7 votes

Something is so Wrong with the World: "Girl smuggled INTO Britain to have her ‘organs harvested’"

Girl smuggled into Britain to have her 'organs harvested'
The first case of a child being trafficked to Britain in order to have their organs harvested has been uncovered.


Organ transplantation Photo: ALAMY

By Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent
10:00PM BST 18 Oct 2013

The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant.

Child protection charities warned that the case was unlikely to be an isolated incident as traffickers were likely to have smuggled a group of children into the country.

The case emerged in a government report which showed that the number of human trafficking victims in the UK has risen by more than 50 per cent last year and reached record levels.

H/T: InfoWars.com

** Wouldn't be surprised if some CPS (both current and/or past) employees and Jimmy Savile network are involved.

Also, anyone here think that such disgustingly immoral, deviant, degenerate activities are limited to Britain??

Right.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

About 15 or 20 years ago

a past Governor of Pa. needed a heart lung transplant. A parolee who was unlucky enough to be a perfect tissue match to Gov. Casey was mysteriously found beaten to within an inch of his life and to which he "succumbed". Only hitch was he carried the herpes virus and it played hell on the "Honorable" Governor for the rest of his life.

If not us than who?

They meant "First UNCOVERED case of organ trafficking in the UK

They meant "First UNCOVERED case of organ trafficking in the UK" not "first case of organ trafficking in the UK uncovered."

Its common among the aristocracy, who drink until their livers fall out and smoke until their lungs collapse and esophagus looks like a rusted cheese grater.

In a ghoulish ceremony dating centuries, Prince Philip reputedly eats raw livers to repair his own -- raw livers of Aromunian peasant girls of the Pindus Mountains in northern Greece, that is. While his son, Prince Charles the handsome, washes in the blood of the under-fives to maintain that taunt boyish face of his.

Heaven only knows how many human sacrifices are made to the dirty old Queen herself! She's running a modern-day Thugee cult in the Chinese tea house at Sandringham, I've heard whispered.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

yep

probably through similar smuggling channels as kidnapped children sold into 'white slavery'/prostitution, etc. aka. 'Jimmy Savile's speed dial.'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Pretty simple really...

1) Forcing people to sell organs should always be illegal.

2) Free people selling their own organs should always be legal.

3) With (2), there's much less demand for (1) in the first place.

Note: No need to use words like "harvested"..."sold" is much more accurate and does a far better job of setting the tone for a reasonable and thoughtful debate.

yeah, except in cases where children are forcibly kidnapped

to be harvested, against their will, as was most likely the case, as cited in the above article.

if so, the term "harvested" would actually be factually correct, insofar as this specific case is concerned: because the child would have needed to have carried the live organs; the 'needy' person/'harvester' obviously could not travel to the country of the child's origins, which is far more common. so seeing as how the 'fruit' was picked when most 'ripe,' harvested is absolutely an unemotional, accurate description of what exactly happened there (if what the article asserts does in fact turn out to be true).

none of the above situation, as cited in the article, is about a voluntary sale of item ___ between two consenting adults, but one of coercion against a child.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Yes, it's appalling! Absolutely appalling!

...to forcibly take a child to a place to have her organs sold.

What on earth makes you think that I consider this a "voluntary sale of an item between two consenting adults"?! Talk about a straw-man.

Read my (1) again: should ALWAYS be illegal! Please tell me how could I possibly be more clear?

I suppose you're right that the word "harvested" is factually correct...but it was not used in the headline because it adds anything to the factual understanding of what happened, it was used ONLY because it is an emotionally charged word (like "slaughtered", "gauged", "exploited", etc.).

I stand by my claim: emotionally charged words do not promote thoughtful debate.

no, no, no, that's not what I was saying that you were implying:

What on earth makes you think that I consider this a "voluntary sale of an item between two consenting adults"?! Talk about a straw-man.

Read my (1) again: should ALWAYS be illegal! Please tell me how could I possibly be more clear?

Please cite where I cite that, that is what you were inferring??

I stated clearly, "as cited in the article". NOT, "as cited by you:"

none of the above situation, as cited in the article, is about a voluntary sale of item ___ between two consenting adults, but one of coercion against a child.

You and I are saying the same things, or at least stating things out of similar understanding.

It was a neutral point of discussion; I don't see the disagreement.

I merely pointed out that this particular case was about coercion, and a direct reply to you questing the use of the term "harvesting."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Read this reply box, for more indepth explanation; http://www.dailypaul.com/303054#comment-3235728

I think you too should re-read what others write, before responding as if one said things you believed others to have been implying .0)

xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

OK, fair enough...

It seemed odd to me you would point out that it was not between two consenting adults...came across as though you were implying that by objecting to emotionally charged words like "harvesting" I was justifying the original action...which of course I wasn't.

I think, semantics asides, we're in total agreement.

What do you expect

when people aren't allowed to own their own bodies and sell organs for their own benefit? If people could profit from selling their own organs then the supply would be greater and the chances for this kind of despicable act greatly reduced.

Government screws us again

I believe I understand where you maybe coming from

and the point you're making.

That said, I believe a matter of distinction does need to be made with this one.

This isn't about free-market organ selling by consenting adults (I understand that you're not implying or inferring that it is), this is about a case of a girl SMUGGLED IN (more likely kidnapped, and/or part of similar 'white slavery'/prostitution/children/kids-for-pedophiles-trafficking channels).

That, is the real issue. Not voluntary selling or donating of adult's organs on consensual basis, as far as libertarian argument is concerned.

This is about COERCIVE organ trafficking:

The first case of a child being trafficked to Britain in order to have their organs harvested has been uncovered.

Now suppose one can make the argument that because of the 'vacuum' created by govt intervention banning even adults from consensually selling and/or donating their organs, that such extreme measures must be taken to supply the 'demand.'

Certainly, if adults were engaged in 'blackmarket' (which is any activity that the fascist corporatist govt commissars arbitrarily decide/deem to not like) activities on a consensual, voluntary basis? Sure.

But, a child being KIDNAPPED (as in coercive: snatch/grab/sold/traded, aka. "trafficking") to supply the 'needy,' obviously is not some free-market analog, no more than if one were to say that the reason why the pedophile 'market' exists, is because govt banned prostitution.

That said, I whole heartedly agree: " If people could profit from selling their own organs then the supply would be greater and the chances for this kind of despicable act greatly reduced."

But I think, with this particular case, we're talking about the supposed 10% of the population who are 'natively born predisposed' to sociopathy/psychopathy: those who can despicably rationalize to themselves that even if an innocent child is kidnapped in, then chopped up for parts so that one can have their organs, they would still do so, regardless.

Now, I completely understand that frankly if there were a fertile, 'thriving' market for voluntary, consensual organ donation/profitable biz model, and if prices were such that it would make less economic sense for even those who maybe driven to consider extreme options, as they'd have no high-price driven need to go out of their way, the chances of similar situations happening would indeed be "greatly reduced", though not eliminated.

But, suppose if their blood type and organ compatibility were so rare, that if such situation were to come up that some child outside of their native land was determined to be the only one fit to save someone's life? Well, I'd surmise that the sociopath will always be a sociopath, and toss out the morality question of kidnapping a child for parts, regardless, just to save his/her ass.

No different than lunatics who go postal, regardless of what type of guncontrol laws we have on the books.

Though, in a Cosmic Karmic sense, if you even got to a point of remotely considering using a harvested organ from a kidnapped child to save your short stay on Earth, your days are numbered, and you truly should simply let nature take course.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

that won't solve anything

Incidents like this will happen regardless.

Which is why I said "Greatly Reduced"

rather than eliminated.

In my opinion the advancement

In my opinion the advancement of technology will make more difference than the rules. Legal market or not, organ theft is going to become more common.

Your way of thinking doesn't jive with history

If what you say is correct:

1. ending Prohibition would have seen an increase in illegal alcohol activity and would not have ended the organized crime created by outlawing alcohol

2. ending the war on drugs will increase the illegal drug trade.

Well, that's not how things work.

If something in demand is made illegal only criminals will be doing it. When things are legal the market squeazes out criminals. Less criminals = less violence.

My original post stands

I doubt your premise

Your comparisons to drugs and alcohol aren't valid.

The limiting factor is the technical capability to extract and then use the organs. As that technology becomes more available the instances of organ theft will increase. It matters not the legality of it.

As we approach the point where organ transplant is no more of a specialty than repairing a PC your analogy will become more valid.

Hey it's the free market at work

supply and demand. No need for all the regulation.

Sarcasm for dummies.

never mind

Scratch the comment that was here. I guess you were making a joke.

Sarcasm isn't always meant to be funny

It is what it is.

wtf?

Degenerates...they should of went to China where I would speculate it is much more tolerated imo.

We always hear of prisoners being executed for this kind of thing. This is probably why they have 55 capital offenses that give the death penalty ;)

donvino