Home——Introduction—The 369 Ritual—–The Spannermen——Background Information 1 / Background Info 2 ——Archives 1 / Archives 2 / Archives 3 / Archives 4 / Archives 5 / Archives 6 / Archives 7 / Archives 8 / Archives 9 / Archives 10 / Archives 12 / Archives 13 / Archives 14 —-Appendix—-Blog Latest —-Previously Featured —- Disclaimer
Reconstructing The Spanner Operation 1983 to 1990
Anderton and Thatcher
Margaret Thatcher saved career of police chief who made Aids remarks
Spannermen were prosecuted because their acts “could have spread HIV/AIDS”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=…derton&f=false (refresh page if necessary)
“Gas Them” – “Shoot Them All”
Quote “In 1987, following a screening of a film on HIV/AIDS, South Staffordshire council’s Tory leader Bill Brownhill said: ‘I should shoot them all… It is disgusting and diabolical. As a cure, I would put 90% of queers in the ruddy gas chambers. … it began a toxic tsunami of hysterical and panic-stricken media stories with headlines that included: ‘Britain threatened by gay virus plague'” https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Over_the_Rainbow_Money_Class_and_Homopho/IvERDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bill+brownhill,++gas+them,+shoot+them+all,+britain+1980%27s&pg=PA31&printsec=frontcover
James Anderton row documents revealed
So here we have the holy trinity of Thatcher, Hames and Anderton – who all quite openly believed that gay men should be behind bars, (and in private. believed a very much worse fate should befall them) – undertaking an exercise to help gay men contact each other, but leaving a secret toll of over 60 alleged suicides in it’s wake from the first part of the operation, leaving the electorate with an expense of many millions of hard-earned taxpayers money, and thereby moving on to a second part of the operation as a partly retaliatory measure for exposure of corruption in North Wales; with the costs thereafter snowballing at ever-increasing rates, and for which the operational accounts “would not be cost-proportionate” to render in parliament.
1980s: A decade of state-sanctioned homophobia
The 1980s were a period of intensified homophobia, sanctioned from the top echelons of society: the government, church, police and tabloids. It was open season on queers.
The Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was at war with the LGBT community.
She launched a series of homophobic and sexist moral crusades under the themes of “family values” and “Victorian values”.
Labour councils that supported local LGBT communities with funding and the use of council premises for events were denounced by the Tories.
The LGBT community became a political football. Homophobia was stirred up and exploited by the Conservatives. They appealed to the bigoted vote – and won it.
Had the first part of the operation resulted in deaths of the accused?
Had the second part of the operation resulted in incarcerations of the accused?
And if so; Would statistics normally be this clearly defined from over 640 raids?
The answer would have to be: “Only if the criteria were different for each part”
The Spanner case embodied more than one distinct set of criteria, and therefore served more than one (and possibly several) distinct intents and purposes.
Had Margaret Thatcher ordered the (over) 640 raids upon gay men in order to make examples of them – both for her “Christian Family Values” campaign, and to satisfy puritan and extremist elements within the Church of England?
The campaign was after all intended to be spearheaded by Michael Hames and his teams, and formed the main reason for his appointment.
It should also be remembered that the Spanner operation consisted of two completely separate parts:
1) The 1983 to 1986 original operation (mostly undocumented) of over 624 raids with over 60 potential defendants who were never heard in court;( and believed to have been mostly sourced from “Gay Galaxy” magazine), and involving over 60 alleged suicides.
2) The well documented Spannermen case 1987 – 1990 with 16 defendants (believed to have been a later addition to the first part and differed in that respect by way of intentional incarcerations, with links to/ sourced mostly from visitors to the whistleblower’s address).
The total number of cumulative “potential defendants” had been 82, with only 16 charged. (Page 165)
Had these two sections of Operation Spanner (although both coming under the same umbrella as 1 investigation, with the first and former seemingly being hidden in most respects) actually served two dual and different purposes?
Had the earlier operation been on behalf of the Church of England by the targeting of gay men only , whilst at the same time searching for missing snuff or VIP porn? (over 624 raids 1983 to 1986)
Had the second part of the operation (the documented Spanner) been both exercise on behalf of the Church targeting gay men only, whilst on behalf of the state targeting visitors to a whistleblower’s address? (Spannermen 16 raids 1987)
The Obscene Publications Squad and the costs of the “official” Operation Spanner officially undisclosed. Please also see “The Hidden Costs of Spanner”.
House of Commons debate 3rd March 1992
“Obscene Publications Squad
Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the total cost from 1987 to 1990 of the Operation Spanner investigation by the obscene publications squad ;
(2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the number of occasions on which police forces other than the Metropolitan police consulted or liaised with the obscene publications squad in each year from 1987 to 1991 ; (3) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the total running costs of the obscene publications squad in 1990 and 1991, and the projected cost in 1992 ;
(4) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the cost of the installation
of the obscene publications squad’s paedophile database, the number of officers that are employed to maintain it, the number of names of persons currently listed on the database and the nature of other databases maintained by the obscene publications squad.
Mr. Peter Lloyd : The total and projected manpower costs of the obscene publications squad are as follows :
<1> These costs cover salaries for police
and civilian staff and a
personnel administration charge for
recruitment, training and
the pay roll function. Other costs are
not recorded separately.
The squad does not have a computerised paedophile or other database. Two civilian staff do however maintain a manual index containing about 12,000 records. There is a close liaison between the squad and other police forces when the need arises but no record is kept of the number of times police forces consult or liaise with the obscene publications squad.
Records are not maintained in such a way that it would be possible to identify easily the costs of Operation Spanner. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police of the Metropolis officers appointed to the obscene publications squad, the method of application or secondments used in selecting the officers appointed, the length of time for which officers are appointed to the squad and the considerations used in determining the time limit.
Mr. Peter Lloyd : There are currently 18 officers, including the superintendent and detective inspector, working in the obscene publications branch. Vacancies in the branch are advertised in Metropolitan police notices.
The criteria for selection are that applicants should be mature and well balanced, and able to carry out sensitive investigation in a professional manner with a minimum of supervision.
Three years is the normal period for which Metropolitan police officers are attached to specialist units, but this is not an inflexible rule and it can be varied with an individual’s suitability for the work.
So on the basis of the above information that the operation lasted 3 years, and cost £19million, we are therefore left with the conclusion that Operation Spanner cost 7 times the normal average annual cost for the whole Unit per year of operation..
Now, how could that possibly be, when for most of that time (two years) the police had been presumably sitting in their office “preparing their case” and watching videos (page 163) (at little cost) trying to figure out what they could charge the Spannermen with???
Now, if we apply the real length of the operation- well over 6 years (until charges and arrests made), we are still left with 3 and a half times the average annual expenditure for the whole unit for each year (6.75) of the official operation. So we may at the very least assume that many millions in costs had occurred at the same time as Operation Spanner, and had been collated as part of that operation, but were certainly not related to any form of “normal” expenditure, and certainly for the 1990 – 1991 period appear to have been extraneous to the running costs of the Unit and therefore undisclosed – but the prevailing procedures within the MET prevented the charged sums from being collated in a cost-proportionate way, as “This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost”. (So in effect, we may therefore surmise that the costs are already known, but would possibly take a long, long time to produce, as “Other costs are not recorded separately”.).
So there is no specific data regarding the unique and extraneous Spanner costs of somewhere around at least £12million which may be accounted (based upon the generous supposition that the Unit worked solely on this case for the duration, and that the £19million included all running costs of the Unit for the period involved). In other words, there were no ledgers currently available for the operation (presumably perhaps other than internally and restricted), – which had involved abnormally massive costs by normal policing standards for that time.
However, I do believe that the sum may possibly be just as “tea money” when compared to the actual overall takings involving goods, assets, estates, businesses, vehicles, etc. and possibly adrenochrome (for example) acquired during or from the ritual.
That is not to say the sum is of any less importance – and I must admit that £19million of public funding – no matter how it is accounted, does appear to be unrealistically gross, and would appear to be unnacceptable as just even for the nationwide operation, as it is just too much for one operation, – and I have no doubts as to the sincerity of that figure. I would therefore hazard a guess that it would certainly appear to me, at least, that several millions may have been siphoned-off either on behalf of third-parties, or for undisclosed purpose(s). Perhaps the ritual had not been as rewarding as expected? It would therefore be intriguing to know:
A) Accounts for the total costs ?
B) Had the costs still kept increasing AFTER the ECHR hearing?*
C) Where has the money all gone, subsequent to the 1990 trial?
The latter questions I ask comes about through the fact that I do have another anchor point for these costs, as I personally had – also on good authority, been informed that the costs of the case/operation at the time of the Old Bailey hearings had been around a maximum of £6.5 million. So we are left to believe that costs related to this matter had therefore suddenly jumped from 6.5 million to 19 million in the early 1990’s – from December 1990 to 1993 – a sudden jump of 12.5 millions within a three-year period, and AFTER the hearing. So the true costs of Operation Spanner thus raise more questions than they may answer. On this basis alone, it would also indicate that the rendering of the actual costs of the case and operation should be undertaken forthwith and as a matter of urgency in order to understand as to why a snowballing effect has been occurring on these figures, once the matter had already been closed, even although it may seem thirty years too late! ...
( *and, if so, one may perhaps therefore quite reasonably enquire – are costs against Spanner still being charged to this date surreptitiously ?)
We are therefore faced with the unrealistic possibility that the majority of costs in Spanner had (as from £19million, prior to the ECHR hearing) been charged to the case in the early 90’s to mid ’90’s. Does that sound right? (to be honest, NO! – it cannot be related to Spanner)
I personally believe that reading between the lines is necessary here, and that the intentions involved may have possibly been a lot darker than many people would perhaps feel comfortable with.
It is only with an unrealistic stretch of the imagination one may believe as purely co-incidental that suddenly as from December 1983 start date, we have three interested parties involved with surveillance of the new address of the Bryn Alyn whistleblower within one month of a threat being made against him- (Bryn Alyn security (trespassing)/ the OPB (with neither the knowledge of local police nor residents)/ and MI5).
So we can see that right from the start of the official story (see above link) that the waters are being muddied with the “child protection” banner in order to disguise the real purpose of the events.
This would seem to be, along with other much used smears and whitewash tactics, a common ploy in order to gain sympathetic support; particularly – as evidenced with the Spanner case – there had been no legitimate reasons for state (or church) intervention, (and neither had the charges eventually brought supported such accusations).
The frantic searches for extreme and snuff underage porn was never seemingly concerned with the source, but rather the possession of such material, and we can then see that not only are massive protections being afforded to the sources of that trade, but indeed no attempts have ever been undertaken to stem the flow of those videos in any respect.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged suicides of over 60 gay men during these “searches” from 1983 to 1986 consisted of men who were in possession of such material. Nevertheless, what is known about those men was that many of them would possibly have been experienced freemasons and also gay, and at least some of them experienced practitioners of the occult due to their masonic standing; and the circumstances involved with these fatalities does beg the questions as to the pressure put upon them which caused such loss of life, and the reasons for that pressure. It does seem however at face value that Operation Spanner had (at that point in time) perhaps either a change of direction or tactics for, or prior to, the actual Spannermen raids.
Had the searches been looking for the snuff movie trade, then the Home Ofiice would have known where to look, as all those involved seemed to be protected by them:
Discrepancies in the dates of Michael Hames tenure and story as Witchfinder General of the Church of England (Head of Obscene Publications)
In his book, he claims that Operation Spanner was mainly carried out by Ian Donaldson, (“previous but one” head of OPB – I wonder who the “but one” was?) and that he only came onto the case at the end of the operation, in 1989 after the case had run for two years from 1987 starting in Manchester when “a man” (described as a paedophile) offered officers the tape in order to make a deal.
This is totally incorrect. The original tape had been solicited in 1984 by post from a leading spannerman in South Wales who was a regular visitor to the home of the Bryn Alyn whistleblower (referred to in Chapter 21 of Lost in Care). Although it is at this stage unclear who carried out the raids between 1983 and 1986,(involving the alleged defendant suicides) Hames and his teams had personally carried out the spannermen raids from early 1987, so he had been in charge of the case as far as the spannermen were concerned, and he was already promoted to head of OPB by October 1987 (Thatcher’s 3rd term as Prime Minister) and possibly before then. (confirmation of his start date will be posted once I have it)
Additionally, no unconnected person would have had a copy of any of the tapes, and there was no connection to any paedophiles at all. His story is, for the greater part, mostly fiction.
Naturally, he would not admit to obtaining the original tape unlawfully.
He claims that he was still a serving policeman at Ealing in 1986, and since the posting by the General Synod requires no previous professional experience nor qualification for the position, is possibly true, but can be checked once I have further details.
For what reasons had Margaret Thatcher chosen her own “Head of Obscene Publications” for approval from the General Synod; choosing one who also happened to share her Puritanical views of disdain and abonimation of those taking part in any sexual relationships (or indeed any other sexual acts evolving) outside of the heterosexual and marital fields?
Why would that have to be a prerequisite for that particular position?
How did she intend to enforce her “Christian Family Values” upon the nation with a squadron of police at her disposal?
For what reason(s) had the Spannermen no longer been relevant to the Operation Spanner raids between the time the first video had been obtained in early 1984 and 1987 when they were raided and charged, whilst in that period over 600 other men had been raided?
If the Police really (and wrongly) had indeed believed the Spannermen videotape to be depicting torture and murder, then why had the police shelved the matter for three years until 1987 before investigating and raiding the men?
Exactly what had the search been looking for in the first place, and what had the plan been – (by raiding all contacts from a specially set up gay contact magazine)?
Was it also additionally suspected that copies may have been made (and sold or circulated) of child porn videos seized by Customs and Excise officers in 1982, and depicting recognisable well known MPs referred to here:
and described in more detail here:
If incriminating and possibly stolen or copied videotapes depicting VIP’s and/or missing children were the underlying purpose of the raids, then why were only men seeking gay contacts targeted prior to the Spannermen raids?
The witch trials in Early Modern Europe
The witch trials in Early Modern Europe came in waves and then subsided. There were trials in the 15th and early 16th centuries, but then the witch scare went into decline, before becoming a major issue again and peaking in the 17th century. What had previously been a belief that some people possessed supernatural abilities (which were sometimes used to protect the people) now became a sign of a pact between the people with supernatural abilities and the devil. To justify the killings, Protestant Christianity and its proxy secular institutions deemed witchcraft as being associated to wild Satanic ritual parties in which there was much naked dancing and cannibalistic infanticide. It was also seen as heresy for going against the first of the ten commandments (You shall have no other gods before me) or as violating majesty, in this case referring to the divine majesty, not the worldly. Further, scripture specifically decreed that “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18), which many believed.
David Icke – Satanic Ritual
David speaks on satanic rituals and why they are practised in certain locations
“The next thing on from the connections between religions and secret societies and the gods that they worship is satanism – because that is just another arm of this; this might be controversial to the believers in the religions and stuff, but you’ve got the ancient gods, (which were translated into “god” which are worshipped by the religions (unknowingly most of them – same with the secret societies) and the same “gods”- demonic entities as they’re called in this case – that are worshipped by the satanists are the same gods that are worshipped by the secret societies and religions, unknowingly – in satanism it’s knowingly”
Matthew Hopkins, Witch-Finder General
The kingdoms of Scotland and England were united in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland also became James I of England. James certainly had a strange fascination with all things associated with the occult: shortly after assuming the throne, he released his best-selling book, ‘Daemonologie’ which explored the areas of witchcraft and demonic magic. He was so obsessed with the ‘black arts’ that he even convinced Parliament to pass the Witchcraft Statute of 1604, which ruled witchcraft as a crime punishable by death.
Such a background led to a heightened public anxiety about witches that would slowly fester in the decades that followed, inspired in no small part by similar concerns across The Channel in mainland Europe. Within the political and religious chaos that reigned throughout the period of the English Civil Wars, one previously unheard of Matthew Hopkins emerged.
Records of Hopkins’ early career in the art of witch hunting are a tad vague, however it appears to stem from when he moved to Manningtree, Essex in 1644. An impoverished lawyer with a strong puritanical background, Hopkins appears to have seen it as his mission to destroy anything to do with the “works of the devil”.