our future King is a ………………………




 This document must be forwarded to the Metropolitan police, as a matter of urgency.

Damning analysis of Mr Windsor’s statement to the Child Abuse Inquiry, reveals a disturbing conclusion that Charles Windsor, the future King of Great Britain, could be a paedophile.
Thank the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, for King Arthur II. Coming to your cinema screens soon…

Please show me your support with a financial donation.

Please Help Me if you Can


Please show your appreciation with a donation.