The Royal Family's Troubling Pattern of Friendships With Convicted Predators

The Royal Circle: What Did They Know and When?

Elite Immunity, Deference Culture or Institutional Protection? 

8 min read 

What kind of world do we live in? When you notice the web of connections linking certain members of the Royal Family to dubious individuals, (later convicted of repulsive crimes) it genuinely raises some uncomfortable questions. While we can't definitively say what anyone knew for sure or even when they knew it, we can still skim across the strange patterns of curious relationships our monarchy enjoyed. 

The Jimmy Savile Connection: A Close Royal Friendship

Perhaps the most well-known ominous friendship is Jimmy Savile and his decades-long relationship with King Charles in his years as prince. It wasn't just a casual acquaintance - Savile got close and Charles sought his advice on public relations matters.

The PR Consultant to Royalty

Savile even put together a PR handbook for the Royal Family, this level of trust and access for anyone, let alone a notorious molester of children is quite remarkable in hindsight. This kind of access reveals a relationship built over many years with significant trust on both sides. It is quite reminiscent of Clement Freud asking his son Matthew for PR assistance with the McCann case in Praia da Luz (2007). Public Relations is a very powerful thing. 

Warning Signs Were There

What still sparks this up as particularly scary even years later, was that there were warning signs. Dickie Arbiter, a former royal aide, later described Savile's behavior around young female staff at St. James's Palace as 'creepy' and 'suspect.' 

The Key Question

If a royal aide noticed this behaviour, it raises questions about what others might have heard. Were these concerns passed up the chain of command? People in the BBC knew Savile liked young girls, it was a common unspoken secret. They even sent cars to collect children for him. 

The police, security and intelligence agencies would definitely have known about Savile, but apparently, no one informed the royals, unlike with those previous embarassments involving nazism or learning disabled family members which the palace actually hid. 

What the Official Inquiries Found

The official inquiries after Savile's death found no evidence that Prince Charles or other senior royals had direct knowledge of his criminal activities. Is that really a surprising? Either way, here's where it gets complicated.

The Problem with the Investigations

They were criticized for not fully grasping the extent of institutional cover-ups that enabled Savile for decades. If the official investigations missed the broader picture, what else might have been overlooked?

Other Troubling Associations: The Mountbatten Allegations

The Savile case isn't isolated. Lord Mountbatten introduced Savile to Charles, who quickly took to him. Mountbatten, Prince Philip's uncle and mentor to Prince Charles, faced posthumous allegations of sexual abuse of children. 

The Kincora Connection

Arthur Smyth claimed that Mountbatten abused him at the Kincora Boys' Home in Northern Ireland during the 1970s. These are allegations in a real legal case, not proven facts, but this is another part of an interwoven tapestry which depicts an emerging theme.

The building was eventually knocked down. 

The Peter Ball Situation: 1993 Police Caution

The Peter Ball situation is perhaps the most problematic of all, mainly because of what happened after concerns were raised. Ball, a former bishop, was given a police caution in 1993 for sexual offenses. Despite this caution, Charles continued their friendship. Ball returned to ministry within a couple of years. Bizarrely, the prince provided him with financial support and accommodation on the Duchy of Cornwall estate during the 2000s. Sadly, this is yet another unconventional relationship.

Charlie's Explanation

Charles eventually said he was 'deceived' by Ball and didn't grasp that accepting a police caution meant admitting guilt. While this explanation is possible, it raises questions about the advice Charles was receiving from his top level staff. This holds some similarity to the more recent Justin Welby situation, the Archbishop of Canterbury and another 'friend'  of Charles. Along with other clergy, Welby covered up the abuse of around 130 boys and young men. 

What the Inquiry Found

Going back to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, it found no evidence to suggest Charles tried to influence police investigations. However, the continued support of his ex-bishop friend, Peter Ball, after the 1993 caution the public developed some misgivings.

We must remember who and what was being held to account with these investigative motions - the highest and most powerful of the UK. Of course the official narrative caused a few side glances, but all reports and proceedings trickled top down from a sovereign nation. 

The Mentor's Dark Secret: Laurens van der Post

Laurens van der Post was like a longterm spiritual mentor for Charles. This South African writer was an influence on Charles and was made godfather to Prince William. After van der Post's death in 1996, it emerged he fathered a child with a 14-year-old girl. He was in his fifties when it happened. 

The Warning That Went Unheeded: The Royal Portrait Commission

Perhaps most telling is the Rolf Harris case. In 2005, The Australian artist painted a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II for her 80th birthday. It was a prestigious commission. 

Here's what's particularly off, yet again - a victim wrote to Buckingham Palace with a warning about Harris's predatory behavior. The letter was supposedly filed away until 2012 when it was used as part of Operation Yewtree.

Why This Matters

This case is significant. We can see direct warnings to the Royal Household. Yet, according to the official narrative the royalty was unaware. That in itself should make you question who is manipulating who? Has an ostrich with its head in the sand popped up in your head yet? 

What This All Means: The Official Position

Look, we can't say with certainty what members of the Royal Family knew about any of these criminals or their activities. The royals were portrayed as oblivious and that is a very poor public image indeed. No formal inquiry produced evidence to say Charles knew the gravity of the crimes surrounding those men or even of any corresponding rumours. An ostrich conveys a modicum of humour, but prosecutors, investigators, victims and their loved ones did not find it funny.

The Pattern Is Hard to Ignore

Multiple individuals with close ties to particular monarchs were later convicted of serious sexual offenses. There were warning signs, concerns raised by staff, and in at least one case, a direct warning to the Palace. Is just one rumour of child abuse enough to curse a house in your community? So what's going on here? 

What The Evidence Suggests

This doesn't prove a cover-up or any type of deliberate enabling, but it does suggest an awful lack of due diligence when it came to the questionable company they kept, at the very least. Something was off. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) was critical. The IICSA report branded Prince Charles as 'misguided' and said Ball was an example of how a senior Anglican church member 'was able to sexually abuse vulnerable teenagers and young men for decades', but is that a fair summary? 

The Uncomfortable Truth

Whether it's playing dumb, institutional protection of reputation over the victims, or simply terrible judgment, the Royal Family's associations with dubious individuals still do raise legitimate questions: what did they know? 

But Who Was Targetting Who?

Prince Charles was known for wanting people to like him. He was eager to be loved like Princess Diana was, the peoples princess. He lived an isolated, emotionally impoverished childhood and walked the halls of prestige and power; status most psychopaths greatly desire.

Psychopathy, sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder are known for aggression, they often involve abuse. Many other dark psychologies and sinister mentalities exist that are attracted to exerting power over vulnerable or weaker people. Dont believe child abuse has a sexual limitation, it often holds a sadistic link to domination - power is the flame to that moth. There was something missing in Charles's life, and evidently each wolf in sheeps clothing respectively offered him something in order to befriend him: public relations skills, mentoring, spiritual advice, marriage guidance and so on, and so forth. 

Let’s keep things real by acknowledging that the exact specifics of these royal friendships may bever be known. But the documented connections and the handling of various warning signs can't be written off as coincidence can they? Something was definitely kept out the public spotlight!

What Really Happened: The 'Far-Right' Labels That Don't Add Up

History: Their Own Signs Told the Story - 'Not Far-Right, Just Right! 

4 to 5 min read

When Immigration Concerns Became 'Racism': The Governments Political Weapon! 

Since when does opposing mass immigration make you 'far-right'? Yet, a year ago, Keir Starmer took things in that direction! After the Southport attacks, protesters who expressed themselves were vilified — many were arrested under special powers for just standing there doing nothing. Of course, we have to appreciate that element of racist, vandals and thugs who rightfully were arrested, but tarring everyone with the same brush is unfair. 

Immigration, Morality Drama and Racism

In December 2024, with Reform UK overtaking Labour in the polls, Starmer quickly jumped on the 'stop the boats' bandwagon, promising to tackle immigration! We should be honest with ourselves, anyone can take an example of racism and play the moralist with it. Real racism is vile and it's not as common as the many things people prescribe it to be - so why weaken it with silly accusations? Other expressions of racism come across as a political game, or social weapon. We saw the 'racism gameplay' used on the majority of leave voters during brexit. Before all this, Harry and Meghan’s Netflix show accused the entire UK itself of being a systemically racist country. Keep it for the actual racists. 

The Missing Evidence: Where's the Proof Behind These 'Far-Right' Claims? 

Holding anti-immigration views or voting to leave the EU is not adequate proof of anyone's standpoint on what race might be, or if it is problematic or not. Neither is it a hint of intellectual inferiority. Comparable to remain voters, leave voters were publicly labelled across the media as having fewer qualifications, living in rented accommodation, or council housing, and being less travelled. Yet, years later, they were blessed covid keyworkers! 

When it comes to racism Labour MPs insisted police should shelve valid investigation into Islamic grooming gangs stretching across many council estates. This was to avoid being seen as ‘racist’. Anti-racism politics continued, alongside pressures for a nationwide investigation into those very gangs which identified failings you should look into. 

Absolutely, racism is comparable to a weapon. In reality, it's not black and white, inter-ethnic communities face their own long standing problems too; some racial tension garners less media attention. Ever read about racism in Leicester and Birmingham? The conflicts between Black and South Asian communities shows another perspective on racism. The news broadcasted these clashes and claimed most of which were of a cultural and religious nature - racism language not utilised in the BBC (BBC News, 2022). 

Going Back in Time

One example of historical British racial conflicts go back to the Britons and the first English Anglo-Germanic tribes, as far back as the fifth century. Different language, culture, religion and genetics, left an impression they were separate races, given how they derived from different ancestral gods. South Asian hostility toward Black people is another expression of humans beings being unpleasant to one another (Gillespie, 2021).

Admittedly, we can agree that the vocal fervour and conviction of some protesters may have came across intimidating; passionate or political chanting can appear aggressive when it is not necessarily the case, like when holding an English flag because football hoologans and ethno-nationalists have done so in the passed. 

Be that as it is, name calling, however; as in branding regular people unfairly as the aforementioned. It's similar to the non-crime hate incidents for which people can face prison! 

Too much tarring was going on and most people are still holding a tainted brush. Many protesters in Westminster generally distanced themselves from any far-right ideology and criminal activity, because it was repulsive to them, as you'll see in this honest video below. 

Liars Pretending to Fight a Moral Cause? 

Virtue signaling always adds salt to the wound. It refocuses the optics framing self-promotion: for example, seeing our Prime Minister playing the saint in the very place where those poor girls were murdered was immoral. Why? The BBC and other mainstream news headlined 'Not Terror Related'. Starmer denied all knowledge of the guilty party, despite Nigel Farage openly asking, 'What are they not telling us?'

This Prime Minister knew at the time that those murders were inspired by Islamic radical ideology! That's what he was not telling us! Even when mainstream BBC news portrayed the 'suspect' as being 'Welsh' because he was born in 'Cardiff'. 

Regardless, officers recovered an Al-Qaeda training PDF, terror related internet searches on his computer and poison. How is that not radical or terror related? The evil wretch was known to authorities and no-one stopped him. The people had valid reason to protest because there was a lot to be said, but instead many ended up arrested!

The Cover-Up Continues: What Other Facts Were Hidden?

In the Westminster video above, we see protesters, mostly mothers and grandads and so on, indiscriminately herded into police vans! The news, with political help, smeared the lot of them: Westminster certainly was not facing an EDL or NF march! 

An inspection of the police response to the public disorder in July and August 2024 concludes:

No evidence existed to prove any deliberate plot by any group; the actual trouble makers in other protests were done by local people fuelled with anger. They found outside individuals, influencers who kindled public disaffection. They added fuel to the fire with inaccurate information. 

Before 2024 most of the detained rioters and protestors had no previous arrests for disorder-related offences. Police arrested nearly 150 children, some as young as 11. Motives for rioting and protesting were diverse, including fears of poverty, biased policing, as well as concerns surrounding increased immigration. Issues the country voted against repeatedly only for it to be ignored. 

Previously, before these protests, Keir Starmer publicly bent the knee in support of Black Lives Matter, whose vandalism swept the globe. 

The Dangers of the Left

Ultimately, we know that pandering to any particular foreign demographic for votes in an election is discrimination against all the others, questionable at least. It is questionable that no national inquiry was undertaken on the grooming gangs! For years newspapers, and now, online whistle blowers, claim postal voting fraud was directly linked to the Labour party and the Islamic community. Watch the video below! 

Dishonesty and Using Race as a Weapon

In a televised broadcast, Keir Starmer admitted to knowing the details of the Southport case at the time - his excuse: it was ‘not right’ to release them to the public at the time. The police released those details just three months later, in October. This was long before the trial. So, why did Keir Starmer, a successful legal expert respond the way he did?

My Conclusion

Starmer has avoided answering questions about the non-far-right, those peaceful participants in the protests who were made out to be the EDL. Why? People suffered or died in jail for tweeting on social media. Pensioners lost winter allowances, the government demonised those who are anti-immigration and then banned useful workers from legally entering, such as carers for example. 

Starmer said women could have a penis until the law changed his mind. His premiership continued to free up prison spaces by releasing prisoners early. Of course, he replaced them with hundreds of innocent people found guilty of 'thought crime,' 'facebook posts they didn't like' or 'holding a placard'. Strangely though, if any lefty publicly ordered throats cut or openly yelled 'deff to the IDF' on stage at a televised concert, well...that  was not so bad. Maybe the plan was to make prisons a tad more Bingo and Werthers Original? 

References

BBC News. (2022). "Leicester and Birmingham Ethnic Tensions." Retrieved from [BBC News](https://www.bbc.com/news).

Gillespie, S. (2021). "Ethnic Tensions and Prejudices in the UK." *Journal of Ethnic Studies*, 12(3), 45-62.

HMICFRS (2024) Police response to public disorder in July and August 2024 (Tranche 2). Available at: https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publication-html/police-response-to-public-disorder-in-july-and-august-2024-tranche-2/#:~:text=The%20risk%20online%20content%20poses,content%20could%20contain%20vital%20intelligence. (Accessed: 24 May 2025).

Sproston, K., et al. (2018). "Educational Disparities Among Minority Students." *British Educational Research Journal*, 44(4), 679-695.

Amy Bradley is Missing: Vanishing From a Cruise Ship

Talking About Amy Bradley: A Netflix Shocker (Spoilers) 

3 min read 

A Cynical View Minus The Bollocks

Netflix paints the Amy Bradley case as a deep mystery, but, at the same time it is structured with a very likely outcome. 

The Boring Explanation is Most Likely

Not long after the Netflix show announces her disappearance it hurls in a local, someone quite familiar with the sea's current! Message being: 'We know where a body would wash up, none did,' computer imagery helped to convey their claim. 

We learn Mr and Mrs Bradley pushed to have all passengers grounded until their 23 year old Amy was found. Their request was denied. The staff did do something; a deep search after the passengers disembarked - it was to no avail. She had already left. Look, I know I'm being a tad boring here by saying she took herself off the ship - but why did she?

Sidestepping Netflix

I watched Alister Yellow Douglas, who was cleared by the FBI. The man spoke on YouTube in an interview. and he was very believable. Obviously, I think he is innocent of Amy's disapearence. He directly said Amy told him that her parents made her go on the cruise because she was gay! He said the comment confused him at the time, it would, and it struck a chord with me! The parents shared one bedroom; Amy, a grown-ass woman, also kept her own flat! What the fuck? 

You can see the prevailing waves of doubt across online discussion boards all centring in on Mum and Dad. Someone astutely asked, 'why did the Dad jump straight into a 'Amy is in danger' mentality simply because he didn't notice her that morning?' Netflix was right to bring them deeper into the narrative. According to long term followers of the case less was known about the parents and the dynamics until the show.

Netflix did allude to tensions during the trip of several occasions. Her sexual orientation was a significant issue and key! Her father sent Amy's ex-partner a negative three page letter to keep away! You see where this is going?

The Crux Of The Situation

Amy smoked, drank heavily, partied hard and became the 'life and soul' pulling in the attention. Why? Well... a witness on the Netflix show said on camera there seemed to be something driving Amy's behaviour, duh! 

Of course, it screams rebellion rather than just having fun. If you're feeling pressured by people who want to change who you are, wouldn't you push back? You might want to distance yourself, you might want to self-medicate? Do you know what I mean? 

What Happened? 

Curaçao in the late 90s was known for drugs and trafficking. I looked it up. Amy had motive to leave the ship, be it a self-medicating thing or an act of defiance, a break from the cruise ship, we could compile a list. 

Tragically, this headstrong young woman walked right onto an unsafe island alone. The FBI had limitations with investigating because they were in international waters, jurisdiction was a barrier. A poverty of Intel hindered progress. 

The Outcome 

We can't rightfully dismiss the witness accounts and photographic evidence that sprung up years later. The FBI analysis concluded it was Amy in those sexualised images. Overboard theories lost credibility. 

Netflix very strongly suggests Amy Bradley survived, eventually imprisoned in a guarded lifestyle. I must confess my love of documentaries. Here's another blogpost based on a Netflix documentary. Netflix love to playfully take viewers on a journey, briefly deceive them or go the scenic route, but this is different. A trafficked victim can face multiple forms of abuse and control - drugs, threats, and if Amy has children they could be used as leverage against her. Netflix is dealing with an ongoing, sensitive case.

That's the reality! A young woman caught between identity and family expectation needed to take a break but she was taken. The real mystery isn't what happened to Amy Bradley, as such. It's about how many other people disappear in similar ways, how we can push our loved ones away, our human nature to put self over other. It's heart breaking! The horrors of human trafficking mean we have to watch out for each other. Every herd has its predator waiting. 

What I reckon...

I have no idea if Amy Bradley is still alive now. Apart from the monsters who took her and their twisted circles, who does? When I wrote my Madeleine McCann blogpost I read Europol and US documents on trafficked children - life expectancy was greatly diminished for them according to data. 

We would all like to see Amy found alive and quickly restored fit and well. Sadly, if we go on the nature of these things the most positive outcomes become more like wishful thinking. Then again, people do defy the odds! 

Anyway, remove all those  assumptions we have of human trafficking, the hear-say and speculation, and it simply leaves us with a strong woman who walked away. Is it a shock anyone might want to escape their claustraphobic homophobic family cruise? 

It's so very sad. Look after yourselves, watch out for your own. Keep safe!

Who Would Manipulate the McCann Story?

THE DARK SIDE OF HUMANITY: EVIL IN HIGH PLACES?

5 min read

DISTRACTION IN THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE? 

Disclaimer: this post covers unpleasant themes, discretion is advised. 

There are theories that Madeleine McCann somehow lost her life inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club complex, Praia da Luz. Of course, we don't know if this is true or not. You might have read similar speculative blogs that explore medication mishaps or a physical accident, but whatever occurred on May 3rd, 2007, it was not necessarily a silent kidnapping or a bodged burglary. 

Why? Well, there was no sign of a struggle, no reports of noises you'd expect like panicking or screaming children, nothing was kicked over, no fingerprints, nothing was stolen, in fact, the siblings slept through everything—this was a strange disappearance, not a proven abduction. Yes, we have heard it all before! 

Imagine, if you can, that the official narrative was a planned damage control intervention. That would mean the abduction story was designed to protect something, be it a group, a person or even knowledge. But, if this was true, who would take control of the narrative? Media spin. 

Definition from Oxford Languages:

Spin-doctor: a spokesperson employed to give a favourable interpretation of events to the media, especially on behalf of a political party.

WHAT WAS GOING ON IN AND AROUND THAT PART OF PORTUGAL? 

I chose to withhold names and sources to avoid doxing, but there were very powerful people with property in the area at the time. One particular gentleman had connections to the UK establishment and was later alleged to have sexually assualted children. 

We must understand that a huge child trafficking network existed across Casa Pia with UNESCO ambassadors, politicians, and establishment figures involved. It was operating since the 1960s. According to this U.S. State Department report (2023), Portugal continues to stand out as both a destination and transit point for child trafficking. 

CHILD TRAFFICKING INVOLVES NETWORKS BUT IT CAN BE OPPORTUNISTIC

Out of the many Nigerian children who are trafficked to European countries, most are forced into prostitution to generate money. However, Europol here state how online methods also provide means to operate this disgusting underground crime. 

CHILD ABUSE CAN ALSO COME FROM OUR FINEST

Even after Operation Yewtree's string of arrests of child molesters from the entertainment industry, Huw Edwards, (who likely covered it) got off so lightly for his own indecent images of children. We can't forget the televised gibberish from Prince Andrew regarding his relationship with Epstein, Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre. This kind of human predatory sickness could easily have spilt over the likes of Praia da Luz from the echelons of Portuguese society. 

THESE CIRCLES INTERLINK

The numerous Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris documentaries across the internet and streaming services paint a strong picture of how sick and degenerate rich and famous individuals can be! Such 'upper crusts' of society are often seen on good terms with at least one monarch or a reputable business-type. Criminal Rings, paedophile circles, people must be in the 'know' to be involved. 

After watching the disgraced morning TV presenter, Philip Schofield, ranting in his televised expo in the wild, I was left with an unpleasant afterthought. You see, he shamelessly pushed his victim yarn of betrayal, explaining it with a bitter venom. It made me appreciate the immense narcissism found with the types of celebrities like the ones above, all who had an exposed sex-type problem. Does the entertainment industry attract psychopaths or egotists? 

Don't get me wrong; I could mention outstandingly wonderful human beings who are movie stars, like Keanu Reeves or Steve Buscemi, but I won't. 

WHEN A SPEAKER SPEAKS FOR OTHERS

A British spin-doctor joined the Madeleine McCann scene. Once he was a disaster reporter for the BBC, leaving many of us Brits scratching our heads at the 'special treatment' the McCanns were getting compared to other families in similar predicaments. Gerry and Kate became involved with this powerful circle of PR media wizards who acted as their mouthpiece. The McCanns dined with one of the family members in his private villa nearby. 

What's striking is the idea of a random drifter was kidnapping a child in an area like Portugal. Think of all the network of powerful child molesters who usually order these crimes; they would know they did not request the abduction of the missing child. The motives for them supporting the parents is limited. It could be altruistic or self focused. Our actions come from motive, but also character. 

FINE MORAL CHARACTER? 

The spin-doctor worked for a crisis manager, and PR, an individual who manipulates perceptions for a living.  Part of a high status circle and family. Known as a shadowy and elusive figure, but above all his PR company never supported families of missing children before Madeleine McCann disappeared. Described as a star in the 'new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism'. However he is not a saintly character. 

He supported Live Aid, the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and Comic Relief. This is charity and seen as admirable. Charity work is not a measure of a person's goodness; Jimmy Savile gave a fortune to charity. 

PROVEN CONNECTIONS:

The MP celebrity cook: Queen-knighted, Praia da Luz villa owner, contacted McCanns weeks after disappearance

Casa Pia Network: convicted ambassadors, politicians, UNESCO officials running child trafficking operations in Portugal since the sixties.

The PR support for Gerry and Kate McCann was most likely not altruistic and selfless because we saw no intervention for the likes of Hannah Williams (2001) Charlene Downes (2003) Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman (2002) or Shannon Matthews (2008). Why? Is this one circle covering for another? 

THE DRIFTER 

In 2020, German Prosecutor Hans Wolters said, authorities 'actually have findings that suggest' the German high profile paedophile monster we've all been hearing about 'is Madeleine McCann's murderer'. 

We all heard the claims of robust evidence but, five years later, the same prosecutor changed his tune: there's 'no prospect' of charges being brought to the accused. Yet again, this is another strange way to behave. It was as if they planned to convince us all they had proof which will undoubtedly prosecute the actual culprit. It was nonsense. 

Are monsters in broadcasters still targetting kids? 

My Conclusion...

We don't know what happened exactly, but if we can recognise a tree by its fruit what should we call this tree? For all we know, the PR mouthpiece and media work was not an altruistic gesture. We can only speculate because investigations have failed for the last couple of decades and it's a cold case. 

This means I can't accuse anyone of harming Madeleine McCann, which is why I have left out names. I'm sharing my suspicions that things remain intentionally hidden from the world. When vile trafficking circles interlock we see more degradation of a society. If ever we see a world where it is common place to hear of men stealing children in our neighbourhoods, that should be the mark of our failure!

The BBC paid a chauffeur to collect and drop off children for the likes of Savile. For me it's not one person its a systemic failure, a social disease, perverted sadism in the pockets of hierarchical classism. It preys on anyone, including the less fortunate. Sadly it can be from bottom up: children sold by their own kin into prostitution. 

 

The Quantum Secret Inside Every Living Cell That Changes Everything

Consciousness in the Meat: The Evidence That Will Rewrite Biology Textbooks

Why Consciousness Might Not Need a Brain

8 min read

The quantum connection scientists are finally proving

I was getting pulled into the fascinating intersection of quantum mechanics and consciousness again, (it happens from time to time) and I realised, I can't articulate this stuff verbally to anyone. That's why I started typing it. It was Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's proposal in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory that hounded me.

What you're about to read will completely change how you see reality itself.

They say consciousness emerges from quantum processes in microtubules—the structural frames inside our brain cells. It's mind-blowing. Anyhow, geniuses say consciousness occurs when probability waves (superposition: in every state it can be in at the same time) collapse after reaching the threshold inside our microtubules. This is what sparks moments of consciousness.

Here's where it gets incredible! Think of living things as quantum collapse interfaces, microtubules act like a radio receiver—breaking down bigger waves so we can appreciate the music. We can call this collapsing process communicative or computational. Why? Because it involves the attraction and repulsion between microtubules and quantum fields, the universe's simplest language. I should add, Penrose insists nonlinear gravity plays a part; experiments involving superradiance have shown Penrose's quantum activity persisting in settings simulating biology. 

The proof that consciousness isn't what we thought it was.

The Enduring Quantum Within

I've enjoyed hours of Professor Jim Al-Khalili talking about quantum physics and the universe. In 2014, he did another of his BBC documentaries that featured quantum tunnelling. He featured the work of renowned Chemist Hammes-Schiffer that proves protons quantum tunnel through barriers, like ghosts, rather than follow the classical model of physics. It shows us that quantum effects are happening inside living things and integral to charge-based biological processes: electrons are behind photosynthesis and energy metabolism, while protons are a major factor in genetic mutation and aging. 

Taking in the Facts

Microtubules are 25 nm in diameter (compared to a hair's 17000-181000 nm). They aren't the most stable structure in our cells, but they exist in every type of cell structure, which should make the quantum process less specific to neurons only. It's absolutely revolutionary how these unimaginably tiny organelles communicate chemically with one another; positive or negative influencing microtubular dynamics, including their collapse or depolymerization! Not only do microtubular charges interact with positively charged molecules, for example, I suspect they play a transactional role in this very quantum wavelength collapse. 

In 2007, Quantum Biologist Graham Fleming demonstrated with experimentation that energy in photosynthesis simultaneously explores multiple pathways in superposition before selecting the most efficient route. This challenged assumptions that biological environments instantly destroy quantum effects.

A 'Filter Model' of Consciousness

With millions of quantum events ever-present, it must be said; we are about 95% automated. We can reel off lists of precise bio-functions we do not control, like: homeostasis, miosis, mitosis, heart rate, vaso-dilation/constriction, neural maintenence, pathogen response, and then some. Let's not go down any theological rabbit holes and claim intelligent design, these subjects go on forever. We can, however, acknowledge the intricate work of chemically communicating organelles operating across layers of our bodily systems. 

The Neural Democracy

Our world view is served up for us from the bottom-up. We are a small 5% conscious experience that thinks it is the 95%! Higher order representation of phenomenal experience is an often discussed HOROR theory in contemporary philosophy of mind—it's a Higher Order Thought hypothesis. An epiphenomenal model developed primarily by philosopher David Rosenthal, but other philosophers contribute. Our mental states offer content, leading to those 'what-it-is-likeness' sort of sensations, or phenomenal conscious experiences before they become conceptualised into a 'thing' like, I suppose, mansplaining, or survivor guilt, and maybe NPC'ing! Seriously, when more of our unconscious/darkness comes into the light, we recognise and process these things. Victorian men had no idea they were mansplaining until it was a thing. 

We Always Make it About Us

By looking at how other creatures take-in the world; be it chickens or hawks, sharks, whatever, we can appreciate something quite enriching. Sciencey tv shows have been broadcasting the respective differences in animal perspectives for years. Their sense hardware and the amount of dedicated braincells differ across the animal kingdom. It screams Wittgenstein, because some creatures have colour, sound and smell that we don't even have! It begs the question, if we knew everything about life on earth, which creature will experience reality accurately? There are models of philosophy that give allowances for the world to be flexible enough for all creature-views to be valid, is that sound or is it only logical for there to be one true reality? Essentially, we can only be human and study our own nature, but peering over the neighbour's fence satisfies curiosity. 

Trees communicate and make decisions - here's the shocking evidence.

Consciousness needs a Brain? 

Can consciousness exist without a brain to house it? If we consider trees, we see they communicate through mycorrhizal networks; they can share resources, warn other trees of threats, make decisions about growth patterns, and respond to their environment in sophisticated ways that benefit their collective. They exhibit:

- Environmental responsiveness: growing toward light, avoiding obstacles

- Self-preservation: sealing wounds, conserving energy during stress  

- Communication: chemical signaling, nutrient sharing, coordinated behavior

By definition this is consciousness, but simple unlike our own. 

My Conclusion

Trees have no brains, brambles have no nervous systems—yet, by definition they all clearly show a lower level consciousness as they also strive for light as we do for a wage. However, what is an interesting coincidence is how all animals, trees and plants have microtubules made of the same alpha and beta tubulin! It seems basic consciousness stems from the same fundamental bedrock force, integrating with systems that are alive with specific bio-organelles.

I've enjoyed digesting philosophy and spirituality. All sorts from pan/cosmopsychism, non-dualist perspectives such as panentheism, gnosticism, Plotinus, Arthur Schoppenhauer and integrated information theory, even though IIT doesn't really fit in, it's ideas of interconnection feel similar. Penrose and Hameroff brought another gem to the table, emboldening arguments that suggest there is more than meets the eye. There is an unspoken nondualist perennial idea running across models of physics, philosophy, spirituality and eastern religions. 

Physicist-philosopher Nir Lahav proposes consciousness isn't merely a brain byproduct, but fundamentally woven into reality's fabric through basic physical fields. This is an interesting view, especially if we consider that two billion years ago, alphaproteobacterium developed microtubules. If quantum interaction has shaped our evolution it has had plenty of practice.

 

Channel 4's 'Open House': Is This Actually a Televised Brothel?

CHANNEL 4's 'Open House' Sexploitation, Smut or The New Way of Living? 

The Race to the Bottom: Sex for Views

7 Min Read

Channel 4's 'Open House: The Great Sex Experiment' is pushing taboo boundaries again, probably because they squashed the last failed experiment 'Naked Attraction'. Clearly their unrelenting need to create smut will never be satisfied. The compelling characters in the show are the real-life couples who try the experience. 

Former participants reveal what producers really demanded behind the scenes! 

The Fake Experts Pushing Their Lifestyle: What Can People Actually Learn From Non-Monogamy?

Unfortunately, the pseudo-science they blurt out in these shows can be dangerously misleading. We always hear a therapist, or an expert imparting 'sex knowledge' in these programs. We can see it in Virgin Island, another so-called retreat based 'course in intimacy'. This pretence of academic seasoning brings an illusion of validity. However, a growing body of evidence is emerging; consensual non-monogamy shows real risk to health, and polygamous people might self-report their well-being unrealistically—we all have human biases!

I'm unsure if the latest 'expert' to 'Open House,' Effy Blue, holds any qualifications, because there aren't any in her credentials, and her words hardly resonate with psychological wellbeing, philosophy of mind or spirituality. Why? Well, it's because the woman's a self-styled non-monogamy and polygamy coach, that's why! Her inclusion is a tad biased, a somewhat vested interest, don't you agree?

What Channel 4 Actually Hired People To Do: What's Really Happening? 

The show's promotion uses carefully crafted words—referring to 'consensual non-monogamy' rather than more everyday terms like a club sandwich, spit roast, a gang bang or cream team. According to one interview in 2022, a once 'in-house' resident known as Precious Muir, told The Sun newspaper she and other 'sexy singles' were hired to have threesomes and seduce couples for the show. 

The linguistic softening used by the Channel 4 team is deliberately deceptive. They did tread carefully through a legal minefield; what if they used honest words instead? How would the old vernacular go down?

Watch hired courtesans make sexy time happen with faltering couples televised in a big brother-like brothel for your entertainment? 

Let's Be Clear About What We Witness in Channel 4's Open House:

- Couples arriving at a sex retreat

- 'In-house residents' primed to engage in a little 'how’s your father?'

- The mojo of the guests or the lack of it is publicised on TV

- Experts with a vested interest in the show’s theme guide the process

- Channel 4 make money via sex

Interesting Distinctions in Words and Phrases:

Using words like consensual non-monogamy, counselling and expert advice, does suggest a remedial sexual retreat for couples with relationship issues.

Realistically, 'Open House' practices financial transaction for those sexual encounters, and, as we know, it is purely for entertainment purposes because it's a TV show. Fair enough, but what if some people have an invisible risk? Pre-existing emotional vulnerabilities like what we saw with Love Island or The Jeremy Kyle Show or even the other 35-40 individuals who all ended their lives after taking part in television shows? It can ruin people who survive.

Behind The Scenes: Things Unsaid

Not everyone's partner is certain about taking the polyamorous plunge; some question the process, others simply go along with it for their other half. I know the family of one of the show's couples, and sadly, their back story is much darker than what Channel 4 let on—that spoke to me.

Folks will agree to degrade themselves on this show to accommodate, win favour, maybe salvage something, but these couples, as well as the TV show producers only show you what they want you to see! 

Well-being really is not the highest priority here as you can deduce for yourself. Isn't the show all about experimenting with couples? How is that healthy? People evidently get hurt and tearful, if this isn't a liability, what is? 

Why This Might Be an Illegal Brothel

An in-house resident told The Sun: 'The producers wanted us to hook up with the couples because that was what the TV show was about.' 

UK law has created a specific framework regarding things like prostitution and brothels which raises questions about 'Open House':

1. Prostitution Definition: 

The exchange of sexual services for payment or promise of payment. It's any kind of financial arrangement, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and used by the Crown Prosecution Service.

2. Brothel Definition: 

Any building will do, and it doesn't have to directly charge money to be considered a brothel! The defining factor is whether or not people use the premises for the purpose of prostitution. If more than one person uses a building for prostitution, simultaneously or one at a time (even on alternate days or weeks), it can be classified as a brothel.

3. Legal Status: 

While individual prostitution isn't illegal, running a brothel is prohibited under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
If Channel 4 are being pimps here, they might argue by saying what they do falls outside these definitions, Because:

a) Participants are paid for 'appearing on television,' not explicitly for sexual acts

b) The purpose of the premises is televised entertainment

c) Sexual encounters occur within a 'social experiment' context. 

A weak legal excuse, but people like watching it and no one wants to be a party pooper!

The Exploitation Question: Following the Money! 

The crux of the legal question focuses on what exactly participants are being paid to do. This has been shared with the press more than once. 

Can a TV Show Legally Operate as a Brothel?

Some of us think that brothels can get planning permission and simply operate legally with regular inspections from the local council. This is totally wrong! Managing or keeping a brothel is illegal under UK law, and so, if we want to respect the law, 'Open House' shouldn't be on tv to undermine it. 

Questions Springing to Mind... 

By filming hired sex workers for Channel 4, are we providing a legal exemption from brothel laws? 

In the future, for example, might it be possible for Channel 4 to run a beastiality show, or a social parasexual fetish experiment for pet lovers? 

If the show is geared up to promote well-being, why is little attention paid to STI prevention, contraception?

Channel 4 produced a specific character prosecution against Russell Brand, so why have they fallen short by not promoting consent or highlighting the value of peoples emotional wellness in their own sex show?

What Makes Channel 4's Open-House Different To Pornography?

Pornography production, while controversial, can be more graphic, but still, it follows specific legal frameworks with established protections. 'Open House' is standing in a different field entirely:

- It is broadcasting on a public service television channel

- It's brand is a 'relationship experiment' instead of adult entertainment

- It blurs documentary and sexually explicit lines 

- Adult film production has health safeguards such as routine testing for STDs and training on blood pathogens and infection, PPE: dental dams and contraception, sex simulation for non-contact editing, important mental well-being and aftercare. 

In a nut shell, it's professionalism, as well as health and safety what makes the porn industry different to this show.

Regulatory Scrutiny: Where is Ofcom?

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 operates under obligations and oversight from Ofcom. 

It Makes You Wonder:

- Whether proper risk assessments are conducted

- If broadcasting standards are upheld

- Whether the show's branding as an 'experiment' has received appropriate ethical consideration

- Whether Ofcom considered the legal implications under UK brothel laws

- Is the UK happy?

Conclusion: Legal Fiction

Channel 4's 'Open House' seems to be operating on shaky legal ground. If multiple individuals are hired to use a premise to provide sexual services, and an organisation is managing this arrangement and profiting from it, how are Channel 4 and Ofcom not concerned about broadcasting sex in a brothel?

Taboos and kinky behaviours might escape scrutiny or criticism when it's packaged as a 'Channel 4 thing'. There is danger in accepting entertainment like this as legitimate; especially for those developing a conscience, none of us have mastered right and wrong—our standards can only fall if 'Open House' morality or 'Naked Attraction' hedonism push an alternative.

Only villains want family and friends to fall into a promiscuous lifestyle, given the risks. It's not right.