January 14, 2024
Media Release from the Office of Senator Ralph Babet
Media Silent as UK Politicians Outed as Paedophiles
Australian Senator Ralph Babet has slammed the media for remaining largely silent as dozens of former UK Labour councillors and MPs are being outed as paedophiles.
Elon Musk recently published a list of 50 former Labour politicians who have been accused and/or found guilty of child sex offences. But the mainstream media has been disinterested.
And in just the past week former member of parliament Ivor Caplin was arrested in a paedophile sting operation after attempting to meet a young, underage boy. Last week this former MP was on air attacking Elon Musk for his pursuit of Keir Starmer and his Labour Government over the handling of the paedophile rape gangs operating in the UK.
“What is it with left wing politicians and child sex crimes?” Senator Babet asked.
“Revelations in the UK that a vast number of former councillors and MPs have been outed as paedophiles is astonishing. But what is even more astonishing is the media’s reluctance to pursue this issue with any vigour. This should be front page news everyday until all the child rapists are behind bars.
“If it wasn’t for Elon Musk and X, we wouldn’t know just how prolific this evil is. Paedophilia is rampant across Western nations and seems to be especially rampant among the political class. No wonder so many left-wing politicians want to shut Musk down.
“The Australian media has barely said boo about the Muslim rape gangs in the UK despite the fact it is one of the most horrific cover-ups in the history of the Western world.
“Why the silence?” asked Senator Babet.
For more information contact:
Michael Arbon - Media Advisor
0428873008
It is crucial to highlight the above 14 January 2025 Media Release from the Office of Senator Ralph Babet concerning the Media Silent as UK Politicians Outed as Paedophiles and letters dated 17 August 2017, 6 October 2017, 9 October 2017, and 10 October 2017, authored by COT Case Ann Garms shortly before her passing. These letters were addressed to The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia, and Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann (See File Ann Garms 104 Document).
On 1 June 2021, Mathias Cormann assumed office as the Secretary-General of the OECD in Paris, France. Similarly to Australia's former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, he is well-informed about the legitimacy of the COT Cases claims. Nevertheless, most of our claims have yet to be thoroughly and transparently investigated. These claims are documented under reference See File Ann Garms 104 Document, where Ann Garms exposes the raping of the first nation (aboriginal children) by Senator Collins in his parliament house Canberra office (rb.gy/dsvidd).
Access to crucial Freedom of Information (FOI) documents stored in Senator Bob Collins' offices, which included information related to Australia-wide Ericsson software issues, was denied to the COT Cases. This denial of access may have been motivated by concerns about inadvertently exposing evidence of the Senator's criminal activities during one of several FOI requests. It is essential to note that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) was concurrently investigating Senator Collins for criminal conduct (child rape) while also probing Telstra for intercepting telephone conversations and COT arbitration-related faxes, some of which were intercepted to and from Parliament House. The potential dissemination of this sensitive material to the media could have given rise to significant issues. Consequently, the COT Cases arbitrations suffered through no fault of their own. The threats I received from Telstra during my arbitration are in the following segment.
As a concerned citizen, I took the initiative to request specific documents from Telstra relating to three different Ministers of Communications. I aimed to gain insight into matters that significantly impacted the public, yet my efforts were met with a lack of transparency. Telstra communicated to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that they were reviewing these documents but provided no further explanation. It wasn't until 25 March 1994, when Phillipa Smith penned a letter to Telstra, that I received any acknowledgement of my concerns. She demanded an explanation for the vetting process that seemed to delay my access to the requested documents, but despite her efforts, I found myself still empty-handed.
In Garth Eaton's heartfelt autobiography, "Beneath the Bench," a profoundly troubling reality is brought to light: judges within the High Court of Australia have faced allegations of being a Paedophile. (Refer to https://shorturl.at/81oXS). This revelation is significant, as it reminds us that even those who are supposed to uphold the law—like certain Senators—are not above reproach and can be involved in serious wrongdoing.
Moreover, it is disheartening to consider the government's choice to deny claimants access to important documents related to the COT Cases, particularly those connected to Senator Collins. Such a decision can leave individuals feeling marginalized and deprived of the information they need to seek justice. This lack of transparency undermines trust in the system and highlights the complexity of ensuring accountability. During the COT arbitrations, the government should have addressed these concerns in 1994 and 1995 with compassion and urgency, fostering an environment where the integrity of our arbitration system was upheld, and every citizen in that arbitration process felt supported in their pursuit of justice.
This situation has left me with a lingering curiosity about the nature of the documents I sought. Were they potentially connected to the complex issues regarding China I raised with the government on 18 September 1967? Alternatively, could they have contained communications-related information from the offices of the three Ministers who managed my Telstra inquiries?
My concern deepens when I consider the possible concealment of these documents in light of Senator Bob Collins's troubling history with misconduct involving children at Parliament House in Canberra. When my Telstra matters were being addressed, Collins's involvement raised questions about whether these sensitive documents were intentionally withheld to protect against revealing any unflattering information related to his office. It seems plausible that the decision to withhold my requests was precautionary—an effort to prevent any details of his misconduct from inadvertently reaching me, even if the documents included crucial technical information.
As a claimant in this government-endorsed arbitration, I firmly believe I have the right to access these documents, especially considering their potential significance. Yet, Telstra has continued to leave me in the dark, failing to provide a clear and satisfactory explanation for my denied access to these sensitive documents. The absence of transparency in this matter is deeply troubling, and I remain committed to seeking answers.
Freehill Hollingdale & Page was appointed by the government in 1997 as the official lawyers for the privatization of Telecom (now called Telstra). The government turned its back on the truth concerning what happened to everyday Australians who dared to complain about a government-owned telecommunications carrier.
Furthermore, although it is astonishing, page 5163 of > SENATE Official Hansard – Parliament of Australia shows that, even before COT members and several senators applied pressure, both Telstra’s CEO and all the members of the Telstra board had already known, for some time, about the millions of dollars that Telstra was unlawfully withdrawing from government coffers. Perhaps even more unbelievable is that the COT cases received no recognition, from either the government or Telstra, for our stand for honesty and truth; instead, we have been treated in the worst possible way, labelled as vexatious litigants and our lives have been ruined, simply because we believed that what we were doing would eventually benefit all Australians.
Criminal Conduct Example
“COT Case Strategy”
As shown on page 5169 in Australia's Government SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page devised a legal paper titled “COT Case Strategy” (see Prologue Evidence File 1-A to 1-C) instructing their client Telstra (naming me and three other businesses) on how Telstra could conceal technical information from us under the guise of Legal Professional Privilege even though the information was not privileged.
This COT Case Strategy was to be used against me, my named business, and the three other COT case members, Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan and Graham Schorer, and their three named businesses. Simply put, we and our four businesses were targeted even before our arbitrations commenced. The Kangaroo Court was devised before the four COT Cases signed our arbitration agreements.
It is paramount that the visitor reading absentjustice.com understands the significance of page 5169 at points 29, 30, and 31 SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia,
Stop the COT Cases at all cost
Worse, however, the day before the Senate committee uncovered this COT Case Strategy, they were also told under oath, on 24 June 1997 see:- pages 36 and 38 Senate - Parliament of Australia from an ex-Telstra employee turned -Whistle-blower, Lindsay White, that, while he was assessing the relevance of the technical information which the COT claimants had requested, he advised the Committee that:
Mr White "In the first induction - and I was one of the early ones, and probably the earliest in the Freehill's (Telstra’s Lawyers) area - there were five complaints. They were Garms, Gill and Smith, and Dawson and Schorer. My induction briefing was that we - we being Telecom - had to stop these people to stop the floodgates being opened."
Senator O’Chee then asked Mr White - "What, stop them reasonably or stop them at all costs - or what?"
Mr White responded by saying - "The words used to me in the early days were we had to stop these people at all costs".
Senator Schacht also asked Mr White - "Can you tell me who, at the induction briefing, said 'stopped at all costs" .
From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their against Telstra’.From Mr White's statement, it is clear that he identified me as one of the five COT claimants that Telstra had singled out to be ‘stopped at all costs’ from proving their my against Telstra’. One of the named Peter's in this Senate Hansard who had advised Mr White we five COT Cases had to stopped at all costs is the same Peter who swore under oath, in his witness statement to the arbitrator, that the testing at my business premises had met all of AUSTEL’s specifications, when it is clear from Telstra's Falsified SVT Report, that the arbitration Service Verification Testing (SVT testing) conducted by this Peter did not meet all of the governments mandatory specifications.
Also, in the above Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997 (refer to pages 76 and 77 - Senate - Parliament of Australia Senator Kim Carr states to Telstra’s leading arbitration defence Counsel (also a TIO Council Member) Re: Alan Smith:
Senator CARR – “In terms of the cases outstanding, do you still treat people the way that Mr Smith appears to have been treated? Mr Smith claims that, amongst documents returned to him after an FOI request, a discovery was a newspaper clipping reporting upon prosecution in the local magistrate’s court against him for assault. I just wonder what relevance that has. He makes the claim that a newspaper clipping relating to events in the Portland magistrate’s court was part of your files on him”. …
Senator SHACHT – “It does seem odd if someone is collecting files. … It seems that someone thinks that is a useful thing to keep in a file that maybe at some stage can be used against him”.
Senator CARR – “Mr Ward, we have been through this before in regard to the intelligence networks that Telstra has established. Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
The most alarming situation regarding the intelligence networks that Telstra has established in Australia is who within the Telstra Corporation has the correct expertise, i.e. government clearance, to filter the raw information collected before that information impartially is catalogued for future use? How much confidence information is there in my telephone conversations with the former prime minister of Australia in April 1993 and again in April 1994 concerning my Red Communist China episode, which I discussed with Fraser, held by Telstra officials?
More importantly, when Telstra was fully privatised in 2005, which organisation in Australia was given the charter to archive this susceptible material which Telstra had been collecting about their customers for decades?
PLEASE NOTE:
At the time of my altercation referred to in the above 24 June 1997 Senate - Parliament of Australia, my bankers had already lost patience and sent the Sheriff to ensure I stayed on my knees. I threw no punches during this altercation with the Sheriff, who was about to remove catering equipment from my property, which I needed to keep trading. I placed a wrestling hold ‘Full Nelson’ on this man and walked him out of my office. All charges were dropped by the Magistrates Court on appeal when it became apparent that this story had two sides.
Similar injustices were experienced in the COT case of Sandra Wolfe during her government-endorsed mediation process in 1997. These injustices included her having a warrant executed against her under the Queensland Mental Health Act (see pages 82 to 88, Introduction File No/9). Had interest parties not acted in the manner they did, it is possible Sandra could have been lost in an institution for the insane. Addressing Telstra on this disturbing matter, Senator Schacht says:
“No, when the warrant was issued and the names of these employees were on it, you are telling us that it was coincidental that they were Telstra employees.” (p87)
Why has this Queensland Mental Heath warrant matter never been transparently investigated and a finding made by the government communications regulator?:
On 30 September 2022, Sandra Wolfe emailed me that her Telstra FOI / Mental Health Act issues were still unresolved.
Is this warrant issued under the Queensland Mental Health Act against Sandra Wolfe akin to the false information provided by Telstra to the clinical psychologist before he assessed my mental health? In my case, the consultation by this psychologist was not conducted in a private setting but in the Richmond Henty Hotel’s saloon bar!
- Why were Telstra's arbitration technical consultants from April 1993 to April 1994 discussing my time in the People's Republic of China?
- What was their interest in this matter?
- Were they going to have me committed to a hospital for the insane?
These three questions sound fanciful, but they are relevant to the statements recorded in Senate Hansard on 24 June 1997, pages 76 and 77—Senate—Parliament of Australia Senator(s) Kim Carr and Schacht asking Telstra, "Do you use your internal intelligence networks in these CoT cases?”
Anyone reading the questions raised by the AFP in their 26 September 1994 transcripts (see Australian Federal Police Investigations—Chapter 1) would have learned that Telstra had been monitoring my movements for quite some time.
Most Disturbing And Unacceptable
After the government had been warned that the arbitrator had no control over the arbitrations, they agreed to investigate all twenty-one COT Cases' arbitration and mediation processes. The Senate said they would examine all twenty-one unresolved COT Cases. However, the Senate assessed only five of the COT case claims. One Senator. He showed his concerns about the appalling way in which COT cases had been treated. After reading my first attempt at writing my manuscript absentjustice.com, on 27 January 1999, Senator Kim Carr wrote:
“I continue to maintain a strong interest in your case along with those of your fellow ‘Casualties of Telstra’. The appalling manner in which you have been treated by Telstra is in itself reason to pursue the issues, but also confirms my strongly held belief in the need for Telstra to remain firmly in public ownership and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
“Your manuscript demonstrates quite clearly how Telstra has been prepared to infringe upon the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a manner that is most disturbing and unacceptable.”
Senator Kim Carr criticised the handling of the COT arbitrations on 11 March 1999, as the following Hansard link shows. Addressing the government’s lack of power, he said:
“What I do make a comment on is the question of civil liberties and the rights of citizens to approach this parliament and seek redress for their grievances when corporate power, particularly in a publicly owned corporation, has been abused. And there can be no question that that is what is at the heart of this issue.”
And when addressing Telstra’s conduct, he stated:
“But we also know, in the way in which telephone lines were tapped, in the way in which there have been various abuses of this parliament by Telstra—and misleading and deceptive conduct to this parliament itself, similar to the way they have treated citizens—that there has of course been quite a deliberate campaign within Telstra management to undermine attempts to resolve this question in a reasonable way. We have now seen $24 million of moneys being used to crush these people. It has gone on long enough, and simply we cannot allow it to continue. The attempt made last year, in terms of the annual report, when Telstra erroneously suggested that these matters—the CoT cases—had been settled demonstrates that this process of deceptive conduct has continued for far too long.” (See parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/displaychamberhansards1999-03-11)
Senator Schacht was possibly very vocal when he stated:
“I rise to speak to this statement tabled today from the working party of the Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—a committee I served on in the last parliament—that dealt with the bulk of this issue of the CoT cases. In my time in this parliament, I have never seen a more sorry episode involving a public instrumentality and the way it treated citizens in Australia. I agree with all the strong points made by my colleagues
on both sides who have spoken before me on this debate. What was interesting about the Senate committee investigating this matter over the last couple of years was that it was absolutely tripartisan—whether you were Labor, Liberal or National Party, we all agreed that something was rotten inside Telstra in the way it handled the so-called CoT cases for so long.
The outcome here today is sad. There is no victory for citizens who have been harshly dealt with by Telstra.”
