Blonde-hair unethical since 1988

It’s so disturbing the brain doesn’t stop itself.

Disturbing how they judge everyone else worldwide on the fact they live in a building. Weird.

Two sides to every story.

Disturbing one of them is still in there and he is over sexed and over spent waiting for a face-to-face match.

He’ll just watch instead. From screens and looking outside.

Disturbing everyone wants to go to Hell with him.

A face-to-face battle and intentionally be confused with appearance so this buildings wins not science.


To compare sex they wanted to see have sex forthcoming. Have they been to Heaven before to compare to make it a fair test. Void. Careful.

It’s Terrorism move on. It’s wild to me. It’s my planet not yours you meant to say. The Firm.

A Journey To The Beginning Of Time

UK Paedophile Network hosted by UKGOV Open Concern Westminster Paedophile Ring, blame War Chemicals in the Air for their Act of Paedophilia when they release the War Chemicals themselves due to Adult Responsibility, stating that the reason for War is Paedophilia for their own sexual fantasy leaders of the Military’s benefit

Police and politicians ‘turned blind eye’ to Westminster child abuse claims

Inquiry into child sexual abuse also criticises prosecutors but rejects claims of ‘organised paedophile network’

Sir Cyril Smith was one of those ‘known to be active in their sexual interest in children’ who escaped prosecution. Photograph: PA Wire/PA

King’s Consent

In the UK and certain other Commonwealth countries, King’s Consent[a] is a parliamentary convention under which Crown consent is sought whenever a proposed parliamentary bill will affect the Crown’s own prerogatives or interests (hereditary revenues, personal property, estates, or other interests). Prince’s Consent is a similar doctrine, under which consent of the Prince of Wales must be obtained for matters relating to the Duchy of Cornwall.[3] King’s or Prince’s Consent must be obtained early in the legislative process, generally before parliament may debate or vote on a bill.[4] In modern times, following the tenets of constitutional monarchy, consent is granted or withheld as advised by government.

According to the 1851 edition of Erskine May, the manual of UK parliamentary practice, the practical advantage of Queen’s Consent (as it then was, Queen Victoria being on the throne) was that it enabled the Crown to protect its rights without having to resort to blocking a bill after its passage by refusing royal assent. More recently, however, there has been criticism of the Crown being consulted on the content of forthcoming bills, and being given “the right and opportunity to shape prospective legislation”.[5] Critics allege that even though the Crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice, the procedure is nevertheless being used to vet and change draft bills before they reach Parliament. One report noted that it was “almost certain that some Bills were changed before introduction in order to address concerns about Crown consent”.[6][7]

British royal family

The British royal family comprises King Charles III and his close relations. There is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member, although the Royal Household has issued different lists outlining who is a part of the royal family.[1][2] Members often support the monarch in undertaking public engagements, and pursue charitable work and interests. Members of the royal family are regarded as British and world cultural icons.

Public role

Given the royal family’s public role and activities, it is sometimes referred to by courtiers as “The Firm”, a term that originated with George VI.[31][32] Members of the royal family are politically and commercially independent, avoiding conflict of interest with their public roles.[33] The royal family are considered British cultural icons, with young adults from abroad naming the family among a group of people who they most associated with British culture.[34] Members are expected to promote British industry.[35] Royals are typically members of the Church of England, headed by the monarch. When in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland as members and some have served as Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland.[36][37]

Media and criticism

Royal biographer Penny Junor says that the royal family has presented itself “as the model family” since the 1930s.[4] Author Edward Owen wrote that during the Second World War, the monarchy sought an image of a “more informal and vulnerable family” that had a unifying effect on the nation during instability.[44] In 1992, the Princess Royal and her husband Mark Phillips divorced; the Prince and Princess of Wales separated; a biography detailing the Princess’s bulimia and self-harming was published; her private telephone conversations surfaced, as did the Prince’s intimate telephone conversations with his lover, Camilla Parker Bowles; the Duke and Duchess of York separated; and photographs of the topless Duchess having her toes sucked by another man appeared in tabloids. Historian Robert Lacey said that this “put paid to any claim to being a model of family life”. The scandals contributed to the public’s unwillingness to pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the 1992 fire. A further “PR disaster” was the royal family’s initial response to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997.[26]

In the 1990s, the royal family formed the Way Ahead Group, made up of senior family members and advisers and headed by Elizabeth II, in a quest to change in accordance with public opinion.[26][45] The wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in April 2011 led to a “tide of goodwill”, and by Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 the royal family’s image had recovered.[26] A 2019 YouGov poll showed that two-thirds of British people were in favour of maintaining the royal family.[46] The role and public relations of the extended royal family again came under increased scrutiny due to the Duke of York’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and allegations of sexual abuse, along with his unapologetic conduct in the 2019 interview about these subjects and subsequent 2021 lawsuit.[47][48][49] In June 2019, the royal family, several members of which advocate for environmental causes, faced criticism after it was revealed that they “had doubled [their] carbon footprint from business travel”.[50]

In a 2021 interview, the Duchess of Sussex, who is of biracial heritage, relayed second-hand that there had been “concerns and conversations” within the royal family about the skin colour of their son, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, while the Duke of Sussex stated it was a single instance.[51] The interview received a mixed reaction from the British public and media, and several of their claims were called into question.[52][53] The Duke of Cambridge said the royal family were “very much not a racist family”. In June 2021, documents revealed that “coloured immigrants or foreigners” were banned by Elizabeth II’s chief financial manager at the time from working for the family as clerks in the 1960s, prompting black studies professor Kehinde Andrews to state that “the royal family has a terrible record on race”.[51] In response, the palace stated that it complied “in principle and in practice” with anti-discrimination legislation, and that second-hand claims of “conversations from over 50 years ago should not be used to draw or infer conclusions about modern-day events or operations.”[54] In March 2022 and during the Caribbean tour of the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as part of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, the family encountered criticism from a number of political figures and the press, given their past connections to colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade via the Royal African Company.[55][56] Reparations for slavery emerged as a major demand of protesters during the couple’s visit.[57] Both the then Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge have condemned slavery in their speeches,[58][59] and the Prince has described acknowledging the wrongs of the past as a necessity for the Commonwealth countries to realise their potential.[60]

Historically, the royal family and the media have benefited from each other; the family used the press to communicate with the public, while the media used the family to attract readers and viewers.[61] With the advent of television, however, the media started paying less respect to the royal family’s privacy.[26] Princes William and Harry have had informal arrangements with the press whereby they would be left alone by the paparazzi during their education in return for invitations to staged photograph opportunities. William has continued the practice with his family posts on Instagram. Relations between the media and British royals have been destabilized by the rise of the digital media, with the quantity of articles becoming paramount toward gaining advertising revenue, with neither side able to exercise control.[61] In the 2000s, the phones of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, and Prince Harry and his then-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, were hacked multiple times by media outlets, most notably by a private investigator working for a News of the World journalist.[62][63] A 2021 BBC documentary suggested that briefings and counter-briefings from different royal households was the reason behind the negative coverage about members of the royal family. Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace, which represented the Queen, the then Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge respectively, described these suggestions as “overblown and unfounded claims”.[64]

Church of England

The Church of England (C of E) is the established Christian Church in England and the Crown Dependencies. It is the origin of the Anglican tradition, which combines features of both Reformed and Catholic Christian practices. Its adherents are called Anglicans.

The English Church traces its history to the Christian Church recorded as existing in the Roman province of Britain by the 3rd century and to the 6th-century Gregorian mission to Kent led by Augustine of Canterbury. It renounced papal authority in 1534, when King Henry VIII failed to secure a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The English Reformation accelerated under the regents of his successor, King Edward VI, before a brief restoration of papal authority under Queen Mary I and King Philip. The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach, and the Elizabethan Settlement charted a course enabling the English church to describe itself as both Reformed and catholic. In the earlier phase of the English Reformation there were both Roman Catholic martyrs and Protestant martyrs. The later phases saw the Penal Laws punish Roman Catholics and nonconforming Protestants. In the 17th century, the Puritan and Presbyterian factions continued to challenge the leadership of the church, which under the Stuarts veered towards a more Catholic interpretation of the Elizabethan Settlement, especially under Archbishop Laud and the rise of the concept of Anglicanism as a via media between Roman Catholicism and radical Protestantism. After the victory of the Parliamentarians, the Book of Common Prayer was abolished and the Presbyterian and Independent factions dominated. The episcopacy was abolished in 1646 but the Restoration restored the Church of England, episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. Papal recognition of George III in 1766 led to greater religious tolerance.

Since the English Reformation, the Church of England has used the English language in the liturgy. As a broad church, the Church of England contains several doctrinal strands. The main traditions are known as Anglo-Catholichigh churchcentral church and low church, the latter producing a growing evangelical wing. Tensions between theological conservatives and liberals find expression in debates over the ordination of women and homosexuality. The British monarch (currently Charles III) is the supreme governor and the Archbishop of Canterbury (currently Justin Welby) is the most senior cleric. The governing structure of the church is based on dioceses, each presided over by a bishop. Within each diocese are local parishes. The General Synod of the Church of England is the legislative body for the church and comprises bishops, other clergy and laity. Its measures must be approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.


Middle Ages

There is evidence for Christianity in Roman Britain as early as the 3rd century. After the fall of the Roman Empire, England was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who were pagans, and the Celtic church was confined to Cornwall and Wales.[2] In 597, Pope Gregory I sent missionaries to England to Christianise the Anglo-Saxons. This mission was led by Augustine, who became the first archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England considers 597 the start of its formal history.[3][4][5]

In Northumbria, Celtic missionaries competed with their Roman counterparts. The Celtic and Roman churches disagreed over the date of Easter, baptismal customs, and the style of tonsure worn by monks.[6] King Oswiu of Northumbria summoned the Synod of Whitby in 664. The king decided Northumbria would follow the Roman tradition because Saint Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[7]

By the late Middle AgesCatholicism was an essential part of English life and culture. The 9,000 parishes covering all of England were overseen by a hierarchy of deaneriesarchdeaconriesdioceses led by bishops, and ultimately the pope who presided over the Catholic Church from Rome.[8] Catholicism taught that the contrite person could cooperate with God towards their salvation by performing good works (see synergism).[9] God’s grace was given through the seven sacraments.[10] In the Mass, a priest consecrated bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation. The church taught that, in the name of the congregation, the priest offered to God the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross that provided atonement for the sins of humanity.[11][12] The Mass was also an offering of prayer by which the living could help souls in purgatory.[13] While penance removed the guilt attached to sin, Catholicism taught that a penalty still remained. It was believed that most people would end their lives with these penalties unsatisfied and would have to spend time in purgatory. Time in purgatory could be lessened through indulgences and prayers for the dead, which were made possible by the communion of saints.[14]


In 1527, Henry VIII was desperate for a male heir and asked Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. When the pope refused, Henry used Parliament to assert royal authority over the English church. In 1533, Parliament passed the Act in Restraint of Appeals, barring legal cases from being appealed outside England. This allowed the Archbishop of Canterbury to annul the marriage without reference to Rome. In November 1534, the Act of Supremacy formally abolished papal authority and declared Henry Supreme Head of the Church of England.[15]

Henry’s religious beliefs remained aligned to traditional Catholicism throughout his reign. In order to secure royal supremacy over the church, however, Henry allied himself with Protestants, who until that time had been treated as heretics.[16] The main doctrine of the Protestant Reformation was justification by faith alone rather than by good works.[17] The logical outcome of this belief is that the Mass, sacraments, charitable acts, prayers to saints, prayers for the dead, pilgrimage, and the veneration of relics do not mediate divine favour. To believe they can would be superstition at best and idolatry at worst.[18][19]

Between 1536 and 1540, Henry engaged in the dissolution of the monasteries, which controlled much of the richest land. He disbanded religious houses, appropriated their income, disposed of their assets, and provided pensions for the former residents. The properties were sold to pay for the wars. Historian George W. Bernard argues:

The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s was one of the most revolutionary events in English history. There were nearly 900 religious houses in England, around 260 for monks, 300 for regular canons, 142 nunneries and 183 friaries; some 12,000 people in total, 4,000 monks, 3,000 canons, 3,000 friars and 2,000 nuns….one adult man in fifty was in religious orders.[20]

Mary, Queen of Scots

Mary, Queen of Scots (8 December 1542 – 8 February 1587), also known as Mary Stuart[3] or Mary I of Scotland,[4] was Queen of Scotland from 14 December 1542 until her forced abdication in 1567.

The only surviving legitimate child of James V of Scotland, Mary was six days old when her father died and she inherited the throne. During her childhood, Scotland was governed by regents, first by the heir to the throne, James Hamilton, Earl of Arran, and then by her mother, Mary of Guise. In 1548, she was betrothed to Francis, the Dauphin of France, and was sent to be brought up in France, where she would be safe from invading English forces during the Rough Wooing. Mary married Francis in 1558, becoming queen consort of France from his accession in 1559 until his death in December 1560. Widowed, Mary returned to Scotland in August 1561. The tense religious and political climate following the Scottish Reformation that Mary encountered on her return to Scotland was further agitated by prominent Scots such as John Knox, who openly questioned whether her subjects had a duty to obey her. The early years of her personal rule were marked by pragmatism, tolerance, and moderation. She issued a proclamation accepting the religious settlement in Scotland as she had found it upon her return, retained advisers such as James Stewart, Earl of Moray (her illegitimate half-brother), and William Maitland of Lethington, and governed as the Catholic monarch of a Protestant kingdom.

Mary married her half-cousinHenry Stuart, Lord Darnley, in 1565, and in 1566, they had a son, James. After Darnley orchestrated the murder of Mary’s Italian secretary and close friend, David Rizzio, their marriage soured. In February 1567, Darnley’s residence was destroyed by an explosion, and he was found murdered in the nearby garden. James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, was generally believed to have orchestrated Darnley’s death, but he was acquitted of the charge in April 1567, and the following month, he married Mary. Following an uprising against the couple, Mary was imprisoned in Lochleven Castle. On 24 July 1567, she was forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son, James VI. After an unsuccessful attempt to regain the throne, she fled southward seeking the protection of her first cousin once removed, Elizabeth I of England.

As a great-granddaughter of Henry VII of England, Mary had once claimed Elizabeth’s throne as her own and was considered the legitimate sovereign of England by many English Catholics, including participants in a rebellion known as the Rising of the North. Perceiving Mary as a threat, Elizabeth had her confined in various castles and manor houses in the interior of England. After eighteen-and-a-half years in captivity, Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth in 1586 and was beheaded the following year at Fotheringhay Castle. Mary’s life and execution established her in popular culture as a romanticised historical character.,_Queen_of_Scots

James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray

James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (c. 1531 – 23 January 1570)[1] was a member of the House of Stewart as the illegitimate son of King James V of Scotland. At times a supporter of his half-sister Mary, Queen of Scots, he was the regent of Scotland for his half-nephew, the infant King James VI, from 1567 until his assassination in 1570. He was the first head of government to be assassinated with a firearm.

Early life

Moray was born in about 1531, an illegitimate child of King James V of Scotland and his mistress Lady Margaret Erskine, daughter of John Erskine, 5th Lord Erskine, and wife of Sir Robert Douglas of Lochleven.[2]

On 31 August 1536, he received a royal charter granting the lands of Tantallon and others. James was appointed Prior of St AndrewsFife, in 1538.[3] This position supplied his income. Clothes for “lord James of Sanctandrois” and his brothers were made by the king’s tailor, Thomas Arthur.[4]

Lord James and his brother James Stewart, Commendator of Kelso and Melrose were at school in St Andrews after the death of James V. In June 1543, Regent Arran sent the Laird of Grange to collect them and take them to Linlithgow Palace. Instead, Robert Douglas took Lord James to Lochleven Castle.[5],_1st_Earl_of_Moray

James V of Scotland

James V (10 April 1512 – 14 December 1542) was King of Scotland from 9 September 1513 until his death in 1542. He was crowned on 21 September 1513 at the age of seventeen months. James was the son of King James IV and Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII of England. During his childhood Scotland was governed by regents, firstly by his mother until she remarried, and then by his first cousin once removed, John Stewart, Duke of Albany. James’s personal rule began in 1528 when he finally escaped the custody of his stepfather, Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus. His first action was to exile Angus and confiscate the lands of the Douglases.

James greatly increased his income by tightening control over royal estates and from the profits of justice, customs and feudal rights. He founded the College of Justice in 1532, and also acted to end lawlessness and rebellion in the Borders and the Hebrides. The rivalry among FranceEngland and the Holy Roman Empire lent James unwonted diplomatic weight, and saw him secure two politically and financially advantageous French marriages, first to Madeleine of Valois, and then to Mary of Guise. James also fathered at least nine illegitimate children by a series of mistresses.

James V’s reign witnessed the beginnings of Protestantism in Scotland, and his uncle Henry VIII of England‘s break with Rome in the 1530s placed James in a powerful bargaining position with the papacy, allowing James to exploit the situation to increase his control over ecclesiastical appointments and the financial dividends from church revenues. Pope Paul III also granted him the title of Defender of the Faith in 1537. James V maintained diplomatic correspondence with various Irish nobles and chiefs throughout their resistance to Henry VIII in the 1530s, and in 1540 they offered him the kingship of Ireland. A patron of the arts, James spent lavishly on the construction of several royal residences in the High Gothic and Renaissance styles.

James V has been described as a vindictive king, whose policies were largely motivated by the pursuit of wealth, and a paranoid fear of his nobility which led to the ruthless appropriation of their lands. He has also been characterised as the “poor man’s king”, due to his accessibility to the poor and his acting against their oppressors. James died in December 1542 following the Scottish defeat by the English at the Battle of Solway Moss. His only surviving legitimate child, Mary, succeeded him at the age of just six days old.


In December 1534, Francis I insisted that his eldest daughter Madeleine‘s health was too poor for marriage, suggesting that James V should marry Mary of Bourbon, daughter of the Duke of Vendôme, instead to fulfil the Treaty of Rouen. Again, the Duke of Albany briefly entertained the idea that James might marry Christina of Denmark, and the king halted progress on the marriage negotiations. There was also an investigation into the possibility of James marrying his former mistress, Margaret Erskine, before the negotiations resumed again, and in March 1536 a final contract made for Mary of Bourbon to marry James V. She would have a dowry as if she were a French princess, and Francis I consolidated the agreement by sending James the collar of the Order of Saint Michael as a token of his affection.[46]

Margaret Erskine

Lady Margaret Erskine (8 October 1515 – 5 May 1572) was a mistress of King James V of Scotland and mother of Regent Moray.

She was a daughter of John Erskine, 5th Lord Erskine and Lady Margaret Campbell.


look-alikedouble, or doppelgänger is a person who bears a strong physical resemblance to another person, excluding cases like twins and other instances of family resemblance.

Some look-alikes have been notable individuals in their own right. Other notable look-alikes have been notable solely for resembling well-known individuals, such as Clifton James, who acted as a double for British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery during World War II.

Some look-alikes who have resembled celebrities have worked as entertainers, impersonating them on stage and screen, or at venues like parties and corporate functions. Professional look-alikes have often been represented by talent agencies specializing in celebrity impersonators.[2]

Close physical resemblance between two or more individuals is also a common plot point in works of fiction.

Genetic research of look-alikes

According to a paper published in 2022 in the journal Cell Reports, look-alikes share many common genetic variations and are more likely than non-look-alikes to have characteristics in common. [3][4]

Order of succession

An orderline or right of succession is the line of individuals necessitated to hold a high office when it becomes vacated, such as head of state or an honour such as a title of nobility.[1] This sequence may be regulated through descent or by statute.[1]

Hereditary government form differs from elected government. An established order of succession is the normal way of passing on hereditary positions, and also provides immediate continuity after an unexpected vacancy in cases where office-holders are chosen by election: the office does not have to remain vacant until a successor is elected. In some cases the successor takes up the full role of the previous office-holder, as in the case of the presidency of many countries; in other non-hereditary cases there is not a full succession, but a caretaker chosen by succession criteria assumes some or all of the responsibilities, but not the formal office, of the position. For example, when the position of President of India becomes vacant, the Vice-President of India temporarily carries out the functions of the presidency until a successor is elected; in contrast, when the position of President of the Philippines is vacant, the Vice-President of the Philippines outright assumes the presidency itself for the rest of the term.

Organizations without hereditary or statutory order of succession require succession planning if power struggles prompted by power vacuums are to be avoided.


It is often the case that the inheritance of a hereditary title, office or the like, is indivisible: when the previous holder ceases to hold the title, it is inherited by a single individual. Many titles and offices are not hereditary (such as democratic state offices) and they are subject to different rules of succession.

A hereditary line of succession may be limited to heirs of the body, or may also pass to collateral lines, if there are no heirs of the body, depending on the succession rules. These concepts are in use in English inheritance law.

The rules may stipulate that eligible heirs are heirs male or heirs general – see further primogeniture (agnatic, cognatic, and also equal).

Certain types of property pass to a descendant or relative of the original holder, recipient or grantee according to a fixed order of kinship. Upon the death of the grantee, a designated inheritance such as a peerage, or a monarchy, passes automatically to that living, legitimate, non-adoptive relative of the grantee who is most senior in descent (i.e. highest in the line of succession, regardless of age); and thereafter continues to pass to subsequent successors of the grantee, according to the same rules, upon the death of each subsequent heir.

Each person who inherits according to these rules is considered an heir at law of the grantee and the inheritance may not pass to someone who is not a natural, lawful descendant or relative of the grantee.

Collateral relatives, who share some or all of the grantee’s ancestry, but do not directly descend from the grantee, may inherit if there is no limitation to “heirs of the body”.

There are other kinds of inheritance rules if the heritage can be divided: heirs portioners and partible inheritance.

Monarchies and nobility

In hereditary monarchies the order of succession determines who becomes the new monarch when the incumbent sovereign dies or otherwise vacates the throne. Such orders of succession, derived from rules established by law or tradition, usually specify an order of seniority, which is applied to indicate which relative of the previous monarch, or other person, has the strongest claim to assume the throne when the vacancy occurs.

Often, the line of succession is restricted to persons of the blood royal (but see morganatic marriage), that is, to those legally recognized as born into or descended from the reigning dynasty or a previous sovereign. The persons in line to succeed to the throne are called “dynasts“. Constitutions, statutes, house laws, and norms may regulate the sequence and eligibility of potential successors to the throne.

Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People develop positive feelings toward their captors or abusers over time. This condition applies to situations including child abuse, coach-athlete abuse, relationship abuse and sex trafficking. Treatment includes psychotherapy (“talk therapy”) and medications if needed.


What is Stockholm syndrome?

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response to being held captive. People with Stockholm syndrome form a psychological connection with their captors and begin sympathizing with them.

In addition to the original kidnapper-hostage situation, Stockholm syndrome now includes other types of trauma in which there’s a bond between the abuser and the person being abused.

Many medical professionals consider the victim’s positive feelings toward their abuser a psychological response — a coping mechanism — that they use to survive the days, weeks or even years of trauma or abuse.

  1. Stockholm Syndrome is used against myself in the future by medical professionals stating that used against me is under Stockholm Syndrome, it is a criminal way to contain a victim that doesn’t need assigning medical definitions according to medical records

Fritzl case

The Fritzl case emerged in 2008, when a woman named Elisabeth Fritzl (born 6 April 1966) told police in the city of Amstetten, Lower Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years by her father, Josef Fritzl (born 9 April 1935). Fritzl had assaultedsexually abused, and raped his daughter repeatedly during her imprisonment inside a concealed area in the cellar of the family home.[1][2] The incest resulted in the birth of seven children,[3] three of whom remained in captivity with their mother; one died shortly after birth and was cremated by Fritzl;[4] and the other three were brought up by Fritzl and his wife, Rosemarie, having been reported as foundlings. Josef Fritzl was arrested on suspicion of rape, false imprisonmentmanslaughter by negligence, and incest. In March 2009, he pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Josef Fritzl: the unanswered questions

Haroon Siddique and Rachel Stevenson look at the questions raised by the Austrian incest case

Josef Fritzl and Elizabeth Fritzl. Photograph: EPA

If you take someone captive or hold someone captive, you take or keep them as a prisoner. Richard was finally released one year after he’d been taken captive. A British sailor told of his nightmare ordeal at the hands of pirates who held him captive for almost seven weeks.,captive%20for%20almost%20seven%20weeks.


hostage is a person seized by an abductor in order to compel another party, one which places a high value on the liberty, well-being and safety of the person seized—such as a relativeemployerlaw enforcement, or government—to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way, often under threat of serious physical harm or death to the hostage(s) after expiration of an ultimatum. The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition defines a hostage as “a person who is handed over by one of two belligerent parties to the other or seized as security for the carrying out of an agreement, or as a preventive measure against certain acts of war.”[1]

A party who seizes one or more hostages is known as a hostage-taker; if the hostages are present voluntarily, then the receiver is known as a host.

In civil society, along with kidnapping for ransom and human trafficking (often willing to ransom its captives when lucrative or to trade on influence), hostage taking is a criminal activity. In the military context, hostages are distinct from prisoners of war—despite prisoners being used as collateral in prisoner exchange—and hostage taking is regarded as a war crime.

Hostage taking and kidnapping are prone to blend together. When the goal is strictly financial, the primary lens is one of extortion, even in the face of a severe threat to the safety of the captive person if the financial negotiation fails; conversely, when the goal is political or geopolitical, the primary lens is terrorism.

When looking at hostage-taking from the primary lens of terrorism, there are reasons to believe that certain government types are more susceptible to hostage-taking terrorism than others. In democratic governments, for example, elements related to their democratic ideals such as freedom of the press, constraints on the executive, free elections, and higher levels of civil liberties create favorable outcomes that enable hostage-takers to target these countries specifically. Hostage-takers understand that by targeting democratic governments, they are more likely to seek concessions and/or negotiate with them based on the level of accountability they must face from their citizens who elect them into office, and the media within the country which reports on such events in a capacity independent from the state.[2]


Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel).[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]

Modern terrorism, evolving from earlier iterations, employs various tactics to pursue political goals, often leveraging fear as a strategic tool to influence decision makers. By targeting densely populated public areas such as transportation hubs, airports, shopping centers, tourist attractions, and nightlife venues, terrorists aim to instill widespread insecurity, prompting policy changes through psychological manipulation and undermining confidence in security measures.[5]

The terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century[6] but became widely used internationally and gained worldwide attention in the 1970s during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Basque conflict and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The increased use of suicide attacks from the 1980s onwards was typified by the 2001 September 11 attacks in the United States. The Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the University of Maryland, College Park, has recorded more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, resulting in at least 140,000 deaths, between 2000 and 2014.[7]

Varied political organizations have been accused of using terrorism to achieve their objectives. These include left-wing and right-wing political organizations, nationalist groupsreligious groupsrevolutionaries, and ruling governments.[8] In recent decades, hybrid terrorist organizations have emerged, incorporating both military and political arms.[1]

  1. To bear in mind, Similarity Fraud, anything! to protect paedophilia network

What is Similarity Fraud?

Similarity fraud (also known as look-alike fraud) is a type of impersonator fraud in which the perpetrator uses the personal information of someone who shares physical or behavioral similarities with the victim. This type of fraud can be difficult to detect, as the perpetrator may have legitimate access to the victim’s information.

There are numerous reasons why someone may want to engage in such fraud:

  • Clandestine immigrants wanting to cross borders;
  • Illegal workers looking for jobs, but without proper work permits;
  • Members of organized crime rings or criminals on wanted or watch lists who may want to operate internationally;
  • More generally, people who want to hide their true identity.

Typosquatting, which is the act of registering domains with deliberately misspelled names of well-known websites, can be considered an online version of similarity fraud. By visually replicating the domain name, the victim will unwittingly visit a malicious website and input his credentials and/or credit card information. Some look-alike domains even impersonate legitimate brands and make money by running fraudulent schemes.

How does Similarity Fraud work?

As anti-forgery and anti-counterfeiting measures improved, criminals began to shift focus to simpler types of identity fraud, such as similarity fraud. Different modus operandi can be used for similarity fraud. Here is a real-life example:

In 2021, a passport brokerage firm was dismantled by the National Crime Agency in the UK for supplying passports using lookalikes for more than a hundred high-level organized criminals. The person with similar physical features would apply for a genuine replacement passport, but provide the criminal’s photos. This is the most sophisticated form of producing false identity documents, as the document is genuine and issued by a national authority. Usually, attackers applying for an identity document will use the same hairstyle, hair color, glasses and beard if applicable, to trick the administrative agent. Sometimes, morphed photos, which are synthetic images that combine physical traits of both individuals into one photo, are used in the application. These are very difficult to spot with the human eye. In other cases, criminals may just steal identity documents from a victim that looks just like them.

The similarity fraud undertaken by the firm allowed criminal leaders, firearm traffickers and alleged murderers to travel undetected and operate internationally under false identities.

How to check an identity document for Similarity Fraud

According to the National Document Fraud Unit of the UK Home Office, similarity fraud can be detected by conducting various checks on identification documents:

  1. Check for distinguishing features like moles, scars, teeth placement, etc;
  2. Is the age of the person on the identity document consistent with the person in front of you;
  3. Each feature of the face should be checked individually: ears, mouth, nose, eyes;
  4. The position of each feature should be also carefully checked;
  5. The shape of the face is another element to consider;
  6. The person presenting the document should be able to recreate the signature without looking at it.

However, these manual checks often fail to yield as accurate sufficient results as modern approach involving facial recognition and liveness checks. See also our glossary entry on Fake ID Fraud.

How to prevent Similarity Fraud as a financial institution?

Although a company duped by similarity fraud may regard itself as a victim, authorities have been known to consider them “accomplices” of the criminal activities they enabled. Failure to check identification documents may also result in loss to revenue, or fines from relevant authorities.

Companies must therefore implement specific steps to prevent similarity fraud such as:

  • Strong KYC and identification verification processes to help prevent this type of fraud. Liveness checks, comparing the person registering against his ID made by trained agents is another useful line of defense;
  • Financial institutions can raise awareness against similarity fraud through training and communications. Agents in charge of validating applications should also be trained against this specific of fraud, and how to manually identify similarity fraud through the tell-tale signs mentioned above;
  • To tackle the problem of morphed photos, institutions requesting physical pictures in their processes should only request photographs from accredited photographers or secured kiosks. However, banning print photos would also help to drastically reduce this issue;
  • Financial institutions should leverage identity verification solution providers to defend against a wide variety of fraud. Indeed, as facial recognition technology is improving, such systems can detect discrepancies in facial features that the human-eye just cannot;
  • Finally, several fraud experts have called for greater collaboration and information sharing between relevant parties, as they may share trends and ongoing attacks by criminal organizations.

  1. Bear in mind Fraud experts and their clearance from myself to deal back in hand to fund a paedophile network

1. Question illegal Govern and their terminology.