#SatanicJudicialAbuse #SJA #Pauffley Judgement in the #WhistleblowerKids’ Interest?

Cult and Ritual Abuse
Cult and Ritual Abuse (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dear Mr Clark

Her Ladyship’s judgement is one of a political nature to sway public opinion such that she will get away with handing custody to the father with a criminal past and two non-molestation orders, while the mother had a residence order in place, when Barnet Police took her children.

If Mr Christie was the guilty abuser, why did he take the children to the Police?

Aangirfan publish Hampstead Biased Judge? with lots of significant comments.

Similarly, here is a collation from my inbox:

  • The Judge has, in a civil court, undermined the Met Police investigations into harassment and child rapes by stating her findings in these criminal matters.  Moreover by the naming of the parents the children’s identity will also be known where they now live/go to school and no doubt the children will now get bullied because of what is in the Press.
  • Cover-Up complete? Family Court Judge Exonerates Identified Father Rapist; Says Mother “Forced” Kids to Falsely Report Serial Rapes.
  • In Britain, the protected paedophilia is the elephant in the room.
  • After the judge’s pathetic efforts and comments on this case, I truly believe that as far as paedophilia-satanism groups go, the UK is much worse than America; and that’s news to me.
  • Can someone please tell me why there is no mention of who gets custody of the kids? Or did I miss something?
  • The ‘evil or foolish’ accusation is a disingenuous tactic, and Pauffley knows it. None of us are either of those things and all of us would cringe at the accusation. That’s what she wants, to intimidate us into silence, kind of like when the zionists pull the ‘anti-semitic’ card to shut people who criticise Israeli atrocities in Palestine.
  • Satanic ritual abuse is a fact. It happens. The police know it, as does the social services as well as other “child care” institutions. We have a situation now where the vast majority of the general public who have been kept in the dark (by design) by perpetrators in positions of power associated with said institutions, are being exposed to the depredations due to the exposure of these children’s plight. Understandibly they are balking. To know this is real we have to “go there”, but most of us won’t. But, by not listening to victims and survivors, we are standing by while their very spirits are being torn from them. We are complicit. I live in Australia and contacted my sister who lives in London and who is a therapist and who has experience in working with survivors. She hadn’t heard about this case. She watched the children’s testimony and wrote back that “it fits exactly with their rituals”. Finally, a survivor of SRA in Australia has revealed that in her experiences whilst a child victim, the skin was also removed from the babies and used to cover books that the perpetrators used. Of course, this is only one of many allegations in her testimony and I am only repeating it here as a result of the children’s description of the shoes being made from baby skin.
  •  Why was the NHS expert medical evidence of chronic severe abuse omitted from Pauffley’s piffle? Why are politicians attempting to introduce more anonymity for abusers in a law hiding their names thus preventing corroboration? Why were accused not requested to come forward and be examined for distinguishing marks and physical features to confirm or refute allegations? I trust the discerning public will smell a colony of rats and properly investigate this case where the authorities have inexusably failed to do so.
  • The children’s testimonies were FICTION ???NO FURTHER INQUIRY ???>> LordBoothby with top gangster RonnieKray, centre, who reportedly supplied boys to theelite. LORD ‘X’ SUED, AND WON.>> Victim: Michael Roberts, whose devil-worshipping stepdad Michael Horgan organised abuse. CYRIL SMITH, JIMMY SAVILE, SATANIC …

    >> In January 2015, a Welsh couple who went in for Satanic child abuse have at last been jailed for crimes committed in the 1970s. SATANIC CHILD RAPE IN WALES

    >> Edward Paisnel was arrested. Paisnel was a member of a Satanist group on the small island of Jersey, off the coast of Britain. Paisnel was caught by accident in 1971 after jumping a red traffic light and being chased by the police.

    >> Haut de la Garenne. “The expert in the UK who had examined the first bones we sent (which included a piece of child’s tibia) said that they were very likely the bones of a juvenile human, they had been burnt shortly after death and buried shortly after burning.”

    >> Former Attorney General Sir Michael Havers: alleged to have been at child sex and drug parties.

    >> Michael Horgan. Michael Horgan organised and filmed “satanic-themed orgies” at which children were raped. Horgan organised satanic torture and child abuse orgies on Saddleworth Moor, where child killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley had buried their victims.

You can reach the Judge’s clerk via Barry.Clark@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “#SatanicJudicialAbuse #SJA #Pauffley Judgement in the #WhistleblowerKids’ Interest?

  1. Sorry I might be getting confused, you are saying that the father has a criminal record for child abuse?

    I know it has been stated that someone involved in this has previous for physical abuse of children, I didn’t realise it was the father though!

    Like

  2. well said, Sabine – very well researched and investigated, unlike HMCTS and “judge” Pauffley who is no judge at all! With no due court process, no Public trial, no attendance of those she is now trying to scapegoat, nor attendance of the children, and with no independence or independent witnesses, and with notorious police cover ups, and with legion vested interest from corrupt social workers who are gaining financially from their cognitive dissonance in all of this…. the Truth is staring us in the face that this is a criminal cover up and perversion of Justice by the Crown Corporation!

    Like

  3. Absolutely sickened by the reporting of the story by the daily mail today. The fact that the judge dismissed the medical reports which clearly showed long term sexual abuse shows they do not care about the kids and only covering up the story and protecting those that the children have named. It is not in the Mothers interest or her partners to bring this to light to the police, they could have just stayed overseas and not come back but the Mother wanted to stop this abuse happening to the other children that the children named.

    Like

    • Just like in Vicky Haigh’s case, the Press Release went out before the judgement was given.

      Only to pave the way to sway public opinion in the judge’s direction.

      We’ll show them what the smart internet public thinks!

      Like

  4. I see stark similarities between the beautiful mother and myself. We were both slaughtered by The Mail and other newspapers and made to look like crazy evil women. All we ever did was report crimes against our children to the police. All we asked the police to do was investigate a crime but instead the SS, go full power onto care proceedings on criminal matters which should be in a criminal court.
    How can a judge with no experience of criminal courts, decide on crimes in secret. This has to stop, surely in a democratic country. One has to wonder how long this has been going on in the UK. Local Authorities can cover anything up they want to at this rate, and certainly do all of the time. I am very glad I do not live in the UK right at this time.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The way this case has been handled from the first is a disgrace to the policing, education, social services and justice systems in Britain. The latest judgement is case-study in the mendacious manipulation of facts and opinions, to demonize the innocent and exonerate the guilty. As such it will for ever remain as an indelible stain on the court and judge responsible, akin to the notorious trials by Judge Jeffry in the seventeenth century. Although unable to stop him in his tracks, public opinion recoiled in horror from his methods and judgements. He met an unseemly end and his actions were a significant contribution to the political revolution that followed. We can only hope the same will happen here.

    The judge in this case has broken the most basic of principles both in law and social care: to listen to the children. She says she has watched the videos, has incredibly rubbished them but has failed to propound a convincing explanation as to how or why the mother, with the assistance of her dubious boy friend, was able to implant such a story in the minds of her children, and enable them without difficulty, to supply a myriad of tiny details that not only corroborated one another but also revealed details that could be easily checked and corresponded with information, that children could not possibly have known, were it not true. To suggest that all this, including the testimony that he actually watched his father and a nasty friend in the process of making dildos(!) was gleaned only by watching the ‘Mask of Zorro’ is as outrageous as it is inane.

    She (the judge) was forced to rubbish the children’s testimony, for without doing so her conclusions would have been untenable. She has labelled the mother, the one person in all this, lauded and supported by the children themselves, as the evil party, and the father against whom the children have consistently levelled the most serious charges of abuse, compounded by evidence of violence, threats of death and supported by subsequent carer reports of nightmares and panic attacks, as the more caring and responsible partner, clearing the way presumably to the unconscionable result of affording him more access. Could there be a more perverse or horrific consequence?

    Finally the role of the press in this is nothing short of despicable. Having abided by a blanket gag through out, not even referring to the case in general terms, it now simply replicates the judge’s opinion without questioning any aspect of it. This after all the moral grand-standing over “historic” cases of abuse is simply incredible and very depressing because it proves as a society we have actually learned nothing and are just as gullible as we ever were. Sadly it is as always the innocent victims – the children – that are blamed and made to suffer by a corrupt and inhumane legal system.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh I think we have learned a lot since the 17th century,
      In particular testimony obtained by means of torture and forced consumption of drugs is not admissible as evidence.

      Are you saying that torture should be part of a fair judicial system?

      Liked by 1 person

      • You could be right I might well be confused, understandably so given the amount of ‘information’ being put about.

        Still, maybe you could help me out with a few actual known verifiable facts?

        Quite happy to listen to civil discussion.

        Like

  6. MRS PAUFFLEY’S VERDICT AND THE CHILDREN’S DESCRIPTION OF NAKED BODIES

    Imagine your name is Mr. or Mrs. Jones and you are a decent and honest person. All of a sudden, rumours are appearing on the internet where you are mentioned as a member of a satanic cult. Source of the rumours appears to be two children who claim to have been sexually abused by the members of this group and to have been forced to witness and to participate in ritual abuse and murder of babies! Not only do they mention your name, they even give a description of your naked body, making outrageous but detailed claims about things like tattoos on your private parts!

    Now imagine that the entire story is a fabrication, as Mrs Justice Pauffley concluded the 19th of March, after a lengthy fact-finding period. (Her verdict can be read here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html&query=ZC14C00315&method=booleant.) How would you feel when out of the blue you are being accused of something gruesome and absurd like this?! You would probably be horrified, devastated, anxious, confused and ultimately very very angry. You would want such terrible and completely untrue allegations to go away immediately! But the rumours are spreading like wildfire. There seems to be no way to stop them. You are completely innocent, but you know that many people won’t believe you, no matter what you say. All of a sudden, your life has become a nightmare.

    No wonder you will send complaints to Youtube and other organisations where these allegations about you can be found. You will do everything that is in your power to stop all this, even though it seems a hopeless endeavour.

    But then a sudden thought strikes you. There is a way to put an end to the sick allegations! The children’s description of your body! Of course, how could you have forgotten about that! All you have to do is have a doctor examine your body! There is no way the children could have described your naked body with any degree of accuracy, could they? A medical statement will make it completely clear that the children’s description is just a product of their fantasy, and as a result their whole story will fall apart. Once you realize that this is a way out, you will probably want to have this investigation done as soon as possible. The sooner an official statement goes out that the children have been wrong on this point, the sooner the wildfire on the internet can be quenched.

    Now imagine that the children’s story does have a degree of truth. They did see your naked body under circumstances you wouldn’t want the whole world to know about. Their description of you naked body, including of the tattoo on your private parts, is in fact accurate. You have something to hide. How would your reaction be in that case?

    You would probably be equally horrified, devastated, anxious, confused and very very angry. You would want the allegations to go away immediately! But the rumours are spreading like wildfire. There seems to be no way to stop them. You know that many people won’t believe you when you deny everything, no matter what you say. All of a sudden, your life has become a nightmare.

    No wonder you will send complaints to Youtube and other organisations where these allegations about you can be found. You will do everything that is in your power to stop all this, even if it seems a hopeless endeavour.

    The one thing you will do differently when you have something to hide is: you will not have your naked body examined by a trustworthy doctor. On the contrary, you will try to divert attention from this disturbing element in the children’s story. You will hope that it will go unnoticed.

    What we have seen so far is that weeks have gone by without anyone of the alleged abusers having stepped forward to have his or her body examined, even though a petition was started on the internet to urge them to do so. And I find it very remarkable that Mrs Justice Pauffley hasn’t made any mention of this particular element of the children’s story whatsoever in her verdict.

    Mrs. Pauffley’s verdict clearly has the intention to be final and to put an end to all doubts. Therefore, it is all the more remarkable that she has made no mention of this issue. Considering the degree of thoroughness of her research, it is difficult to believe that she overlooked it. One rather gets the impression she chose to ignore it. Did she hope it will go unnoticed?

    Conclusion: if judge Pauffley had wanted to put a definitive end to all doubts, she ought to have addressed the issue of the children’s description and drawings of some of the alleged abusers’ naked bodies. Ignoring this issue will only add to the sentiment that crimes are being covered up. Even by the judicial system.

    Liked by 2 people

    • But the police did investigate the children’s claims that there were secret rooms in the church and in the houses of one of the teachers and their father and said that they were untrue. Why isn’t anyone prepared to accept that as evidence that the story was false?
      Even if the teachers etc. had been examined and the birthmarks etc found to be false you can bet that a substantial number of those desperate to believe the allegations would find a way of dismissing the information. And by the way, what are the chances that this group of people would have such a range of substantial birthmarks?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I quite agree with your last remark, dear Normal Wisdom. And that’s why I find it so remarkable that these people haven’t submitted themselves to medical examination.

        Like

      • Do you honestly believe that? “Steve ” was digging for information from the kids so the police could cover it up. Don’t be so naive. The police are involved in this. You don’t get the extent of this…

        Like

      • If the police had really and properly investigated this case they would have, for a start, surely demanded to be shown the alleged secret rooms in the church that the children spoke of, or perhaps that was made out to be another so-called “lie” the authorities claim the children made up and therefore summararily dismissed as fantasy. Had these rooms been seen as a crime scene and treated as such, as they should’ve been they would surely have found blood, for a start, on the floors + tables the babies were placed on, or whatever, and blood on the robes they allegedly wore, traces of blood would surely be on the knife[s] and maybe the skulls used that the perps allegedly drank from [if they were in the area], the shoes they wore with “stars” on, made allegedly with baby skin, and so much more, not only in the allegedly “secret rooms” in the church, but also in the Macdonalds building, in the shoe repairers shop, and in the schoolrooms etc. allegedly used, and wherever else. I personally would hazard a guess that the police did not search or even take seriously these rooms and their contents at all, and therefore no evidence would’ve been recorded, but maybe they did, and made sure all was cleaned up to stimy the case [as its been alleged the father was friends to certain police officer[s]. Did the police check the named alleged perps for tattoos and birthmarks etc. as this surely was prima facie evidence also? All there seems to be made public is verbal testimony from the 2 children, the medical report on the children, and what else?
        Sadly a family has been completely destroyed, it seems at the moment, and with all the rest of the events occurring since last September it seems a profound tragedy, especially with the realisation that more poor babies and children, even from abroad as has been alleged, will lose their lives at the hands of these monsters and the authorities involved do not seem to be doing one jot about any of it! Quite the opposite, in fact, judging by reports so far.
        = http://www.facebook.com/victor.pc.589/posts/10202693974949153

        Like

    • So, Norman Wisdom, you accept the father’s word that these secret rooms don’t exist. An alleged murderer tells you the rooms don’t exist and you believe him.
      Something not quite right there.

      Like

      • @ butlincat

        My word is “concrete evidence”. I am refraining from disclosing how I came by the videos, which I watched at home on my own computer, in order to protect another person who is participating in this discussion, who is already in enough trouble.

        The mother was not *excluded* from the court. She *chose* not to be there. The game was up for her. Her own children had testified against her, as a torturer, in ABE interview after ABE interview. Video evidence is available of the mother and Papa Hemp torturing the children.

        Butlincat, what I find incomprehensible is the *motivation* of those who so desperately *want* the far-fetched, false narrative to be true, about plastic willies, secret rooms, fifty to a hundred people crowded into one disabled toilet at a public swimming baths, a six year-old who had obviously never seen semen in his life ejaculating half a bottle of the stuff, and a cupboard full of babies’ skulls; a narrative which the children were “tortured” into narrating, until removed to safety, when they recanted with considerable relief, now that their ordeal was at last over.

        I have watched the children being tortured. I have watched other material that I must not describe, in order to protect my source, who is at liberty to expose what he or she did, when he or she reads this. I have to respect confidentiality in this.

        Not everything you read on the internet is true, Butlincat. Learn from your mistake. All of you, please, learn from your mistake.

        I made the right call on this early on, on a different blog to which its author has already linked on this page, of that I am completely confident.

        We should leave the children in peace, and allow the lives of those falsely accused in this scandalous scam to regain some normality. Especially the innocent father.

        Parental alienation and false accusations go hand in hand. Some of us know that from bitter experience.

        I hope the care proceedings fail, because the children’s father is able to offer them a secure and safe home, with their half-siblings. I hope the mother makes a full recovery from her delusional beliefs, and dumps Papa Hemp, who encouraged her in those delusional beliefs. I hope that in time, the mother makes it safe for the children to renew contact with her, when she is well again.

        I hope that everybody in this sordid internet campaign sees sense, and backs off, to allow some much-needed healing to take place, and renewed anonymity for the embarrassed victims of this extreme parental alienation.

        Here I stand. I can do no other. The evidence is crustal clear. The mother and Papa Hemp tortured these children into making entirely fabricated false allegations. This happens to a lot of children. Happily, in this case, the police got involved, preventing social services from their usual mischief, although still social services are striving to condemn these children to forced adoption, when there is a perfectly capable father who could provide them with a home, who now has weekly contact with them. One has to be sick to have an emotional investment in the children’s coached allegations, extracted under torture, having been true.

        http://JohnAllman.UK

        Like

        • Spend a while reading earlier comments, and I would like to ask you a few things John.

          Why are you suggesting that it all gets put to rest so they can hide their “embarrassment”, as you oddly describe it. Trauma is more appropiate.

          Surely, you should feel very, very strongly that the mother and Abraham must be fully investigated for these alleged crimes that the establishment and you say occured? Instead this “satanic mother” is wished a full recovery. How very noble and yet again odd. Her and Abraham are supposed to have “tortured” the children so what’s happening about that then?

          The judge is so very certain of who is to blame, and so what action is she taking other than her inflamatory and condeming words released to the media and her musing about facebook?

          Why all the pressure to put it rest instead of allowing a full inquiry to proceed to find out who really did what to those little children? It was one sided and as fair as the police interrogation of the children was.

          It is bizarre how relaxed you and the police are about it. Is there a warrant out for anyones arrest concerning the psychological abuse of the children? Is it suddenly acceptable to do such a thing these days? Abuse of the mind is still abuse.

          Ricky’s line is one of pity. Well, it would be wouldn’t it. He’d rather it was “put to bed” wouldn’t he. If this happened to Joe Bloggs from Brixton, he wouldn’t be allowed within 20 miles of his kids. We have seen it happen over and over again. Joe Bloggs would be hung drawn and quarted by the media.

          If there is a slight chance, and we all know there is from the many cases we’re seeing, that multitudes of cannablistic murderers and child molesters, posing as priests, teachers and police officers, are allowed and supported by the government to be around our children, we have every reason to panic.

          A FULL INVESTIGATION will be the only thing to silence this now. Millions of people around the world know about it and are watching the fallout of the coverup. Including the selection of words used here.

          I want to know who or what caused those children to say those things, the abusers or the other party. Someone has to be made accountable and a jury will decide when given all the evidence and testimonies, not us, you or a lone judge who was ony given the accused’s bundle of twisted evidence.

          It is odd how the judge revealed so much about a secret family court hearing. Was that a strategic move to undermine any future action?

          I don’t expect any direct answers. I do predict more distraction, pacification and political style word play.
          Regards, Angela Bevan

          Like

          • SRA, cutting babies’ throats, wearing human baby leather shoes, or under-age plastic willy bottom sex with one’s junior school headmistress would be highly traumatic, I imagine. Even merely being pressured into making such false allegations would be somewhat traumatic. Having made false accusations under pressure that one recounted six days after having been removed from the abusers, and discovering, at (say) the age of 12 or 13, abundant videos still on the internet, of one making the false allegations, when aged 8 or 9, but none of the videos of one recanting the allegations, would merely be embarrassing.

            It wouldn’t have occurred to me to put the actual abuse that the court found (pressure to make false accusations of having cut babies’ throats, with one’s own hand on the knife and daddy’s hand on top) into quite the same category – “satanic” as you put it – as actually making P and Q cut babies throats as they once alleged their dad had, along with all the plastic so-called “sex”. It is evil, and I don’t blame Q for asking the police not to take him back to his mother whilst Abe was still in the country. But it is not in the same league as eating babies more-or-less daily, at a Hampstead primary school.

            What the mother did, trying to get her children to make false allegations against their father, never to see him again, was cruel. But it is also extremely commonplace. There are probably several million children in the UK brought up by their mothers alone, with no contact at all with their fathers, because of false allegations against the fathers, encouraged by their mothers, about which there has never been a criminal trial. Grim though that is, I don’t see the solution to this to be to remove all these children permanently from their mothers, and to give their fathers “sole custody”, prosecuting the mothers for child cruelty.

            “Someone has to be made accountable and a jury will decide when given all the evidence and testimonies.”

            The problem with insisting that somebody has to pay for the suffering of children, when their parents separate, is that this turns the making of allegations into a zero sum game, with escalating stakes. Once one starts abusing children by alienating them from their other parent, and many otherwise good parents do, because some people are driven by hatred of the ex-spouses more than by love of their children, then one is riding a tiger. The fear that *somebody* is going to have to be prosecuted for one crime or another – either dad or mum – as you now desire, leads people to be afraid not to stick to their guns, the way that somebody riding a tiger is scared to dismount.

            I have recommended The Family Separation Clinic, run by Karen Woodall, for those who want to learn about parental alienation, and how to address THAT problem in ways that minimise the long-term harm to the child victims. P and Q do not need the guilt trip of their mother being convicted of cruelty to them, on the basis of the ABE interviews, in which they explained why they had made the allegations they later admitted to have been false. That would not help them at all. Advocating forgiveness isn’t all that strange, in my particular faith community.

            As the Crown Prosecution Service might put it, this is one of those cases in which, even though there might be enough evidence to secure a criminal conviction of Ella and Abe, it would not be “in the public interest” to press charges.

            It is appropriate that allegations as serious as those that P and Q later admitted had been bullied out of them should be investigated *properly*. There is scope for arguing that it wouldn’t have hurt to check whether the Anglican priest accused really did have a tattoo on his willy after all, although I would be surprised to learn that he had.

            But the raucous and dumbed-down battle cry, “A FULL INVESTIGATION”, is insatiable. If all one’s belief switches are still in the “on” position, about the alleged prevalence of rife SRA covered up by the establishment, and about goings-on in Christchurch, Hampstead being a prime example of this global scourge, even after P and Q recanted under no undue pressure at from the police in the ABE interviews I watched, then no “investigation” is ever likely to be “full” enough for one’s own liking, unless its findings coincide precisely with one’s own prejudices.

            Lone judges habitually make findings of fact, to the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, in our evil, corrupt, secret family courts. For all I know, in the next few years I could find myself struggling with the temptation to assassinate this very judge Pauffley myself, because she ruined the entire life-chances of my own son, in one of her negligent off days. These civil standard findings of fact of secret family court judges sitting alone, include findings of child abuse that have never been considered by a jury, on oath to acquit any defendant whose alleged child abuse had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, are findings I have every reason to howl about myself.

            I would love to abolish the secret family court system. Would you? I would love it if no child was ever again deprived of a loving natural parent, unless that parent had been found guilty, by a jury, of serious child abuse. That change in our jurisprudence would sort out my own pressing family problems at a stroke.

            Is that your argument for “returning” Q (the brother of P) to what Sabine fondly calls “his Russian family”? No loss of contact with one’s children unless convicted of child abuse by a jury? That plea is music to my ears!

            But the marketing of Sabina’s slogan, approximately “return the whistle-blower children to their Russian family”, overlooks that Q’s father, and the entire paternal side of his extended family, is English, not Russian. It overlooks that, whereas the mum hasn’t been convicted of child abuse, nor has the dad. It overlooks that Ella seems to have fled the country, and that even her own parents, taken in for a time, no longer believe a single word she says (to use hyperbole).

            In criminal law, Ella and her ex alike remain innocent until proven guilty. So, if there is an innocent “family” to which P and Q should be “returned”, it is the family consisting of them, their mum (but not Abe), their dad (but not his new wife, their step mother, and the mother of their younger half-siblings), their English paternal grandparents, their Russian maternal grandparents, their various half-siblings, and any nephews and neices and cousins of theirs.

            Like

            • The recant is your issue. Taken from their protectors, the only ones who listened to them, alone in a world of professional liars who torture and kill to get results, completely lost they will say whatever they need to survive their ordeal.

              I’d like to remind people that the children are not going to be fully aware that they are being filmed when they attempt to pacify the officer they are alone with. They will be told they are liars and shown evidence of themselves saying two versions according to who asks them by very persuasive people. The usual trick child abductors use is to alienate the child from its original protection and vice vera.

              Members of the establishment were abusing these kids.
              Members of the establishment kidnapped these kids.
              Members of the establishment conducted their own evaluation on themselves.
              Members of the establishment found themselves not guilty.

              I know about memory loss from trauma. I know about placating your violent abuser. As a teenager, I found out how brutal mankind could be. I lied to escape. I knew if he thought I was a threat he would kill me with the knife. He would “chop off my hands” or “cut off my head”. I am a survivor, I am highly empathic as are children. What fooled my radar for so long was believing that everyone was as kind as me.

              Evil is real and does not work alone, it can only fully work within a network, a ring, a circle of trust. They are legion.

              I would lie to the circling wolves. I would act my way out of there and go on to survive. These children are survivors. We are their heroes the ones they are praying for when they close their eyes.

              I know a liar. The “just an old man” routine, with 99 points of agreement but one vital point missing. I call fake and I leave those with their own intelligence to see the game being played here.

              Why no real answers? Why is avoidance of ANY legal action the common mission. I noticed how pacified the police are outside the Church. Not their usual manner. I say they are all terrified and are using fear and smoke to keep us from pursuing the safety of the children who asked for help and are still at risk.

              Like

              • Angel71
                I absolutely dread to think what horrors you have been through. Words fail me, except to say, I wish that I was not so far away from home as I am, and that I could do more to support you, the 2 children, Melanie Shaw, Robert Green and other victims of the state, than just sign petitions and express sympathies on this website. I detest the term keyboard warrior, but at the moment, the keyboard is my only weapon.

                You are, in my opinion, an incredibly brave woman, and I understand now why you feel the need to be at Hampstead Church. I still think, however, in terms of strategy, that this is a bad move. It will be viewed by the ‘less aware’ public as harassment, and reduce support from the general public for this case.

                As for John Allman, my impression of him is that he is a misogynistic, smug, arrogant, pompous p***k, who is obsessed with (male) parental alienation, to the detriment of children’s well-being. His presence here is a drain on energies and time that would be better spent concentrating on how we can help these children.

                Don’t feed the vampire, ignore it.

                Like

                • @ Sickened

                  I can see why a “truth” campaigner who believed in the alleged Hampstead SRA cult might say just everything insulting that you have said about me, about any perceived “denier” who spoke out, EXCEPT that I was “misogynistic”. I don’t see where you derive THAT insult from, in anything that I have written.

                  Parental alienation isn’t an evil in which the perpetrator parents are all mothers, and the victim parents are all fathers. I have never said this. It isn’t even implied in what I have said. I haven’t made any unflattering generalisation about women and girls upon which you could be basing the allegation that I had expressed misogyny. That jibe seems to have come from nowhere, out of the blue. Why?

                  Like

                  • John, probably because you have hijacked the topic and tried to alter the views of new people who are concerned enough to seek out more information. It is clear you have an agenda and we all see it because we have studied enough to know how evil works using a ‘polite and reasoned’ manner. A few years ago I wouldn’t have spotted it.

                    It has served to allow us to provide more published evidence of how clever manipulation spoken in a professional tone can swerve a new seeker away from truth.

                    You still haven’t answered my questions because the goal is to avoid any and all legal action surrounding this case so that the abusers will not be called to prove they are innocent.

                    Why is there no legal pursuit of the so called ‘evil torturing duo’?
                    Why do you want everyone to forget and forgive?
                    Why are you claiming that the father is such a great man?

                    Goodbye John

                    Like

                    • @ Angel71

                      I haven’t avoided questions. I hadn’t been asked any. (I have now though.)

                      * Why is there no legal pursuit of the so called ‘evil torturing duo’?

                      The police have put it about that they wish to interview Ella and Abe (and also Sabine). What “pursuit” more than this do you expect?

                      * Why do you want everyone to forget and forgive?

                      I want P and Q to be allowed to forget, and to be able, in time, to forgive their mother.

                      * Why are you claiming that the father is such a great man?

                      I have made no such claim.

                      Like

                • Sorry to change the subject, but Sickened mentioned Robert Green, and this caused me to check back through my email, to find out where we were. I have noticed that it is now over a year since I emailed Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill (pompously, of course), and almost a year since I emailed Joann Lamont, about Robert.

                  The website

                  http://www.freerobertgreen.co.uk

                  is presently “disabled”. Does anybody know where I can read up-to-date information about Robert’s situation?

                  Like

                • Thank you sickened, you are very kind and caring. Honestly, I am fine truly. I am extremely fortunate that it did not completely ruin my life in the ways that it has ruined others. I woke up and discovered it had happened to me for a reason but not everybody does. In my case, it was to allow me to understand what has happened here and to the other children out there. At the time I felt a knowing that it had to happen and looking back I know that I was healed. Now of course, I know why.

                  Much love to you, and consider your good advice as taken x

                  Like

  7. Here alas is yet another family court handling criminal matters with family court procedures.I cannot say whether the children’s allegations were 100%true,50%true, or 100%false but on the evidence provided neither I submit can the judge ! The children gave detailed descriptions of tattoos ,scars,and other marks on the bodies of adults they should otherwise never have seen.At the very least they should have been checked for accuracy.The medical evidence of long term sexual abuse was disregarded.
    My own feeling is that there was at least some truth in what the children said but that the mother and her partner forced them to make the same mistake so many of the critics of the system make “exaggeration” .
    This has the effect of reducing credibility instead of enhancing it.
    Whether the children were truthful or not in their initial stories the effect has probably been to deter other children from reporting sexual abuse because they now know that they will not be allowed to testify in person in court ,and will simply not be believed .

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Forced Adoption

      There WAS some truth in the children’s allegations. The physical abuse of the children, for example hitting them on the face with a spoon, did take indeed place. However, this was not an abuse that their father inflicted upon them to intimidate them from revealing real sexual abuse. It was it was abuse that Papa Hemp inflicted upon them, in order to intimidate them into making the false allegations that the mother and he wanted them to make, as a pretext for depriving them of a loving father. The situation is as mundane as that.

      Google “parental alienation”. That is the elephant in the room. The child abuse of alienators really can be this extreme. The “wishes and feelings” provisions of private family law incentivise parental alienators, rewards and enables them. Misandric, feminist-minded social workers empower parental alientors who are female. The only unusual feature here is that the true abusers were too psychotic to realise that the false narrative they bullied out of the victim children contained the seeds of its own destruction: no secret rooms existed, or plastic willies, or babies skulls. QED.

      This is another Marietta Higgs, Cleveland, or Kirklees-type scandal, with Hodges playing Higgs’ role. Can’t you read? Have you even read the court’s judgment? Please drop this. Leave the embarrassed children to recover from their ordeal in peace. Take their pictures off the internet. They don’t deserve this. Find another conspiracy theory, another “truth campaign” to champion, less hurtful to the innocent. Please.

      Like

      • It has become clear by now that you are lying, John Allman. You are knowingly attempting to deceive. Please do share with us, is your tongue forked as well?

        Like

      • John Allman,
        Mr Allman, you may or may not be stating that which you believe to be true, but I must raise a few concerns with you.

        Now, I am not a child abuse activist and I have no dog in this fight. I am a reasonably bright loving mother who is, frankly, becoming increasingly disturbed about the fact that our institutions are infested with organised paedophile rings, and the rot goes all the way to the top. Given this, I think that it is not unreasonable that I might feel less than confident that cases such as this are properly investigated. I cannot trust the police, the courts, social services, the churches or the schools, to have a healthy interest in children’s welfare.

        That being said, I did not approach this case with the assumption that everything the children were saying was true. As a matter of fact, it all seemed bizarre to me, and I did notice the bruises on the girl’s face. That sent up a red flag for me, and I was concerned about how that might have happened.

        I have scrutinized all the information available to me. I have watched and analyzed the videos numerous times, trying to pick up on every indicator possible that this may, or may not be true. I want the truth.

        My first point regarding the videos, is that the children do seem to be mixed up in some of their comments, and I honestly think that the little boy in particular did not always understand the police officers questions as the officer presented them and as an adult such as you or I might do.

        Second, I noticed the police officer did not press for any information that might support the children’s claims. For example, I noticed that when questioning the boy about his last day at school the officer did not press for specifics. He should have ‘walked’ the child through the day ie Who dropped you off at school, who did see on getting to school, which teacher did you see first thing that morning, where was the party held with all the food, was it the hall, or classroom a, b, or c. What goodies did you eat, which of your friends did you sit with, how did the touching start, who was the first person to touch you at the party, what happened then etc etc.

        However, the thing that really convinced me that the children have been sexually abused, was when the little boy was asked ‘how’ they placed the plastic willy in his bottom, and he described, using his hands, that his ‘cheeks’ were parted.

        Sexual abuse has gone on here, as described by the Dr. following her examinations of the children, and I have no doubt about that whatsoever. But here is where the case gets even stranger, because the judge dismissed the Dr’s findings.. If I recall correctly, the Dr. concerned, after discussion, considered that she might be wrong on that, but frankly, I think someone was leaning on her very hard.

        This is not a simple, straightforward case, but there are two big red flags flying that nobody can miss,

        1. Those kids have suffered anal penetration.

        2. The authorities are determined that this shall not be investigated.

        That is enough for me to feel concerned that something dark is going on here and that the children are at even greater risk in ‘care’, than with their mum. Having said that, if I were her I would dump the partner ASAP, just for hitting the kids.

        Like

        • @ Sickened

          The judgment mentions that the mother administered enemas to the children, so it is true that they have suffered anal penetration.

          People have uploaded the early ABE interviews, but not (so far as I have found) the later ones. Had you seen those, I would like to think that these would address your remaining concerns.

          I would not want any child of mine to have that Dr Hodges penetrating their anuses, or to show her my own private parts for to her to see if they had tattoos, if I knew what I do know, about what the uploading campaigners haven’t uploaded. I wouldn’t regard not being asked to do this as an undue reluctance of the police to investigate credible allegations. I think the non-existence of the secret rooms blew the whole fable out of the water.

          Like

    • Well of course he walked free, the man was a stalwart. Why 21 parents came to court in solid support of this man, proclaiming his good character.

      You couldn’t make it up, could you?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Does it not occur to you that these “parents” who turned up at court to support this character were the very parents of the other abused children from the school? other Satanists?

        Like

      • to nojusticeforparents and butlincat

        sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I was being sarcastic. If that was a teacher at my kids school I’d probably have dragged him down a back alley and beat the crap out of him. I mean seriously, how can 21 parents actively support a bloody paedophile teacher. The mind boggles. I can only assume that all these parents are part of it or they must be putting something in the water in Hampstead – they are all off the wall!

        Like

      • I don’t think violence solves anything. And I don’t think it would stop a paedo from being a paedo. Being locked up in a prison for a few years might – or definitely would – protect some children who would otherwise be his targets, but even that I don’t think would stop a monster once hes free, would it, Mr. Max Clifford? Meanwhile, the very fabric of our society in undermined by deviants in positions of so-called “power” – take Camden council, London, for example – just down the road from Hampstead – https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/camden-council-and-stockgrove-park-school-abuse/

        Like

        • I agree that violence doesn’t solve anything, and I certainly am not suggesting that anyone should use violence just in case anyone is misinterpreting my comment. What I was trying to illustrate was the difference between the normal reaction of a concerned parent, and that of the 21 parents supporting the paedophile who was teaching their kids. Their support of this man is unconscionable.

          Like

    • Good find. Do postcodes award favours? Hmmm. If that had been Brixton, the teacher would have been the new face of evil for us all to focus upon. Location, location, cult member.

      Like

  8. “If Mr Christie was the guilty abuser, why did he take the children to the Police?”

    I would add: If Mr Christie was the guilty abuser, why didn’d he fabricate a more believable story?”

    Liked by 2 people

    • The whole scam was an attempt to incriminate the children’s father to prevent him having access and to get back at various individuals that had upset him and the mother. They kinda went too far don’t you think? As to why he concocted such an elaborate story, the answer is simple – he’s a nutter and evil with it and the mother is a willing dupe.

      One other thought. Has anybody considered that the administration of enemas to the children might be an important piece of information?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I have watched this tragedy unfold, powerless to prevent it. It looks to me as though this story is going to run and run. I hope I’m being unduly pessimistic.

        I’ve reblogged Karen Woodall’s blog post about this story on my own blog.

        http://RestoreTheFamily.party

        I’ve spent hours watching video evidence. I’ve read the whole judgment. I tried to warn Sabine what she was dealing with. Even now, people seem to have an emotional investment in the least credible explanation for what really happened here.

        I made the wrong call myself in the early days, signing the petition for the suspects to who their birth marks. Thank God I did research. I am grateful to Sabine for enabling me to do that. I know she must be disappointed that I didn’t concur with her conclusions. I wish I didn’t have to disappoint her. I hope she won’t feel betrayed. I reached the only conclusion I could, on the evidence I stayed up all night studying. I had to put the children first in my way, not Sabine’s. Their story did not stack up. They recanted. Q said that he did not want to live with his mother again, whilst Papa Hemp was still in the UK. I hope the children are placed with the father, and that he is empowered enough to protect them from their mother.

        Like

    • Yes, it is. But these children should have been “snatched” from the abusive mother, and handed to the non-abusive father. I hope he manages to prevent their languishing as “looked after” children in due course. I hope he finds it in his heart to enable the mother to have contact with the children she has abused so, if and when she begins to understand where she went wrong, many, many years ago.

      http://RestoreTheFamily.party

      There are no “single parents”, save when a parent has died. Every other child has a living father and a living mother, and the right, wherever possible, to the love and care of both parents. Love and care is not the strong suit, of these children’s particular mother. She wanted to stop them from having a relationship with their father. She adopted extremely cruel methods to bring about that outcome. Thank God she failed.

      Like

      • Such statements are obscene. You appear to think you know exactly the score; your words, on the other hand, show clearly that you know very little.

        Like

      • You are playing a dirty game here John Allman. For me this means one thing only and that is that you’re one of those child molesters. As simple as that. I have a lot of experience with Hasbara trolls and you act in exactly the same way. My advise for you is to go and kill yourself in favour of those children that then wont be hurt in the future by a monster like you.

        Like

        • @ Sickened

          I am not aware that the children asked to be with their father either. However, that is for another day. This first hearing was a fact-finding hearing specifically about the existence of an improbably huge SRA ring involving seven schools, most shops the children had ever visited, a church, the father, the police, social services, Cafcass, secret rooms, babies skulls, cannibalism, etc etc.

          The children did praise their father him as a normal, good dad who had never abused them. The implication was, that whether or not they would have wanted to live with him full-time (which may take a little arranging) if offered that option, they certainly didn’t want him removed from their lives completely, as the mother was trying to do.

          The child Q did beg to police not to take him back to his mother, as long as Pappa Hemp was still in the UK. It’s all in the judgment. However, that particular comment was made during a car journey, not in the ABE interview room, where it could have been captured on video.

          The case will now continue. No decision was made on the care proceedings, which I hope flounder, because the father manages to get his act together.

          Like

  9. I am fully awake and raring to go now. My deepest sympathies to the families and their close supporters.

    According to the new reasons to remove a child from their parent, one only has to get them to say “daddy smoked a cigarette with me in the car and then smacked me” to have him branded as a child abuser for life. It is not necessary to invent a covert satanic village and have them describe the intimate body parts of teachers or describe the murder of babies. “Papa kills babies”. It is sadly not needed in this very twisted network of daily and secretive state child abduction.

    None of this would be logical. Had I stumbled across it today without having seen the evidence, I would have questioned the motive for such a very scathing attack from a judge who never met the mother of whom she has such a very, very strong opinion about. She never met her because she was due to be arrested on the eve of the beginning of the fact finding case on the grounds of harassment by all of the many ‘alleged’ accused.

    Avoidance of a criminal trial is the motive. Any sentient human can see it. They have attracted more interest by their usual nefarious tactics than any of us tried to do.

    P.S. They have been hoisted by their own petard. Their favourite method of punishment of the ‘wicked’ is by crucifixion, previously known as hanging. Ominously left there to adorn their trees as dire warnings to others in the gardens of Babylon IIRC. Insane macabre creatures from the cities beneath, otherwise known as hell.

    Like

  10. […] March 20, 2015March 20, 2015 Sabine Kurjo McNeill Cover-Ups, Dame Anna Pauffley OBE, High Courts of Justice, NewsAllegation, Child sexual abuse,Independent Police Complaints Commission, Jimmy Savile, Kray twins, London, Palace of Westminster, Police officer, Scotland Yard, United Kingdom Cult and Ritual Abuse (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Dear Mr ClarkHer Ladyship’s judgement is one of a political nature to sway public opinion such that she will get away with handing custody to the father with a criminal past and two non-molestation orders, while the mother had a residence order in place, when Barnet Police took her children. […]

    Like

  11. I’ve just reread the Mail article.

    “they have been identified on the internet as abusers of children”

    It doesn’t say they have been falsely accused of being abusers of children in that statement. It says plainly that they have been identified. This often appears to be how they slip the truth into layers of poor and non-evidential reverse accusals to comply with a bizarre code of keeping it in plain sight.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003247/Mother-partner-tortured-two-children-lie-satanic-child-sex-cult-based-primary-school-judge-rules.htm

    The judge said: ‘Many of those individuals are now living in fear because they have been identified on the internet as abusers of children and their contact details including telephone numbers, home and email addresses have been published.

    Like

        • It is because I listened to the children, who contradicted themselves, and believed them when they had been removed from their abusive mother, rather than when they were still under her influence, that I saw the pattern that I did see: parental alienation of the most extreme kind, involving the torture of little children into the making of false allegations that, when they were safe from the torturers, they were relieved to recant, accusing their mother and Papa Hemp of torturing them.

          I had the advantage of watching, on video, the torture of the victim children by their mother and Papa Hemp, and certain other footage. Remember?

          Like

      • John Allman, you state “I had the advantage of watching, on video, the torture of the victim children by their mother and Papa Hemp, and certain other footage”.
        I find this extremely hard to believe. Any concrete evidence to back up what you claim?
        When and where did you see these so-called footages?
        This statement sounds like the mother of all “disinformation” statements – designed to destroy any credibility in the case.
        And you say the “judge was right”? There was no one in the courtroom that day to put forward anything other than the fathers or council’s versions of things, was there? How can any proper judgement be made in such a one-sided operation such as happened? How can the judge be “right” if only one side of the story was told? Without hearing both sides evidence any judgement made is surely unsafe!

        Like

      • Your conclusions are absurd, John Allman. You display an arrogant and willful ignorance of the true matters involved in this case. I can conclude only that you are insincere, that you are willfully attempting to confound and confuse, and that you have utterly no idea of the truth of this matter – or that you do, and you would prefer that it not be known.

        Which is it, John Allman?

        Like

  12. I don’t know any of the people involved and so it’s not possible for me to speak with any authority about it. I am just a concerned neighbour.

    Whatever actually happened to A and G, it was very good of Sabine to do her best to advocate for them and I don’t see why she should have been sent into exile for doing so.

    I did hope that the children’s grandparents could look after the children and help hem to forget about this ordeal but if it is true as John is saying here that the mother and A C are the guilty parties this is not likely to happen, is it ?

    Terrible things do happen to people in life which too many people would prefer not to believe…fear of being disbelieved all too often silences and alienates the victims so I try to keep an open mind. Torture and/or trauma can also muddle up a person’s thinking – young or old.

    People of little or no status in this society cannot afford legal representation and so seek solidarity and support outside of that from good people like Sabine. I hope that she, too, is being supported enough and that being a McKenzie friend has not compromised her freedom too much.

    Regards, Katy

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank You, Katy! Wishing well is not enough, I’m afraid.

      For what we are up against is ginormous and what the ‘system’ of paid employees who are ‘just doing their job’ can do to a single family is beyond belief.

      This just happens to be the worst of all cases I’ve ever come across. Hoping that you’ll find ways of getting involved, many thanks for caring!

      Like

    • It has been put about that the maternal grandparents believe the mother, and the children’s original allegations. The judgment says otherwise. They may have believed their daughter once, but even the even mother’s Russian family had distanced themselves from the mother by the time of the fact-finding hearing, according to the judgment.

      I think it would be best for the children to be with their father, and for them to have plenty of contact with both sets of grandparents, and their entire extended families, Russian and British, including the mother once she has stopped trying to brazen it out, by sticking to her guns.

      I consider it entirely possible that the mother in this case is delusional. Since I come across delusional, and otherwise misguided people a lot in my work, which is not hugely different from Sabine’s.

      It requires a certain rigid mindset for a campaigner to believe that the police used undue pressure to persuade the children to withdraw the allegations, whilst being utterly unable even to consider the possibility that the mother and Papa Hemp (Abraham Christie) used undue pressure to elicit those allegations in the first place. What it is possible for the police to do, it is possible for a parent and her partner to do.

      Ironically, Sabine’s credence and hard work has served a useful purpose: it raised the stakes, so that the court published its judgment, in response to the abundant public interest whipped up. The silver lining to this very dark cloud, is that in future, and doubtless only temporarily, it may become less easy for a parent who bullies his or her children into making false allegations against their other parent, in an attempt to exclude the other parent from the children’s lives, to get away with this behaviour, which is appallingly common, as I know not only from my work with Families Need Fathers, but also from my private life, and disappointing experience of the family court system, which I am surprised to find myself defending for once.

      Since this case came onto my radar, realising that I was powerless to ameliorate the plight of the children or their father, I focused upon damage limitation – limiting the damage that having made the wrong call was apt to inflict upon Sabine, her work, and her reputation.

      I have no desire to fall out with Sabine, with whom I have been on good terms for years. I dare say she makes the right call sometimes, and that in an adversarial system, her taking the “wrong” side occasionally serves the interests of justice. But, for once, I sincerely think that Sabine not only made the wrong call, but possibly also crossed not just a legal line, but also a moral one. If it is as the judge decided it was, which seems overwhelmingly likely to me compared to the far-fetched alternative, then bombarding the world with propaganda is lust going to make it more difficult for the children to come to terms with this embarrassing episode.

      We who criticise the family courts should confine our criticism to the miscarriages of justice, rather than making exaggerated claims that the family courts are incapable of every making a sound decision. I have come across victims of injustice meeted out by family courts. But I have also come across others rescued from injustice by family courts. Every case is unique. There shouldn’t be any corruption in the system. If we say that, we take the high moral ground. If we insist that the sytem is thoroughly corrupt, from top to bottom, and never, ever delivers justice, we shall look foolish deservedly, because we shall have been foolish.

      Karen Woodall’s blog post on this affair gives better coverage, from my side of the fence, than did the Daily Mail coverage that Brian Gerrish recently criticised.

      https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/extreme-parental-alienation/

      Like

  13. John Allman, I do not concur that I have “made a mistake” as you put it, and if “your word” is the “concrete evidence” I have to accept, then it really is not good enough. Words are not “concrete evidence” – theyre just words, and, to me, your words are from someone I know nothing about.
    And regarding the HHJ Pauffley hearing being a one-sided affair you state “the mother was not excluded from the court” and “she chose not to be there” – I don’t need to say she would probably have been arrested if she had turned up at the court, perhaps even before she would’ve been allowed to give any evidence to support her story – so she couldn’t have really gone to the court – something you leave out in your statement.
    Which American state is it that has the adage “don’t tell me – show me” meaning words are often not enough to qualify anything, and rightly so!.

    Like

    • @ Butlincat

      What possible motive could I have, for falsely claiming to had have access to video evidence provided to me in breach of a court order, in order to protect P and Q from being identified? I don’t think I have ever set foot in Hampstead. I live in Cornwall.

      What is “absurd” (as one person has put it) is to infer that anybody sceptical of the children’s allegations of SRA, must be guilty of SRA himself.

      Like

      • It doesn’t matter about any specifics you list, eg. videos seen and court orders etc. These diversion tactics are irrelavent to the fact that in every comment here you’ve attempted to sway others away from this case being genuine. Ive seen all sorts of attempts to undermine cases in the past, using the “ive seen this, but I cant show you for legal reasons” and “I heard that, but I cant betray a confidence and tell you who told me” old bs, and yours seems simply another one. You even attempt to claim that your “word” is “concrete evidence”!! What a load of b—–cks! Why don’t you just stfu!!

        Like

        • @ Butlincat

          The reason I haven’t shut up, is because it is *true* that I have “attempted to sway others away from this case being genuine”. I have done this because I consider that to be the *right* thing to do. The fact that I am the *only* person still doing this here, and by far the most determined there has ever been, makes it all the more necessary that I don’t shut up.

          One of my favourite movies is Twelve Angry Men, about a lone juror who wanted to acquit, who eventually persuaded the eleven other jurors, who at first wanted to return a guilty verdict, also to want to acquit the defendant. That is the situation in which I find myself here. The hero of that movie followed his conscience. That is what I am doing. The majority was wrong. The reason of the hero, a lone voice,, prevailed in the end.

          I am looking at this from the point of view of the children, the father, the various people in Hampstead who have been named and who have received abusive phone calls by believers in this conspiracy theory, the judge, the police, and the whole of the children’s family, Russian and English alike, apart from the mother, whose allegations almost nobody who knows her still believes.

          If the allegations are not true, then it abusive of all these people still to repeat the allegations in public, naming the children instead of referring to them as P and Q as required by the law, and continuing to publish film and photos of the children and others. All those I have mentioned are the victims of something a great deal more real than the fictitious SRA ring in Hampstead, something itself evil, an internet witch hunt that is immensely destructive.

          I have revealed that I have had access to video evidence that was provided to me in breach of a court order, and which I have not found searchable on the internet, suggesting that those who would like there to be an SRA cult in Hampstead after all have been selective in which videos they enable You Tube viewers to see, in order to bolster their own case that there is a real SRA cult, and a massive conspiracy to cover this up on the part of officials, and (they think, judging by some of the comments here) a conspiracy that includes anybody who disagrees with their opinion, even if that person’s voice here is a lone voice of dissidence.

          This is precisely how witch hunts work. Nobody has said anything against me, other than I must be part of an SRA cult myself, to disbelieve the now-discredited rumour of this particular alleged SRA cult.

          I have no idea how people work themselves up into this frame of mind, in which not only cannot they question their own beliefs, but they feel obliged verbally to abuse anybody who does question them.

          It’s not “bullshit” that I refuse to implicate the individual who enabled me to see the evidence with my own eyes. That person is here. If they wish to implicate themselves, that is up to them. I am not intending to betray them, however foul the allegations made against me become. They know the truth.

          I am grateful that my source paid me the respect of enabling me to make my own informed decision about the truth or falsehood of the allegation of an SRA cult in Hampstead. I have not exposed them. I have not published the videos, for the sake of the children in them and of my source. The videos are now deleted.

          We come back to this question: Why do so many people want this allegation to be true? What emotional need of their own does adhering to this conclusion, not supported by the evidence, serve in their lives?

          Like

  14. Mr Allman

    You said “The judgment mentions that the mother administered enemas to the children, so it is true that they have suffered anal penetration”. I think It is absurd to consider that the administration of an enema would cause anal damage in the same way that a penis or plastic willy would do! I would like to hear the opinion of an independent doctor about that. If you had ever had an enema you would know the difference.

    You wrote “People have uploaded the early ABE interviews, but not (so far as I have found) the later ones. Had you seen those, I would like to think that these would address your remaining concerns”. I only have your word to support the existence of evidence being with held by the Mother’s supporters, and I am sorry but that just isn’t good enough I’m afraid. I don’t trust the authorities anymore, never mind the comments of someone I have never heard of before.

    But, what really gives your real interests away is when you say “I would not want any child of mine to have that Dr Hodges penetrating their anuses”. Really? Really? THAT doctor! Tell me, is there something about this doctor that we should know about, or is it something that you just said for effect. Do you have or have you ever had any children of your own? Because if my children had even a hint of being abused I would have them round to a doctor for examination ASAP, as unpleasant as that might be.

    I feel, Mr. Allman, that your comments are not genuine and that your interests lie somewhere other than those of the poor kids involved in this mess. The difficulty in this case is that the authorities cannot be trusted and it is because of this that information has come into the public eye. We are concerned for these kids. We do not believe the authorities. We know that organized paedophile rings are embedded in our institutions, and that leads us to believe that the court has an interest in quelling any suggestion of sexual abuse in this case. That is why none of us can accept the judge’s report.

    So I suggest, Mr Allman, that if you have information that exonerates the Father and the other accused people, that you publish it now, so that the public can rest easy that we do not have to pursue it any further, Given that the Family Court has now lost all legitimacy in the public eye, it is going to take a presentation of your ‘facts’ before any of us will step down from fighting for these kids.

    Like

    • @ Sickened

      I no longer have the videos. They have been deleted.

      The trial lasted eleven days. The judgment has more than 160 paragraphs In what sense does that add up to the authorities refusing to investigate this allegation?

      It is not my fault that all you have to go on is a distorted picture, from carefully edited and selected uploads.

      How are you “fighting for these kids”? They don’t want to go back to their dreadful mother. Have mercy on them!

      Like

      • As I said Mr Allman, and I hope that you will respond this time:

        a) Your notion that an enema would cause the same anal scarring as would be found in cases of sodomy is absurd. If you had ever had an enema you would know that.

        b) You say that there are other videos available but these have been suppressed by her supporters. You say you had copies of these but have now deleted them. A tad convenient I feel.

        c) You appear to have a problem with regard to the paediatrician Dr. Hodges. Could you please illustrate your concerns about this woman.

        I rather get the impression that really you are something of a misogynist on the quiet, and that this ‘additional information’ to which you refer does not exist.

        Nobody believes you Mr. Allman, plain and simple.

        Liked by 1 person

        • @ Sickened

          If nobody here believes me, which you are not in a position to know, then that isn’t my problem.

          Anal scarring can be caused by constipation.

          Dr Hodges was lambasted by her the judge, and her “work” was criticised by colleagues. I wouldn’t want ANY doctor penetrating the anuses of my children after allegations as spurious as the original, quickly recanted allegations of P and Q.

          There is somebody here who could confirm that I was given access unlawfully to the final ABE police interviews, who has since deleted them, so that I no longer have access.

          What I saw in the videos, all of them, unedited as far as I know, corroborates the judge’s findings of fact.

          Why is it so important to you to believe in this alleged SRA cult in Hampstead? What emotional need of your own does this stubborn belief fulfill?

          Like

          • Mr. Allman,

            You asked me “Why is it so important to you to believe in this alleged SRA cult in Hampstead? What emotional need of your own does this stubborn belief fulfill?”

            I have already explained to you that it is clear to many, including myself, that the authorities can no longer be trusted to act with honesty and integrity. Until evidence is presented that clarifies any ambiguities in this case then I will remain suspicious about what has happened to these children. I do not have any “emotional need” to fulfill. I am just a normal mother, who is getting pretty pissed off about the widespread sexual abuse of children in our country, and who wants to do something about it. Your psychology skills are unimpressive, as are your comprehension abilities.

            Now, I believe that Bill Maloney is working on this case. This man is a known quantity, and I do have confidence in his integrity. If Bill Maloney finds these claims to be untrue, then I will believe him. But the authorities and a stranger such as yourself, sorry, not going to happen.

            Like

            • @ Sickened

              You said, “I do not have any ’emotional need’ to fulfil.” But then you went on in your very next sentence to explain what your emotional need was!

              “I am just a normal mother, who is getting pretty pissed off about the widespread sexual abuse of children in our country, and who wants to do something about it.”

              So, you believe that there is “widespread sexual abuse of children”, and that pisses you off. You “want” to do something about it. That pinpoints precisely the emotional need you have. (Unless you want, or feel the need,, to argue that “wanting” to do something isn’t an emotion, or that wanting to do something, and feeling the “need” to do something are completely different.)

              You have told me, “Your psychology skills are unimpressive, as are your comprehension abilities.” I haven’t been using any psychology skills. I have never acquired any. My eldest daughter studied psychology. I have only studied Maths and Physics, and Law. Both studies demanded comprehension skills.

              What I have comprehended, is the contrariness of believing that it would be possible for the police, or others, to succeed, using pressure, in persuading the children to tell lies, but that it would be impossible for the mother and her friend to succeed, using pressure, in persuading the children to tell lies.

              Secondly, I have comprehended that an unjust justice system doesn’t always deliver injustice, in every single case. Because I know that there are injustices, and network with activists like Sabine, and access alternative news sources, and actually publish two blogs and three other other websites as an alternative news source in my own right, I wasn’t able to dismiss Ella Draper’s conspiracy theory. It was all too possible, at face value, that it might have been true. I had to do a lot of work, to reach my own view as to whether the story was true or false.

              Nobody has to agree with my judgment on this. But to attack me personally, as some here have, shows a lack of comprehension on their parts of the distinction between being wrong about some factual question, and being evil. People are appealing to emotion too much.

              Think of children who are abused. What is the likely effect upon them, of plastering videos all over the internet of different children who claimed that they were abused? Regardless of whether they subsequently admitted that they hadn’t been abused, except by their mother and her boyfriend, publishing the footage of P and Q is likely to inhibit other abused children from becoming whistle-blowers, and that is the last thing we should be doing.

              What is the likely effect of this campaign upon those who experience pressure to act against their consciences, consisting of the threat to start a rumour that those victims of pressure have abused children, which some people will continue to believe even if they prove their innocence? Those are some of my clients, one of whom is suing MI5 for harassment. Do you “comprehend” that affect of this campaign?

              Like

              • The problem here, as I see it with all this time wasting and space taking this post is taking up, is that you offer nothing of value Mr. Allman, and others here can see that, who have studied this case in great detail more than likely. and therefore one is treated as you have been – with contempt. And I would say that about myself if I’d tried to do what youve attempted here over the past hours. You have made your bed, and youre having to lie in it. All you have offered is your opinion and you expect that, because you’ve probably had a success in a court of law where a judge has listened and acted on your words, everybody else in the world should do the same!! It might be like that in our broken courts, but it definately isn’t like that in the real world where these pantomimes arent taking place, thank God!! Opinion isn’t worth tuppence at the end of the day, when compared to facts. Asking why people are interested in this case, and using words like “emotional needs” and other claptrap, is completely ignoring the fact that many are interested in this case simply because children or babies have been harmed, it is alleged, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for any rightminded human have an interest in.
                I think you’ve failed here in your intentions to sway people off this case by saying things like “Ive seen videos which I cant produce which tell a different story” and “my word is concrete evidence” – these statements are meaningless from a stranger, and I think you know that!

                Like

  15. Mr. Allman – yes, of course these so-called “videos you’ve seen” have “been deleted” – but did they exist in the 1st place? I doubt it. How come you didn’t make copies? I suggest that you did exactly that too, Mr. Allman, as a lot of people would, on a subject as controversial as this. These are the very people who sell them for gain to the gutterpress later – is it not? Why cant you tell what you saw in these videos?
    A “disinfo agent” uses pieces of truth woven in with dubious pieces of untruth, exaggeration and unqualifiable statements [lies] in an attempt to sway a common consensus of opinion – the end result – hopefully for the “disinfo agent” – to scupper or destroy, or divert, a case.
    This, “Mr. Allman”, [or whoever you are – male or female] I suggest you’ve tried to do here on this page, and are revelling in the attention youre getting too. Normally I would ask the admin of this page to bar you – but who cares?
    No more – I’m gone.

    Like

      • I don’t think “?” is going to answer, Mr. Allman – or will you find someone to be your “?” to make your statement credible? Then we’ll have TWO people making bland statements.
        What a palava.
        The ruses you use, Mr. Allman or whoever you are, are as old as the hills.

        Like

  16. John Allman, are you that fake racist Reverend from Cornwall who used to write daft complaints to various organisations in Cornwall?

    Like

  17. John Allman
    March 24, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    “One of my favourite movies is Twelve Angry Men, about a lone juror who wanted to acquit, who eventually persuaded the eleven other jurors, who at first wanted to return a guilty verdict, also to want to acquit the defendant. That is the situation in which I find myself here. …“

    NO that’s NOT the situation in which we find ourselves here.
    None among us is in the position to decide upon what is true or untrue.
    We simply ask for a FULL and THOROUGH INVESTIGATION & CLARIFICATION of all questions and inconsistencies – all parties involved.

    “… fictitious SRA ring in Hampstead, something itself evil, an internet witch hunt that is immensely destructive“

    Serious allegations are belittled as “fictitious“, “evil“, an “internet witch hunt“ and “immensely destructive“ Very strong, defamatory language.

    Well, who has to fear a full investigation?
    Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, the mother of the alleged abused children?
    Obviously not, they are the ones who reported the alleged sexual abuse to the police (in good faith). And the authorities should have done their job – which they didn’t.

    “I have revealed that I have had access to video evidence that was provided to me in breach of a court order, and which I have not found searchable on the internet, suggesting that those who would like there to be an SRA cult in Hampstead after all have been selective in which videos they enable You Tube viewers to see, in order to bolster their own case that there is a real SRA cult, and a massive conspiracy to cover this up on the part of officials…“

    Alas, you haven’t revealed ANYTHING. Just claptrap.
    “a massive conspiracy“ – Right, IF true. > “Investigate Christ Church Primary school”

    “The videos are now deleted“
    How convenient to say so. > No proof at all.

    “We come back to this question: Why do so many people want this allegation to be true? What emotional need of their own does adhering to this conclusion, not supported by the evidence, serve in their lives?“

    FALSE, nobody wants such allegations to be true. Nobody wants satanic cults pestering and destroying the lives of our children. The truth is, they must be stopped in their tracks IF the children’s allegations are true.
    > These allegations must be clarified: “Investigate Christ Church Primary school”

    That’s too hard for ‘I know ALLman’ to understand?
    Can’t you see, your comments ARE MISSING THE POINT.
    In addition, you fail to provide the slighest shred of evidence to the accusations you are making. You have been trying VERY hard to deflect the discussion
    Hasbara troll? Vested interests?
    Might be a safe guess.
    _________________

    Anonymous
    March 24, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    “Whatever actually happened to A and G, it was very good of Sabine to do her best to advocate for them and I don’t see why she should have been sent into exile for doing so“

    I couldn’t agree more.
    So far we can’t know for sure what happened to these kids.
    Hence, a FULL investigation is needed.
    There has been a complete cover up by the police, the judge, the Hampstead Christ Church Primary School… and THAT’S VERY FISHY INDEED.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nike
      Well said. I agree with every word you said. I think Allman understands very well what we have been saying, but he seems to have a stake in shutting down opposition to the establishment line.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Sickened

        I really don’t have a stake in “shutting down opposition” to the establishment line. The establishment is probably not reading this blog anyway. However, I do admit that have a huge stake in the public *believing* the establishment line, in this test case.

        My interest here is that I perceive Sabine’s “style” of truth campaign on this particular occasion – and that of many here – to be unkind to the children who are, whichever of only two possibilities one believes, abuse victims, in one way or another.

        SRA is one problem in society. Parental alienation, of which the coaching of false allegations of abuse, itself abusive, is part and parcel, is another problem in society.

        A secret family court system, which Sabine and I alike oppose, has the potential to enable and cover up *both*.

        The observer, dedicated or casual, has only two options to choose between. Either P and Q are victims of SRA, or they are victims of parental alienation. Either way, they are victims of child abuse. They deserve their unhappy plight, if we must discuss it at all, to be discussed calmly and rationally, even when we bring to the discussion opposing prejudices as to that that plight consists of.

        P and Q might read this discussion themselves, in ten years time. On the basis of what I judge their plight to be – the establishment line, which is seldom a line I find myself having to take as I must now – I would expect them to upvote my comments, and downvote most other people’s comments. I might be wrong, but nobody here has yet given me a good reason to question my judgment.

        Like

    • @ Nike

      “We simply ask for a FULL and THOROUGH INVESTIGATION & CLARIFICATION of all questions and inconsistencies – all parties involved.”

      Actually, I think that there HAS been just about as full and as thorough an investigation as there needs to be, into the allegations that the children withdrew a week later. The hearing alone lasted eleven days. Just the police ABE interviews alone took me all night to watch, about six hours of video, not counting that shot by Ella and Abe themselves, some of which hasn’t yet been deleted from the relevant Google cloud library (there are still two videos left in it, of the dozen and more I watched in January).

      We are NEVER going to iron out the “inconsistencies”, when an allegation is made, and subsequently recanted. What a child said on one occasion, and what a child said on a subsequent occasion, really were *inconsistent*, and will remain so forever. There is nothing “we” CAN do (as a badly divided society), other than cautiously and occasionally to trust those posh people charged with this duty, to choose which contradictory testimony was true, or always to mistrust them, as the case may be, because they are establishment people, and we are dissidents, and establish people often screw ordinary people like us – don’t I know it!

      The most important flaw in the process, I think, was that the hearing was in private, as is practically every hearing in a family court. I accept that some who had got upset at the thought that this alleged SRA ring in Hampstead might actually exist, would have liked to be able to sit and watch the eleven day hearing at which the court found otherwise, lest there had been a cover-up. So would I, subject to other demands on my time.

      This is a horrid cocktail of two emotive subjects, SRA and parental alienation, both of which entail gross abuse of children. There really are only two possible true stories here. Either the mother and Abe abused the children, to force them to make false allegations against their father (and seven schools, many teachers, many parents, many other children, police, social workers and a priest), or dad (and all these other people) really did perpetrate the SRA the children that initially alleged, but later retracted. I made my decision which alleged truth to believe upon the evidence I saw and heard. That was a fraction of the evidence the court must have heard, in eleven whole, gruelling days. But it was a generous *multiple* of the evidence that I suspect most of my critics here have watched themselves.

      I think that family court hearings ought not to be held in private – none of them. Reporting restrictions sparingly imposed after open justice hearings would provide ample protection for victim children’s privacy, in my opinion. That change in the law would render internet campaigns like this largely unnecessary.

      I think Sabine and I are probably in complete agreement about this, and a great deal else, even though we disagree about which of the two only possibilities there are, is the truth: that P and Q’s mum abused them as a parental alienator coaching false allegations (as the court found), or that their dad abused them, as the leader of an SRA cult in Hampstead (as many here still seem to think remains a possibility they aren’t confident has been safely eliminated, in an impartial court, for reasons I fully understand.)

      What we all know here, is that P and Q are victims of horrid child abuse, either parental alienation under pressure on the part of their mother and Abe, or even worse abuse than this on the part of their father and the numerous members of his SRA cult. Whichever is the truth, how is it kind to them, the abused children, to persist with the present *style* of campaign?

      Sabine refers obliquely to the style of the present campaign that I today criticise, in an email of hers to me on 8th January 2015, at 16:14.

      66

      Dear John

      I appreciate the effort you’ve made but I don’t have the time to try to convince you of what I have seen, read and heard. What would be the point?

      I have a VERY clear agenda and I shall pursue it the only way I know how: my way.

      Trusting that you respect that,

      Sabine

      99

      Mary Rooney is a witness to this correspondence, and knows the identity of the source who leaked to me the ABE video footage, using the subject heading “Under seal of secrecy”, a secret I expect to carry to my grave, to protect my unnamed source.

      I have an agenda or two myself. Like Sabine, I hate the secret family court system. But I hate it less because it might cover up SRA, as P and Q’s dad is accused of having perpetrated, than that it might enable parental alienation, such as their mum (the court found) had perpetrated. SRA is even more serious an abuse of its victims than is parental alienation. However, in my experience, parental alienation, the lesser abuse, typically involving the concoction of false allegations, is far more commonplace. I am struggling to get official recognition of the parental alienation problem, of which I think this case to be a prime example.

      Like

      • Mr. Allman, you say: “Actually, I think that there HAS been just about as full and as thorough an investigation as there needs to be”.
        Really?
        Wouldnt any full investigation include the examination of the bodies of the alleged abusers who had tattoos on them, as described by the children themselves? How did the children witness these tattoos to be able to speak of them later? Perhaps because they saw these tattoos when the subject was in a state of undress?

        Also, how is it that a minister of a church has a tattoo on his private part, as described in this video, at exactly 14 minutes into the video [the same video as I put here earlier] :

        Wouldn’t a minister of the church know the bible disallows bodily tattoos as it defaces the human body? Leviticus:19:28 says, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: “.
        Satanists seem to do everything opposite to how it should be done – putting crosses upside down on walls, doing masses backwards etc. so tattooing oneself, the opposite to that stated the bible, would be the right thing to do for a satanist – would it not?

        Like

        • @ Butlincat

          “Wouldn’t any full investigation include the examination of the bodies of the alleged abusers who had tattoos on them, as described by the children themselves?”

          I wish that had been done. But would you accept that evidence if it had been sought? Would you not then be demanding that suspects without tattoos somehow proved that they hadn’t had their tattoos removed?

          Like

          • Mr. Allman – it seems a strange question to ask “But would you accept that evidence if it had been sought?” regarding the alleged bodily marks etc. on alleged abusers bodies as alleged by the children.
            Of course I would accept this evidence, as, for one reason alone, it would point to the children not fabricating details, and I would believe the children about events even more than I already do.
            A better question, surely, is “would you accept that evidence if alleged distinguishing body marks hadn’t been found” – then that would open up a whole new ball-game, wouldn’t it?
            It wasn’t only one person they were talking about having alleged distinguishing marks.
            Regarding alleged abusers which havent alleged distinguishing marks on their bodies – this doesn’t mean that they weren’t alleged abusers – it just means they hadn’t alleged distinguishing marks.
            I think this business of the alleged bodily marks was one of the main reasons there has been no proper enquiry – because if there was no enquiry, any alleged distinguishing marks couldn’t have been found to corroborate the children’s stories, could it?

            Like

    • I very much agree, dear Nike. And to me, the fact that none of the alleged abusers have had their alleged tattoos and the like investigated is the clearest proof of the fishyness.

      Like

  18. John, your attempt to cause diversion, division and doubt is transparent. I thank you for being utterly useless at your role and I rebuke you. I have not seen such a farce since the Sandy Hook smiling father, Robbie Parker, the day after his daughter was shot at school. He was begging for money minutes later. That too was discovered by those who see truth to be a satanic community production.

    Imitators, actors, deceivers. We have eyes that see now. It is the time of revelations where all that is hidden will be uncovered. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, betrayers, live amongst us, stealthfully picking us off and pointing the finger elsewhere, causing us to fight amongst ourselves. Thieves drain cash from us with taxes and worse of all the charities that claim to be saving children. It’s obvious that little of it has gone into saving them but instead has gone to stealing them from poverty stricken countries to be used in their dens of inequity to promote their violent blood lust for suffering and hatred of the beauty of those born with higher souls and the potential to ascend. Remember Bob Geldof’s words and attitude “give us your f**king money”?

    How long does it take to save the third world? 30 years of constant charity should have solved it by now. Bullshit Bob, has the same perverted sense of honesty as the wish maker evil genie did, santa claws himself, ex-sir Sa’vile. His mantra is the method used by these cults, make a wish and their fallen angel will fix it for you. For the small price of your soul. Deals with devils are the cause of all human suffering. The fame and money hungry, willingly sell themselves and their children into satanic covens for the price of success and power. They all go on to become high achievers by design and expertly manufactured by the network of rings in the chain that all link up together to produce almost magical results to the observer. It’s not magic, it’s fraud and ritualised terror programming in children. A pilot has just crashed a plane whilst in a trance.

    Nepotism was easier to root out but now we have a faster growing strain of weeds to hunt down and remove from this beautiful garden.

    Their motivation is to keep us blind, confused and complicit. To incriminate us by normalising evil. We have been made cold, logical, greedy, selfish, hopeless and worse of all we’ve been made to distrust the truth even when it is glaringly clear. A few select words with an official tone can make the blinkers fall down again to those who are trying to escape from the disaster and evil they sense around them. The blind have been leading the blind, passing on their ways to their children becoming less caring, more cynical and showing affection and admiration to the ones who secretly despise and leech off our labours and loyalty. It is inverted so much, we don’t know right from wrong anymore until truth reminds us with a painful kick and it causes shockwaves in the psyche that remain. The truth hurts for a reason. It smashes those rose tinted glasses and the ugliness takes a while to get adjust to.

    Hampstead’s coven of black sun witches has been split open like the belly of a snake and our public inquiry will endure until every one accused has been held accountable for any acts of violence, rape or murder of the innocent. Serious crimes have been alluded to and they will not be overlooked until a full investigation has taken place. It’s clear avoiding a trial was and is the goal.

    Like

    • @ Angel71

      I think you are over-simplifying, when you accuse me of trying to “cause division”. I am merely expressing a different *opinion*, an opinion (for once) aligned to what somebody else referred to as “the establishment line”. The expression of different opinions happens often on the internet, and there is nothing at all sinister about that. All credit to Sabine for publishing my comments here.

      I don’t think that P and Q really have blown the whistle on a “coven of black sun witches” in Hampstead. That is because I have seen their ABE interviews, and reached an independent opinion of my own, which Sabine disagrees with, but for which, all the same, she graciously thanked me at the time, recognising how much hard work I had put in.

      When is an investigation “full”? Would any investigation that didn’t reach the conclusions you believed in ever be “full” enough, to your liking?

      I share your scepticism about Sandy Hook. I remember not liking Jimmy Saville one little bit fifty years or so ago. I am not an enemy. I am just an old man with a different opinion from yours, that happens (for once) to be a well-informed opinion.

      Like

      • John, haven’t you made your point? You believe the story told by an actor and some footage that is not available but we have to take your word for it. You feel it is your duty to make sure you are a seen as a hero and that there is nothing to see here, move along please as it is just a case of parental alienation. I get it.

        Anyway, back to the topic of the very well informed opening material of the nasty and very real elephant in the room. I’m going to keep making my own views heard even more so against the endless drone of “don’t panic” made by the snoozing well-meaning drones in automatic fear response mode and the practised mimes who deviously try to inflame emotions.

        Satanic cults exist. The trick has always been to make out that they don’t. Historically the royals were openly monstrous. It is way older than that. Hampstead isn’t the first one to be outed. This one has just proven it has the power to actually get away with murder and spread lies about the ones who revealed it. The classic quote of the demon “we are legion”. Yes, indeed they are. It seems we’re infested now. A plague.

        We rarely get to judge for ourselves (again, due to their deadly code of secrecy) and so this has flung the door wide open to how far the tentacles reach. Very clumsy. Lots of inadequate forum debates and poor press manipulation proves further how desperately they want to quiten the voices of dissent to their corruption. It’s too late. This one can lead to the root.

        I’ve noticed that the post war generation male has been the worst affected by distortion of truth since the advent of the British Brainwashing Corporation and then the huge property pay off. The majority looked the other way as Thatcher sold us out and instead got lost in their own new found wealth. Their parents fought in wars to defend the new freedom they’d be given from the workhouses and child slavery they once witnessed as the wealthy mocked them and spat in their faces. Young people watch Downtown Abbey and get a false impression of the aristocracy and oligarchs. Facts speak louder than fancy words to those who use their intellect and explore history outside the curriculum. Keats didn’t mince his words “the dark satanic mills” describe perfectly how vast the divide between us and them was and obviously still is.

        If the royals are reformed, why let Britain get into this state? It’s not going to get better because they do not want it to. Not that I participate, but I know that I would use all of my lottery win to fight evil, so why aren’t all these grinning rich people doing anything other than organising more ways to leech from us with their fraudulent charities? Why reap cash from the poor unless it’s to be devious? We all struggle to get by yet still we donate because we are not evil. They all appear to donate but only because they have to in order to deflect suspicion. We’ve ousted them many times throughout the ages. They learn and adapt. They breed armies who would die in an instant for them, private armies outside their regular ones. They are gods to the children they abduct. Homeland is a great example of psyops.

        In my previous post, I lost part of the comment about the pilot. It’s been reported that the co-pilot of the latest plane crash was in an altered state of consciousness as it nose dived, as his breathing did not change. It has a familiar scent.

        The PTSD side-effects of the trauma children endure in these viscous cults leaves them wide open to triggers later on. We keep seeing it in pop stars now. Look at all the evidence out there. Cathy O’Brien revealed how her programming led to her later use in the intelligence services. More are coming forward. So many stolen children end up in the protection services supposedly saved by the ones they now protect with their lives!

        They have lost their minds, literally lost them along with their god given right to have chosen a life of their own, and to have known love from those they were born to. Cruel beyond belief and very hard to grasp that the sociopaths, real Hannibal Lecters, amongst us have been carved and carefully crafted to slot into strategically placed professional posts that loyally keep the money and perverted justice flowing upstream and away from the poorer classes.

        One more reminder. Jesus said “The children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death”. In light of how this cult has always treated children, I understand this statement and many more now. We’ve forgotten so much but it was not by choice. Consciousness is a lot more than we’re being taught in schools. We’ve lost our identity on national scales because evil has been allowed to thrive for so long without challenge due to it hiding so well.

        I can forgive those who do not know what they do because of their former abuse but I will not forgive those who pull the strings at the top. I see the signs of their own secret service men and women turning on them as more of us wake up to reveal the machinery of their torment. I know I will turn the other cheek as they deal with them as they see fit. God bless all the silent heroes who know exactly who is responsible and where, and are working behind the scenes to free us.

        Like

  19. @John Allman
    March 27, 2015 at 1:45 am (and following)

    “My interest here is that I perceive Sabine’s “style” of truth campaign on this particular occasion – and that of many here – to be unkind to the children who are, whichever of only two possibilities one believes, abuse victims, in one way or another“
    Is it “Sabine’s style of truth campaign“ which is questionable to you
    or rather how the videos and questioning of the children was done by Abraham C?
    To the latter: Surely, there IS a much better way of finding out the facts and documenting them
    (see: my reservations to Ella – LET’S RESPOND to the #Pauffley judgement)

    “The children deserve their unhappy plight, if we must discuss it at all, to be discussed calmly and rationally.“
    VERY MUCH AGREED. Protection of the children comes first.
    But your allegations at “parental alienation of which the coaching of false allegations of abuse, itself is abusive“ remains completely unsubstantiated (> libellous).

    “Actually, I think that there HAS been just about as full and as thorough an investigation as there needs to be…“
    NO, there HASN’T BEEN anything like that so far. There NEEDS to be MUCH MORE…

    “The most important flaw in the process, I think, was that the hearing was in private …“
    EQUALLY IMPORTANT: The hearing mustn’t be biased and one-sided.

    “I made my decision which alleged truth to believe upon the evidence I saw and heard.“
    That’s an allegation without any proof – what’s the point?
    And the judge made her judgement based on bias not on facts. Facts/suspicious circumstances were ignored or even suppressed. There was no investigation into ALL of the detailed allegations made by the children.

    “I think that family court hearings ought not to be held in private – none of them.“
    Agreed – but change in the law would NOT render internet campaigns like this largely unnecessary, I’m afraid.

    “…that their dad abused them, as the leader of an SRA cult in Hampstead (as many here still seem to think remains a possibility they aren’t confident has been safely eliminated, in an impartial court, for reasons I fully understand.)“
    Nothing of that kind “has been safely eliminated in an impartial court“ –
    what UTTER NONSENSE of you to say. The truth is to the contrary.

    “how is it kind to them, the abused children, to persist with the present *style* of campaign?“
    The campaign is pressing for a FULL investigation (and a criminal trial) There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s in (all) the children’s best interest. That’s in the public’s interest.

    “Satanic ritual abuse (SRA) is even more serious an abuse of its victims than is parental alienation“
    and SRA IS FAR MORE COMMONPLACE than most unsuspecting people can imagine.
    It’s a THREAT TO SOCIETY. It’s an evil agenda of social engineering by satanists in high places.
    Pedophiles in political parties are trying very hard to make their sexual perversions legal by changing the law. They want to “normalize“ their evil ways and make them “commonplace“ (In Germany it’s called “Frühsexualisierung und Gendermainstreaming“ starting in kindergarden and primary school – Parents are up in arms)

    “… parental alienation problem, of which I think this case to be a prime example“
    NO, that’s far from crystal clear.
    There IS parental alienation, of course. Ella separated from Richard Dearman (were they even married?) in 2007. That happened many years ago, she has been in full custody of the children ever since. So what? “Parental alienation“ is too far fetched to be considered the “root cause“ for what has happened to the children (sexual abuse).
    Ella’s explanations and observations are far more plausible:
    “I was constantly seeking the answers to the situation, asked the school twice for the referral to the Tavistock Center (after we have attended previously), had a private consultation with the child psychologist, signed up and attended six weeks course on positive parenting and prepaid and was going to attend another advanced course on the siblings parenting (this supposed to start on 9 September 2014 but I never went because of the children disclosure, reporting to the police, children have been retained, courts, etc)“ http://hampsteadchristchurch.com/

    http://www.tccr.org.uk/relationship-counselling-service/help-with-parenting-family-life
    The Tavistock Centre For Couple Relationships (not as harmless as it sounds)

    My suspicion is that the seizing of the children by the police might be connected to this previous contact to the Tavistock Centre. The psychologist reported to the NHS and the social services (according to professional regulations?) and they immediately stepped in after sexual abuse had been reported to the police. In covering up the alleged crimes the mother (not knowing that she was already labeled ‘not capable of coping with her children’) immediately got the blame by the police.
    That’s a recurring pattern. A trap for unsuspecting (vulnerable separated) mothers seeking advice.

    The worst place Ella (unknowingly) could have turned to.

    “When is an investigation “full”?“
    When the questions put forward have been answered. So far ALL questions remain ignored and unanswered.

    “I am just an old man with a different opinion…, that happens (for once) to be a well-informed opinion“
    Your “well-informed“ opinion didn’t provide us with ANY new insight at all.
    It’s of NO VALUE, except maybe for yourself. So, what’s the point of all your efforts?
    Diversion and swaying opinion, I guess. To no avail.

    Like

    • @ Nike and others

      Sabine summed up this irreconcilable difference of perceptions very well on 7th January, when she wrote to me saying, “Thanks, John! Interesting how different perceptions can be. I have access to all her files and have dealt with some 50 cases personally. That’s where my ‘warped’ perception and understanding comes from.”

      Sabine was replying to an email I had sent her 90 minutes earlier in which I had written,

      66

      I stayed up all night a few days ago, watching all the police videos, and most of the other videos from start to finish. I took this task very seriously.

      If Ella is your client, you have to try to see things from her warped point of view. I cannot bring myself to do that, and am glad that I am not under any obligation to try.

      What I see on the videos, is two damaged children, damaged by an alienating parent who has tried for years to indoctrinate the children to reject their own father for trivial reasons, such as allowing them to eat non-vegan food occasionally when they were with him. A few months before the absurd allegations of a massive paedophile and human sacrifice ring, of whom several dozen allegedly crowded into one disabled toilet at a public swimming baths on a single occasion, a manipulative step father called Abraham appeared on the scene. If have watched him coaxing, coaching, leading the children, on video. It is perfectly clear to me that he is the author of the far-fetched conspiracy theory of “plastic willies” and decapitations of babies that the children were trained and coached to repeat. It is a matter of record that the children eventually admitted that it was Abraham who used to hit them on the face with a spoon, as a punishment for fluffing their lines when they rehearsed their performances of regurgitating his conspiracy theory that he planned, eventually, to take them to the police, for them to perform before that audience.

      The children come across as displaying classic behaviour of children who have a parent on a mission of her own to recruit the children as soldiers in a war of her own desiring, to hurt her ex as much as possible, without a care for the effect upon the children of her using them for her own ends like this. Children almost always succumb to this sort of abuse, and behave exactly how the controlling parent, who wants to use the children to hurt their other parent, demands that they behave.

      I wouldn’t have your client as mine for all the tea in China. The children ideally need to live exclusively with their father for a few months, having no direct contact with their mother. They need some therapy from an expert in parental alienation, such as Karen Woodall of The Family Separation Clinic. They may make a very rapid recovery. Then, their mother can safely be re-introduced into their lives, provided she has, by then, broken off her relationship with the abuser worse than she is, Abraham, a.k.a. Papa Hemp, or otherwise ensures that this man never again has access to her children.

      I wish the police round here were as child-friendly as the officer who aided those poor children to feel safe admitting the truth at last, after they had wisely been removed from the mother and step father who were training them to lie.

      I think that there is a very real possibility that the mother did not understand her own alienating behaviour. A lot of her type suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They do not realise that they are child abusers. I find it hard to believe that Abraham didn’t know what he was doing. When the children tried to admit to him that they had told the lies that he had suggested in the first place, he stopped filming, punished their truthfulness with a spoon applied to the face, and then started filming again, until the poor battered children at last got their story exactly like he wanted it to be.

      Sorry to put this so strongly. However, this client of yours is not going to help your reputation. Her winning in court (of which there is not the slightest chance) would ensure that the efforts [had succeeded] to persuade the children to give false testimony against their father, every other child in their school, the entire teaching staff of their school, the parents of practically every other child they know, the parish priest and the school nurse, are murderers of babies, pagans, cannibals and sexual abusers of children, who use a vast stock of plastic willies,in secret basements accessed via wardrobes.

      99

      We seem to have reached an impasse. I would agree that the investigation and court process might have been less than perfect. But I made my prediction of the outcome on 7th January, in my email to Sabine. I still now think that no matter how thorough the investigation and court process had been, it would eventually have reached the sad conclusions that I reached myself, admittedly after putting in fewer that a dozen or so hours of my own time investigating the video evidence then available to me, but since removed from its then location on Google.

      I don’t think either side is going to change its opinion, even if we spend the next year exchanging comments on this page. If there is some important point that you, or anybody else, does not consider me to have responded to adequately, then by all means remind me. Otherwise, I think we’ve made all the progress we are ever likely to make, and I might as well disengage here, to leave you all to agree with one another, without challenge or contradiction, which is what most here seem to want.

      Like

      • John Allman
        March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am

        “Sorry to put this so strongly. However, this client of yours is not going to help your reputation. Her winning in court (of which there is not the slightest chance) would ensure that the efforts [had succeeded] to persuade the children to give false testimony against their father, every other child in their school, the entire teaching staff of their school, the parents of practically every other child they know, the parish priest and the school nurse, are murderers of babies, pagans, cannibals and sexual abusers of children, who use a vast stock of plastic willies,in secret basements accessed via wardrobes.”

        eddeboer
        March 27, 2015 at 6:22 am
        has made it crystal clear:

        “I very much agree, dear Nike. And to me, the fact that none of the alleged abusers have had their alleged tattoos and the like investigated is the clearest proof of the fishyness.”

        So, John Allman, we all agree in one point:
        Neither side is going to change its opinion….
        There are important points that you don’t have responded to adequately
        although you’ve been reminded over and over again….
        AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL DISENGAGE here
        since You’ve offered no reasonable challenge at all

        Everybody who really wants to know the truth
        demands a FULL and OPEN
        INVESTIGATION!!!!

        Like

        • @ Nike

          I wish that the hearing had been open myself. But the police investigation should not have been “open”, in my opinion. Police investigations aren’t usually “open”, in the sense that every interview under caution or ABE interview of a child witness, is posted onto the internet for the whole world to view, before a decision is taken whether any suspect should be charged with an offence. Taking openness to such extremes is not a sensible suggestion.

          What specific points do you think I haven’t answered adequately?

          Like

      • I urge you educate yourself further on forced hypnosis and the creation of multiple personalities, including one that will go to into defense mode to protect their handlers/abusers. It is more noticable in adults as one of their childhood characters will manifest (for example Britney Spears, Michael Jackson and Hannah Nicole-Smith) but very hard to identify in children as they will all sound and act similar. There is plenty of information out there on the internet and in published studies, if you truly are keen to protect these children and others.

        Like

        • @ Angel71

          I read The Trance Formation of America, by Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips almost ten years ago. I didn’t read the sequel though, Access Denied, about their unsuccessful litigation.

          I can understand why people take Sabine’s view. I signed her petition myself, the one she is now complaining has been taken down. When I looked at the six or eight hours of ABE interviews, and the videos that Ella and Abe had shot, I did not think that what I was watching was what Sabine had thought she was watching.

          The case I’m working on at the moment is Philip Kerr -v- MI5. There are plenty of people who are sceptical of what the evidence in that case points to. One just has to put up with it, when one thinks that one’s “client” has a good case, and others think one’s client hasn’t. It is just taking a different view of what the evidence proves, not that one person is a sinless saint, and the other is an evil troll.

          Like

  20. Angel71
    March 27, 2015 at 1:24 am
    “…Hampstead’s coven of black sun witches has been split open like the belly of a snake and our public inquiry will endure until every one accused has been held accountable for any acts of violence, rape or murder of the innocent. Serious crimes have been alluded to and they will not be overlooked until a full investigation has taken place. It’s clear avoiding a trial was and is the goal.“

    That’s it.

    “God bless all the silent heroes who know exactly who is responsible and where, and are working behind the scenes to free us“

    Yes – God bless – In the name of Jesus

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Angel71 and Nike – absolutely brilliantly put. Butlincat too. I was going to write a response to Allman, but decided it would be better not to feed the troll.

    There is one thing that I think we need to address very seriously, and that is the harassment of the Hampstead people at the church. It resonates with lynch mob mentality, and discredits our legitimate inquiry into what has happened to these children. This behaviour does not help our cause, but certainly gives the opposition ammunition to use against us. We have to be smarter than that if we are going to win this fight, and that fight is about bringing the truth to light, whatever that truth might be.

    I believe that on balance it seems likely that the children have been subjected to SRA, but I don’t know that for certain yet because there has been no real investigation – just a pretty transparent attempt at a cover-up by the police et al. They want to cast those of us who see through their behaviour as ‘nutty conspiracy theorists’, and declare our concerns to be not credible, that is one of the ways that they will strive to shut us up.

    We will win this, I can feel it in my heart.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. I do not speak for the collective. My opinions are completely my own. I also strongly agree that no matter how passionate one feels, violence is not an option. Nor is harrassment. It is exactly what the cultural condtioning and over population has been pushing for.

      I am well aware of the way I will labeled as nutty, as that’s what they always do but I am very much prepared for that. I only represent a portion of those fighting for justice. I admire those that approach it a systematic way and feel grateful and hopeful that we can all participate together and share views on this so that the message can be spread to include a wider audience. We must stand united for the goal of protecting ours and future generations.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I also want to add that I do not consider peaceful demonstrations or being in public areas as harrasment but I do class phonecalls, emails and death threats as such. Being able to speak freely, respectfully and calmly to other members of the public about uninvestigated serious crimes is not harrassment, it is our duty.

        Like

      • Actually Angel71 I think your comments are spot on, and brilliantly written. The world is a much darker and more sinister place than we ever could have imagined. The facade of honesty, integrity, democracy, justice, decency and supremacy of the rule of law is breaking down at an exponential rate. Absolutely nothing is as we thought it was, or perhaps as we were conditioned to believe. To paraphrase a quote from the movie JFK – “We’re through the looking glass folks. Up is down and down is up”.

        We have been asleep for a very long time, but now we are waking up.

        This planet that we live on is bountiful and beautiful, and there is enough here for everyone to eat well and have a decent roof over their heads.. We are not overpopulating the place. This is a convenient myth expounded by the elite to justify reducing the population, because a) They are frightened of our numbers (We are many they are few). and b) Given modern technology and the ability to introduce a new, highly controlled, socio-economic system, they can manage quite nicely with fewer serfs around.

        They spout crap about anthropomorphic climate change, and strive to constrain the behaviour of the masses. They brow beat us into believing that we, (the masses),are responsible for this and we (the masses) have to reduce our carbon footprint don’t you know. All this,whilst at the same time they are dropping depleted uranium all over the Middle East. They are the ones allowing Fukushima to irradiate the Pacific for years and years and years, and they are the ones poisoning the skies with chemtrails. It is they who are poisoning this world, not us.

        But, as powerful as they are, they have made 2 intractable mistakes. First they allowed us to be educated, and to learn to think for ourselves, and second they told us that were free, and stupidly we believed that. Now that they are closing in on us, we are going to fight for that perceived freedom, and being educated we have the capacity to beat them. And, for now, the numbers too.

        But it’s not just a question of getting rid of the powerful psychopaths and monsters ruling this world, what matters most is what we replace it with. I believe that if we are ever to have peace in our lives, then that change must first begin in our own hearts.

        We have allowed ourselves to become materialistic and soul-less. We have placed the pursuit of the material above the meaningful, and, in this never ending ‘quest for more’, we have almost lost sight of the thing that matters most, and that is love and concern for our fellow human beings, and every living creature on this planet. And indeed for the planet itself, because this earth is a living organism too.

        And, all this that I have just stated is not unrelated to the case of the Hampstead children, but rather, just another few more dots to connect in understanding the greater picture of exactly what it is that we are dealing with here.

        Every day more information about this paedophilia is coming to the fore and public awareness of all this is snowballing. I don’t think that they can stop it. And it is the exposure of their paedophilia that is going to be the catalyst for their downfall. if there is one thing that most people cannot stomach, and will not tolerate, it is the sexual and physical abuse of children.

        Their time is over.

        Liked by 2 people

  22. “I also want to add that I do not consider peaceful demonstrations or being in public areas as harrasment but I do class phonecalls, emails and death threats as such. Being able to speak freely, respectfully and calmly to other members of the public about uninvestigated serious crimes is not harrassment, it is our duty”.

    Angel71, I agree with what you said above, but I think that directly harassing the people going into the church was a bad call, and harmful to the cause.

    Like

    • I can empathise with your view but I can’t judge others in that respect because all of us have different parts to play, using whatever skills we have. Some people can be confrontational while others aren’t easy with it. This is why all of us have to try to attend so that we can support each other if passions get too inflamed. I am going to attend to add my part, whatever that may be, to the collective. Nobody had pitchforks on the video I watched and a few raised voices were used but only briefly. I would make my opinions known to anyone if they were about to commit a criminal act, for their own sake if anything.

      I have to keep in mind that some people have had direct experience of abuse of this kind and it has devasted their lives. Bill Maloney’s testimony of abuse and loss is horrific. I think he’s amazing for channelling his own trauma into educating others and being the loud voice for us instead of taking the law into his own hands.

      Discussing it online won’t be enough, sadly. We do have to be out there in the world where it is actually happening. As long as none of us do harm to anyone, and keep pushing for the courts to deal with it, then no matter what is said or done to us, we have tried using as many lawful means possible without lowering ourselves to their level of violence.

      Like

  23. John Allman
    March 28, 2015 at 6:45 pm
    @ Angel71

    I haven’t avoided questions. I hadn’t been asked any. (I have now though.)
    * Why is there no legal pursuit of the so called ‘evil torturing duo’?
    The police have put it about that they wish to interview Ella and Abe (and also Sabine). What “pursuit” more than this do you expect?
    * Why do you want everyone to forget and forgive?
    I want P and Q to be allowed to forget, and to be able, in time, to forgive their mother.
    * Why are you claiming that the father is such a great man?
    I have made no such claim.
    _______________________

    To put it straight:
    > Yes, you have. You have constantly been avoiding questions. You’ve avoided giving direct answers which are to the point. Evasion, diversion and distraction instead.
    > It seems at least questionable: Why is it that Ella and Sabine have been threatened with arrest (kidnap and even worse – witch hunt) and chased out of the country? Whereas the alleged “evil torturing“ child abuser (by judge Pauffley’s version of events) Abraham C. remains unharassed by police and judiciary? His freedom of movement is not infringed upon, is it? He is left alone. Why’s that? Any suggestions?
    > Undoubtedly, you want everybody to forget about the whole scandal asap – you just want all the attention focused on this affair go away IMMEDIATELY…. while graciously talking about the children – THEY should “be allowed to forget“.. Well, they won’t be able to forget, IF they are in fact in the hands of satanists and child abusers. Something that NEEDS to be investigated thoroughly.
    > Actually, You’ve made the claim that Ricky Dearman was a perfectly able father. How do you know that?
    > Pauffley as spin doctor? John, would you care to answer my question? (# challenge?)

    Like

    • @ Nike

      I meant questions addressed to me, about matters within my knowledge. I didn’t mean rhetorical questions, posed generally to anybody at all, in order to make a point rather than to find out something one didn’t know, from somebody who might know it, to whom one addressed the questions.

      > Why is it that Ella and Sabine have been threatened with arrest (kidnap and even worse – witch hunt) and chased out of the country? Whereas the alleged “evil torturing“ child abuser (by judge Pauffley’s version of events) Abraham C. remains unharassed by police and judiciary? His freedom of movement is not infringed upon, is it? He is left alone. Why’s that? Any suggestions?

      I was not aware that the police had no desire to question Abe, and were leaving him alone. Are you sure of that? Are Ella and Abe not together then? You know more than I do, apparently. You will need to ask the police, or Ella and Sabine themselves, why Ella and Sabine have been threatened with arrest, kidnap, witch hunt and worse, and chased out of the country. It is not fair to ask me about other’s motivations. I am not seeking to do either of them any such harm.

      > Actually, You’ve made the claim that Ricky Dearman was a perfectly able father. How do you know that?

      I heard his children speaking fondly of him, describing their happy times with him, before all this kicked off a few months ago. Have you watched the children’s videoed interviews?

      > Pauffley as spin doctor? John, would you care to answer my question? (# challenge?)

      Nike, I don’t actually understand what question that I am being asked here, a question that is appropriate for me to answer. Apart, that is, from the question whether I’d care to answer your main question, whatever your main question is.

      It is perfectly possible to compose a rant that has a lot of question marks in it. If the question marks don’t come at the end of real questions, or if one doesn’t know the answers, or if the question was (say) “Why did the chicken cross the road?”, and one had not even known that any chicken had crossed a road in the first place, let alone why, then one is apt to ignore the rant littered with question marks.

      EVERYTHIING I know about this case comes from watching the videos, which took me about twelve hours, conversing with Sabine, and reading the judgment when it went onto Bailli. What I read in the judgment, was what I expected to read once the judgment had been handed down, based upon the video evidence that I’d watched in January, about which I reported to Sabine. It’s no use asking me about anything at all, except the videos I watched, my conclusions at the time (which I sent to Sabine privately), and the published judgment I read a week or so ago. That’s more -or-less all I know about. I received a copy of Dr Hodge’s report less than a fortnight ago, but I didn’t read it, because I knew the gist of it anyway. (I may have read one her reports in January.) I haven’t read the child psychiatrists’ reports.

      If you watch the ABE interviews, and read the judgment, you ought to be greatly reassured. Unfortunately, you cannot watch the ABE interviews, which is not unlawful, unless somebody enables you to do so, which would require that other person to disobey a court order, risking arrest. I was enabled to watch the ABE interviews temporarily. After I had reported my conclusions, which were different from Sabine’s, my ability to watch the ABE interviews was curtailed.

      I am do not feel at liberty to disclose who it was that enabled me temporarily to watch the ABE interviews. I have been asked not to reveal that.

      Like

      • @John

        once again, you are evasive, a pattern you are perfectly aware of…

        # challenge
        John, would you be so kind as to enlighten us what to expect next?
        How about refuting Sabine’s answers (4 to 165) in an ADEQUATE, matter of fact manner?
        Tooo much of a challenge for you? Not clear enough a question?

        (see under: Pauffley as spin doctor?)

        Well, I presume, you’ve got nothing so say.
        Nothing of relevance anyway…

        Like

        • @ Nike

          > once again, you are evasive, a pattern you are perfectly aware of…

          # challenge
          John, would you be so kind as to enlighten us what to expect next?
          How about refuting Sabine’s answers (4 to 165) in an ADEQUATE, matter of fact manner? …
          (see under: Pauffley as spin doctor?)
          >

          The “Pauffley as spin doctor?” post only appeared yesterday. I have only just noticed it. I have not even yet read it yet. (I wasn’t planning to either.) I certainly haven’t tried to “refute” any of it, at all, either in an “adequate” manner or in an inadequate manner for that matter. Why should I?

          > Too much of a challenge for you? Not clear enough a question?
          Well, I presume, you’ve got nothing so say.
          Nothing of relevance anyway…
          >

          You must be joking. I spent about 12 hours watching video evidence in this case. I then wrote privately to Sabine, trying to warn her that she was almost certainly being taken for a ride. I have kept my silence for almost three months about this, before speaking out. You call that having “nothing of relevance” to say??? What more do you want?

          Like

  24. @John

    (I don’t know if these are the videos you are talking about)

    Alisa – 05 Sep II – 24 min

    Alisa talks fluently and without hesitation.
    What I find questionable: hidden ‘camouflaged’ doors within wardrobes but they’ve got ‘handles’,
    in both Mr Holling’s and papa’s house – secret rooms in the basement
    They had ‘bundles of keys’ for the cupboards there (where the “plastic and wooden willies“ were kept)

    Should have been easy to find out if Alisa’s desriptions are actually true.
    Why didn’t they go to these places right away and have Alisa show them these rooms?
    That police officer offered her to do just that, but obviously they didn’t go there.

    I wonder if these houses have been refurbished in the meantime to cover their backs?

    Gabriel – 11 Sep I – 25 min

    Gabriel tells Steve that when he was three years old (2010?) their papa wanted to take him and his sister to a sex party. That was the reason that mama and papa had a row and split up.
    Didn’t Ella say that they separated in 2007? (not in 2010? In 2010 she got a molestation order)
    That means Ella knew about the sexual abuse from an early stage. Why then was she surprised about the children’s disturbed behavior?
    Gabriel: since he was four years old – papa made sex to him as did all his friends

    sounds wildly fantastic: sex in a disabled toilet – about 10 teachers, his papa and 10(20?) parents – over 20 people in that toilet – best friends’ and worst friends’ parents

    That police officer is confusing Gabriel with that toilet nonsense!!!

    For Gabriel it’s a way to express that it was all too much sex and too many different people…
    They touched us – lots of hands all over…
    He’s FED UP… That’s all to it. Quite easy to understand.

    There are other vids I haven’t seen so far.

    Like

      • @John Allman
        March 29, 2015 at 9:13 am
        March 29, 2015 at 9:41 am

        Well? Again, you’ve got nothing to say. You choose SILENCE instead.

        Of course, these mentioned videos are (not ONE but only) TWO of MANY –
        but you have to start somewhere and it’s not about numbers, it’s about CRUCIAL CONTENT
        as you VERY WELL know.

        No comment of yours?
        I didn’t expect differently. You have nothing to say….Nothing of relevance (as I’ve said before).
        You are incapable of taking on the challenge…

        The FAILINGS OF THE POLICE in following up certain lines of investigation are way too obvious, aren’t they? That fact CAN’t BE refuted with logic, in an adequate, matter of fact way.
        thus you choose to be SILENT about it…

        May I tell you something? IT WON’T GO AWAY.

        MI5 shill? You may play your mind games on innocent, unknowing children,
        you can’t play them on adults any longer.
        We’ve learned to adapt.We’ve become streetwise.
        Not all of us (for it takes time and experience) – but some of us have anyway.

        “The “Pauffley as spin doctor?” post only appeared yesterday. I have only just noticed it. I have not even yet read it yet. (I wasn’t planning to either.) I certainly haven’t tried to “refute” any of it, at all, either in an “adequate” manner or in an inadequate manner for that matter. Why should I?”

        Why should you?
        In order to take on the challenge…. (see: your own cited comment # challenge)
        But You prefer lies to truth. Cowardice to bravery. That’s a pity – really.

        “What more do you want?”
        I want precise answers, matter of fact and to the point.
        Instead you are being evasive, playing your mind game.
        The same claptrap over and over again. Boring.
        FED UP ….

        Gabriel in the video above is FED UP, too.
        I hope these children can be saved from their abusers.

        Obviously, that’s no concern of yours.

        Like

        • There seems to be an alternation between people telling me to say less or to “shut up” altogether, and attempting to mock me for having not said enough. That suggests that I have probably got the balance about right.

          Like

  25. It wouldn’t take much research to discover that I am perhaps to one person in the UK who is least likely to be an “MI5 shill”, the most recent allegation here against me.

    Google: John Allman MI5.

    Like

  26. Gabriel (8) about his father Ricky Dearman (Video, Sept 11, 2014):
    Dearman (a dear man? or rather the extreme opposite?) gives them alcohol, junk food, a white powder (some kind of drug), hits them, abuses them sexually, takes them to sex parties to be abused by lots of other people (i.e. swimming pool changing room, Finchley Road, Christ Church Primary School, in different people’s houses)

    Alisa (9) about her father (Video, Sept 11, 2014):
    he wanted to take Gabriel and her to a (sex) party when she was four, hit their mother, banged her head on the floor and “nearly killed her“, told her to make his brother’s head bleed, told her how to do this by smashing the glass of a picture frame over his head, made her promise to do it for sure, and later on she actually did trash the glass on her brother’s head
    Alisa says her dad taught them to fight really badly, and told her to think about how to do something really bad

    Looks like Ricky Dearman has been training and manipulating his children (here: Alisa) to be evil, to do evil things to one another. Subsequently, the children had very bad fights.
    Ricky Dearman’s influence on his children seems to be a bad and sinister one.

    That was the police interview on September 11, 2014.
    A medical examination was due for the next day and the IO (interviewing officer) asks Alisa if she has any injuries or hurts and she replies “No, we haven’t seen our dad for more than two months“ implying and testfying that she gets hurt by their father
    In addition, Alisa gives a detailed description of the violent row she can remember her mum and dad had when she was three or four, how violently their father behaved and that the police had to be called by James (eldest brother)
    Not eager to learn about that, the IO finishes the session.

    The next day the children were taken away, (snatched, stolen) from the mother and placed into foster care. As far as I’ve understood not even Ella D. herself knows the reason why.
    False accusations (‘harassment’ charges), intimidation, witch hunt (by the police, judge P, the media echoing the judge’s verdict)

    John Allman seems to know the lines exceptionally well (‘abusive mother’ ‘evil, torturing duo’ etc).
    The Devil’s advocate plays the tune pedophile abusers preying on their innocent children LOVE to hear.

    Liked by 1 person

    • John Allman (by any chance the same John Weate, criminal lawyer, Birkenhead, South Cornwall?) playing the Devil’s advocate here, offers nothing of relevance about actor Richard (Ricky) Dearman, father of Alisa and Gabriel. He fights in full support of Dearman, without any evidence in his favour.

      “Why are you claiming that the father is such a great man?“ (Angel71)
      “I have made no such claim.“ (John Allman, telling a lie)
      “Actually, You HAVE made the claim that Ricky Dearman was a perfectly able father.
      How do you know that?“ (Nike)
      “I heard his children speaking fondly of him, describing their happy times with him, before all this kicked off a few months ago.“ (John Allman, telling blatant lies again)

      John Allman persistently has made baseless claims, such as:

      “The children did praise (sic!) their father him as a normal, good dad who had never abused them.“ (John Allman March 24, 2015 at 4:29 pm , telling lies)

      “But these children should have been “snatched” from the abusive mother, and handed to the non-abusive father“ (John Allman March 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm)

      “It was abuse that Papa Hemp inflicted upon them, in order to intimidate them into making the false allegations that the mother and he wanted them to make, as a pretext for depriving them of a loving father.“ (John Allman March 24, 2015 at 12:50 pm)

      “Love and care is not the strong suit, of these children’s particular mother. She wanted to stop them from having a relationship with their father. She adopted extremely cruel methods to bring about that outcome. Thank God she failed“ (I wonder what kind of ‘God’ this ‘John I know it All’ is refering to while demonizing Ella D. who desperately tries to protect her children from a paedophile, abusive father and an alleged satanic cult of predatory child rapists, torturers, baby killers and cannibalists)

      “The children ideally need to live exclusively with their father for a few months, having no direct contact with their mother.“ (John Allman March 27, 2015 at 11:46 am)

      “I hope the children are placed with the father, and that he is empowered enough to protect them from their mother.“ (John Allman March 23, 2015 at 10:37 pm – in favour of satanic pedophiles infesting the country destroying children’s and their familie’s lives, not interested in investigating the children’s horrible claims, in defence of a complete cover up by the authorities – just “an old man having a different opinion“ Hasbara troll/MI5/MI6 cult member couldn’t have tried harder)
      ______________

      It has become clear by now that you are lying, John Allman. You are knowingly attempting to deceive. Please do share with us, is your tongue forked as well? (James Tannhauser
      March 24, 2015 at 1:39 pm – VERY WELL observed, James)

      Liked by 1 person

    • > John Allman seems to know the lines exceptionally well (‘abusive mother’ ‘evil, torturing duo’ etc).

      When have I *ever* used the phrase “evil, torturing duo”, about *any* two people?

      I have *published* (on this page, and only this page) the entirely independent advice that I gave to Sabine on 7th January 2015. That advice, which contains no sensational “lines” at all, was based entirely upon what I had seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears shortly beforehand. I predicted the courts’ recent finding of fact, having seen and heard the evidence that the court would see and hear, and reached an opposite conclusion from Sabine’s as to that that evidence proved.

      I have barely bothered myself to read a single news report about this beyond the headline, because the first thing I read after the end of the fact-finding hearing was the judgment itself. Once one has read that, it adds nothing to one’s knowledge to read press stories that ought merely to be based upon the authoritative judgment, but which are apt to be tarted up with sensational language, which Nike calls “lines”. Nor does it add anything to my knowledge to be verbally abused here, for honestly taking a different view of what conclusions the evidence compels.

      I reported my conclusions to Sabine in January, based upon the evidence. The camera and the microphone had not lied. I have not seen any further evidence since January, to change my conclusions. Until after the hearing, I had remained silent about this case until after the hearing, apart from giving Sabine my opinion in private correspondence in January, my opinion as to what conclusion the evidence pointed to, when taken as a whole.

      The only people who have influenced my opinion, are P and Q, Ella and Abe, and a man with a Northern Irish accent. I am not aware of having repeated anybody else’s “lines”.

      Like

      • Picking one – ignoring all the rest – and rambling on just the same…

        and YES, you’ve actually portrayed Ella and Abe as “torturing”, “abusive”, “cruel” and such like
        The exact phrase “evil torturing duo” was used by Angel71. So what?

        Again, you’ve got nothing to say. Splitting hairs – that’s all there is.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. I too am very wary of “John Allman” and apologist and misdirectionist approach to the events as described. Even if the step-father abused the children from approximately May 2014 onwards, the events described and old injuries do not start to correlate. From the beginning I have expressed reservations regarding the step father but these were merely intuitions based solely on the tone of his questioning, his somewhat impulsive behaviour outside the court, his appearance and his apparent penchant for “whacky” ideas and products. He appears to demonstrate a rather narrow intolerant attitude to people in general and children in particular that in my mind at least rang alarm bells. Reference to “licks” with a metal spoon and some form of water punishment are truly disturbing, although we have no idea whether these allegations are true or not. It is sufficient to raise questions regarding his behaviour and indeed the mother’s acceptance of them. However this being said, it is far removed from the substantive allegations, which are stuffed full with so many intimate details that children of that age could not possibly conceive or imagine, let alone consistently relate, convinces me that they are being as accurate as their years allow, and that the events described happened. Once the information was brought to the police there should have been organised under the strictest secrecy, a number of debriefing interview sessions, with trained child psychologists unrelated to the Hampstead area or personnel, from which signed statements and informations obtained. At this point all named individuals should have been interviewed under caution and bailed subject to conditions not to contact one another. The alleged locations should have been declared “crime scenes” preventing anyone other that police or their agents from entering. A full forensic investigation carried out including the seizing of electronic and other equipment that may have an evidential bearing on the case and importantly DNA sampling in the specified kitchen locations. Only if after all this proving negative were the police justified in declaring the case ‘not proven’. Of course the police investigation was not only so apathetic and incompetent it could not have been expected to reveal anything, it appears to have been started before the children had been properly debriefed, and was carried out in such a way so as to afford every opportunity to individuals and organisations to destroy as much implicating information as possible. There is written evidence in the police report that from the very beginning that the police looked on the allegations sceptically that may have influenced the way they approached it. They may also have been overawed by the scale of the investigation required and the status in the community of those accused. In any event their response to allegations of the most serious kind (rape, murder and trafficking of children) can only be regarded as the height of apathy and incompetence. In the circumstances the Judge was spectacularly naive (at least!) to declare the children’s allegations to be a fantasy. There is no doubt that the children at the centre of this case have been spectacularly failed by adults and the state institutions ostensibly there to protect them. Sooner or later those responsible for it need to be called to account. In the meantime all we can do is keep up the pressure in every way possible to get the kids ‘released’ back to mother and grand-parents, relative anonymity and security, with limitation placed on access by both father and step father, as soon as possible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Are you seriously suggesting that seven primary schools, a church, a police station, several people’s private homes, a MacDonalds, several shops, a public swimming baths, and Heathrow Airport should all have been shut down, as “crime scenes”? And that no two parents taking their children to alternative primary schools (where???) should speak to one another at the school gates, about the disruption to their lives?

      I suppose *am* an “apologist”, for the court and for the police, and also for P and Q themselves, in that I do not think that P and Q deserve to have people repeating allegations that they themselves admitting they were tortured into making.

      Your idea that there is such a thing as a “misdirectionist” is baffling though. That is a neologism I’d never seen before. I suppose it approximates to calling me a “revisionist”, another daft ideological word.

      This is a factual question, not a political question. On which of two sets of occasions were P and Q telling the truth? We all agree that they told the truth when they were under no pressure to lie, and lied when they were under pressure to lie then. It is a question of fact, not ideology, when they were under pressure to lie, and when they weren’t. It is not “misdirectionist” for somebody who has watched and listened to the recordings of both sets of occasions, to conclude that they lied at first, but later told the truth, rather than told the truth a first, but later lied.

      Apart from the fact that I watched eight to twelve hours of videos, and interpreted what I saw and heard differently from how Sabine interpreted the same sights and sounds, what *possible* reason have you to be “wary” of me?

      What is about this case that causes certain people to prioritise what they WANT to be true, over what the evidence points to as being true? So that anybody who interprets the evidence differently from them, is somebody of whom to be so “wary” that a new word has to be coined, for people like him, “misdirectionist”?

      Like

  28. All we can reasonably do is to make it clear to the judicial and governmental authorities that we the people are not happy with the way this latest case of alleged abuse has been handled and unless they get a grip it will come back to haunt them, as it has done others. The following was sent to the Clerk of the High Court prior to Pauffley’s awful judgement so it clearly had no effect whatsoever. It did not even qualify for acknowledgement or reply. It perhaps illustrates better than I could describe the prevailing arrogant and dismissive attitude of the courts to representations made to them on pending cases.

    “6th March, 2015.

    barry.clark@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    Dear Mr Clark,

    I feel obliged to write to you regarding the above, in a case that is currently pending before Her Hon Judge Dame Pauffley. The case has attracted international attention, so I am sure I am not the only one to express concern regarding it. The eyes of the world are upon what has happened to date and the need for a speedy and just resolution in the best interests of the children involved. The process and outcome will be viewed as an acid test, in the context of numerous recent high profile cases, most recently in Oxford, of both Judge Pauffley’s public pronouncements and the whole British justice system.

    We are not in a position to know whether the well publicised claims of the children, are true in fact or not. We are however able to conclude that they have been remarkably consistent and detailed, displaying anatomical, physiological, geographical and procedural information, that in children of that age is highly unlikely to have been gained from imagination or coaching alone, even were that to be the case. Perhaps more importantly the information has been corroborated (incredibly ignored by police) by medical, behavioural and third party evidence. In short their statements have been credible and compelling and must not be dismissed out of hand, as appears to have been done so far.

    Secondly, were we to accept that the children’s testimony was embroidered, exaggerated or even inaccurate, in part at least, it is thoroughly consistent in this regard at least, that the natural father is the subject and focus of the specific claims of abuse. This is corroborated by other evidence of related violence, in which the police were involved, that led to the mother being given full custody and limitations placed on his access, which it is alleged he flouted, seeing the children, it is claimed by them, daily. They also claim they were under threat of death by him were they to reveal what he had done. Yet despite this, quite incredibly, he has apparently been afforded access to the children by the Family Court, whilst the mother, against whom no suggestion of abuse has been levelled, indeed both children in police interviews repeatedly restated her love and care, has been forced to flee the country, on threat of arrest!

    Thirdly, in view of the nature of the allegation by two young children, of both rape and murder, the police approach has been as inexplicable as it has been incompetent. As far as it appears, no concrete steps were taken to properly inquire into the specific allegations, either to substantiate or disprove them. This repeats what has been revealed most recently in the Oxford and Rotherham cases – i.e. a refusal to believe or to act on information received.

    This is then compounded by the way the children were treated in three interview situations that are now widely available on the internet. Can it be right that these highly vulnerable children were questioned by a male officer, alone and unsupported? Has the Metropolitan Police learned nothing in such cases? Further that the evidence is there to see that the officer in question appears unable or unwilling to seek detailed information about the alleged abuse or to follow natural lines of enquiry provided by the children’s statements. Rather quite the opposite, on the third occasion, seeks to prompt confusion and retraction, upon which flimsy basis the police decide no further action is necessary. In contrast to this inactivity, “ten burly officers”, could be provided, to arrest, without warrant, the mother at her home?

    What sort of ‘topsy turvy’ – even corrupt – country are we living in, when officers sworn to protect life and property and uphold the law, operate in such a perverse fashion?

    In the light of all this, I sincerely hope that justice will at last prevail, and the High Court at least can be trusted to secure it, by returning the children without further delay to their mother or at least the maternal grand parents, who appear more than competent to provide them with a safe and caring home, that all the grandeur of the British State has so far, conspicuously failed to do.

    Yours sincerely,

    Tim Veater.”

    Like

    • @ Tim Veater

      I would say that your letter DID make a considerable difference.

      The judge went to some considerable trouble to refer to the widespread public interest in this case, in the words of her judgment. However, your letter, which mentioned some aspects of the evidence that had been made public before the hearing, didn’t bring any new evidence of its own.

      The court could only make findings of fact based upon all the evidence it had. If it might have been tempted to make carelessly or corruptly, your letter and others like it, would have made it think twice.

      The court had to decide whether to name the adults. It decided that it should name them, because of the widespread public interest in the case.

      So, your letter worked. It accomplished all that it could possibly have been expected to accomplish. You should be proud.

      Like

  29. Then finally I will repost again here the complaint made to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office about the Pauffley judgement regarding which I am no more optimistic of a satisfactory response. However hopefully if many more, particularly the family members, do the same, the message of widespread discontent may start to get through.

    “Re: P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)
    Before Mrs Justice Pauffley. (Case Number: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam)
    Case No: ZC14C00315)

    I wish to (publicly) make the following complaint(s). I am not a party to the proceedings although I have followed the case reasonably closely and as a concerned member of the public wish to formalise and record my objection in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffrey assigned to this case, had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved, which she conspicuously failed to do.

    The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-

    (a) She demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings, in that she did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘Makensie friend’. Nor did she allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings. To allow the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any, breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.
    (b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it and is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. Indeed it is quite contrary to the evidence! Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe, whilst the father had a track record of violence and dubious behaviour. Yet Judge Pauffrey, incredibly concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, without supporting evidence, that the father and others should be exonerated whilst the mother was guilty of “torture”. Not only is this by every judicial standard, irrational, it is partisan and unwise.
    (c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence. She may have undermined on-going investigations – we are told – into allegations of sexual assault. This cannot be acceptable.
    (d) She demonstrated bias and poor judgement by effectively rubbishing and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable, whilst paradoxically accepting their so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable. Nor apparently was she prepared to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and best practice in matters of alleged child abuse.
    (e) Finally her sweeping condemnation of the public as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ is unwarranted and a clear breach of her oath, not to demonstrate ill will to any.” (29th March, 2015)

    Like

    • @Tim Veater

      Right. Very Well said.

      ….. ……

      Not only Ricky Dearman seems to be a dark character, there are some weak spots in papa Hemp’s performance, too – which makes it quite easy for the police to frame him. Nonetheless – What makes the children’s testimony the more credible is that negative aspects have not been conceiled. Alisa doesn’t strike me as a child having been coached to say certain things while omitting others. She is completely unaware, unselective and spontaneous. Just talking freely, telling the truth how she perceives it. The same goes for Gabriel.
      To wipe it ALL off as a ‘hoax’, a ‘fantasy’ and ‘fabrication’ would be far too easy and irresponsible.
      Their so called ‘retraction’ is no such thing.

      I hope these children have their mother’s stamina and keep up good faith –
      Let’s hope they stick to the truth anyway, against all odds.
      Telling the truth is their only escape and way out.

      Like

      • @ Nike

        “Their so called ‘retraction’ is no such thing.”

        How exactly is retraction no such thing as a retraction???

        “I hope these children have their mother’s stamina”

        I hope at least that they pick on somebody their own size, if ever they develop “stamina” like Ella’s.

        “and keep up good faith –”

        Blind faith more like it! It took P and Q less than a week to decide to reject Ella’s type-casting of them as heroic whistle-blowers. Half a year on, believers in widespread SRA, once delighted to recruit these children as the whistle-blowers they’d hoped for for God-knows how long, have yet to come to terms with their decisions to eschew that role in SRA whistle-blowing history, because it weren’t necessarily so, the things you are liable to read on an SRA conspiracy theory site, at least not in *their* cases.

        “Let’s hope they stick to the truth anyway, against all odds.”

        We can all agree that we’d like them to stick to the truth. But they *haven’t* stuck to the so-called “truth” that you would like to be true, have they? They have retracted their early allegations. They have admitted that their were no plastic willies, no babies’ skulls dance routines, no secret rooms. They have described water torture. They have described their Hemp Soup health food diet, the culinary speciality of Papa Hemp. They have exonerated their natural father, and (in Q’s case) begged not to be returned to Ella, their mother.

        i predict that it is “against all odds” that these abused children (whom we can agree were abused, by *somebody* – right?) WON’T “stick to the truth”, which I think they told second, when they retracted the lies. We already know that the “truth” they told first, isn’t something they stuck to for even an entire week, don’t we?

        “Telling the truth is their only escape and way out.”

        I would bet you, a pound to a penny, that, if we could ask P and Q now, whether they had escaped, by telling the truth, their answer would be that they had indeed already “escaped”, by telling the truth SECOND, when they retracted their initial lies.

        If you are able to contact P and Q and ASK them, please put up. If you can’t contact them, then your guess is no better than mine as to what they’d have to say if we could contact them. N’est-ce pas?

        If I believed you, when you showed me a smuggled note signed by P and Q recanting their recantations and accusing the police of torturing confessions out of them, then I might even help you storm whatever fortress the Establishment has incarcerated them in, in order to liberate them, so that they could give the world-changing press conference you long for, in which once again, they denounce their father, and exonerate Abe and their mother.

        I’d even help you to remove the vicar’s underwear, to reveal his tattoo, if you could credibly tell me that you’ve got a smuggled note signed by P and Q, saying that daddy tortured them after all, and the police tortured then them into to saying that Ella had tortured them, to make them say that daddy hadn’t tortured them. Upload the smuggled note, Nike. Raise an army! Count me in! I’ll sharpen a broom handle tonight, and storm the Establishment’s Bastille with you, shoulder to shoulder.

        Or bleat on, that six months of police investigation, and eleven days in the High Court, wasn’t a “full enquiry” enough for your liking, pratt.

        Like

  30. I agree with every word you have written Tim. I won’t waste words on Allman, he has occupied and wasted too much precious time already.

    I do suspect that the stepfather has bullied and smacked the children into speaking about the sexual abuse that they have suffered, and i don’t like that one bit. However, I do think that all the evidence available points to the children’s claims of abuse by the father and his friends being true. I think that this thing might turn out to be massive, involving a lot of people and an awful lot of money changing hands. The people involved in this case are wealthy and, I would suggest, have connections so powerful that they were able to establish from a very high level a block on any serious investigation.

    The first red flag for me that indicated a cover up in the court was the Judge’s dismissal of the medical evidence that indicated anal penetration had been inflicted on the children, and that they both exhibited symptoms of PTSD. (Nothing to see here folks, move on.)

    The second red flag was when the judge disingenuously accused the 4 million members of the public investigating this case of being evil or foolish, or even getting a perverse kick out of it. (If you investigate this then you too are probably a paedophile).

    But more than this, what convinced me that this story is true was the testimony from the children themselves. They could not have been coached into saying some of that stuff. First, there is no way they could have remembered it all in such detail, and second, some of it just had to have come from first hand knowledge. And I think if anyone wonders why it is that the children did not seem ’emotional’ when they talked about some of this stuff, such as killing babies’ in matter of fact terms, then they should consider that if the children have been going through this all their lives, then it would be ‘the norm’ for them.

    And given that the children claimed that the abusers were making shoes out the skin of the dead babies, it is a bit disconcerting to note that one of the alleged abusers has on her company’s board of directors a man who owns a company in Sheffield that specialises in processing animal hides, fat and bones etc.

    And then there is the notion of plausibility. If ED and AC wanted to invent a plausible story about these people making things from baby skin, then surely they would have gone with a storyline that has some historical (if inaccurate) precedence, drawn from tales of the Nazi concentration camp soldiers making lampshades, or books, or wallets out of human skin. It doesn’t make sense that they would just come with the idea of shoes. . Or perhaps it does. Perhaps they really do make shoes after all.

    And what about all the other children that have allegedly been abused? Conveniently, the Judge has declared this to be mere fantasy and that assertion negates any possibility of inquiry into the welfare of the remaining children. (Move along, nothing to see here).

    Now the ‘authorities’ are coming for Ella Draper, Abraham Christie and Sabine McNeill, and I believe that if we allow them to take these people, then they will surely be disappeared into a black hole of mental institutions and prisons. We must do everything we can to prevent that from happening. We should strive to get Melanie Shaw free also.

    There are times when I almost shake my head in disbelief, thinking “this can’t be happening!”. But, increasingly, the evidence indicates that this abuse is not only going on all the time, but it is highly organised and co-ordinated and entrenched in the very institutions of society that would appear on the surface to be the most respectable and trustworthy. I think that is the sickest, most disturbing aspect of this.

    We have to unite with others, such as Brian Gerrish, Bill Maloney, Chris Fay to fight this, and together we must work calmly and intelligently to develop strategies that will not only bring what is happening out into the light for all to see, but also, in doing so widen the base of public support.

    Like

  31. John Allman
    March 30, 2015 at 5:43 pm I hope you do not consider me ‘crow’ to your ‘fox’, the ‘cheese’ being agreement with your assessment. Sadly the content and tone of the judgement is sufficient proof that (yet again) I am right and you are wrong. Pauffley ran a coach and horses through any suspicion that she remained neutral or that this was a balanced appraisal of even the evidence that was available to her. Given earlier opinions by her, the judgement was not only a case study in how NOT to do the job, it was also deeply disappointing. I had hoped better of her, not least by ordering the speedy repatriation of the children to their loving mother and grand-parents. She selectively broke the anonymity rules of the family court to name and blame the mother, whilst exonerating the father and others, which resulted in the press publishing photographs and lurid text about her, whilst he was neither shown or criticised. Her language of “torture” by her is as unjustified as it is lacking in the circumspection expected of a High Court judge. Conversely how she could ignore so completely all the allegations and other circumstantial factors relating to the father (his violence, court anti-molestation orders, breaking court conditions on access, evidence of strange activities, his dark and ominous film roles and dubious business claims – even his appearance in promotional photographs) to turn him into some sort of angelic and loving parent, simply beggars belief. I am reticent to stray into the realms of ‘conspiracy’ and alternative explanations for inexplicable outcomes, but this tests it to the limit. By law or logic this decision cannot be allowed to stand, and it deserves every bit of derision it attracts.

    Like

    • @Tim Veater

      Calling for an Inquiry into Hampstead Christ Church Primary School
      might be a better move than asking for a full investigation by the police
      (which would never come to pass anyway)

      Model here
      Operation Hydrant (Association of Chief Police Officers)
      https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/an-open-letter-to-theresa-may-calling-for-michael-mansfield-qc-to-chair-the-child-abuse-inquiry/

      An open letter to Home Secretary Theresa May (and a number of MPs) calling for …. (here: Michael Mansfield QC) to chair the Child Abuse Inquiry

      Dear Theresa May

      Re the proposed government inquiry into organised child abuse

      As Butler-Sloss stated, the proposed government inquiry into organised child abuse needs to have the confidence of care and abuse survivors. It is for this reason that the view of many survivors and leading specialists in the area of child protection is that the most suitable candidate to chair the announced ‘Child Abuse Inquiry’ is Michael Mansfield QC.
      The chair of this inquiry will need fearlessness, to be prepared to challenge the authorities and to ask and get answers to very difficult questions. This is a role that can only be undertaken by someone clearly seen as outside the establishment.
      Mr Mansfield has shown with his work on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the current Hillsborough inquiry that he has the respect of survivors and professionals to undertake this inquiry.
      In addition to the need to have the correct chair – it is very disappointing that the proposed Terms of Reference (TOR), as set out by the Home Secretary, will, unless revised, render the Child Abuse Inquiry that she has announced almost worthless.
      The Home Secretary has proposed an inquiry that will pull together previous reviews to produce a ‘Lessons learnt’ report – taking no evidence from individual victims.
      This needs to be urgently reviewed and the TOR for this Inquiry must focus on the following three elements: 1) To hear evidence from survivors of organised abuse, which would finally give them a voice and allow them to be heard and believed 2) Set up a dedicated police team at the National Crime Agency to take evidence alongside the inquiry to investigate and prosecute offenders 3) To hold those that have failed in their professional duty or covered up allegations or been obstructive to account.
      Having Mr Mansfield and revised Terms of Reference is the only way to secure justice for survivors and protection of our children.

      Yours faithfully

      Peter Saunders, CEO NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood)
      Nze K.D. Akabusi MBE, QMSI ret , Executive Director The Akabusi Company
      David Akinsanya, TV Producer
      Mark Williams Thomas, TV Presenter, Criminologist & Child Protection Expert
      Phil Frampton, Founding Chair, Care Leavers Association
      Ann Davis, Emeritus Professor of Social Work and Mental Health, University of Birmingham
      Dr Liz Davies, Reader in Child Protection, London Metropolitan University
      John Cooper QC
      Roger Kline, Research Fellow, Middlesex University Business School
      Les Huckfield MP for Nuneaton 1967-83. MEP for Merseyside East 1984-89
      John Hemming MP
      Paul Gosling, Author: Abuse of Trust
      Tracey Emmott, Director (Solicitor) Emmott Snell Solicitors
      Dr Sarah Nelson, Child Abuse Researcher and Campaigner
      Dr Philippa White, Director, Tuart Place
      Caroline Carnot, Author & Founding Executive Care Leavers Association
      Bobby Martin: Community & Gang Intervention Advisor
      Will McMahon Deputy Director, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
      Anne Peake, CPsychol., FBPsS
      Dr Kenneth McIntyre, CPsychol, AFBPsS
      Chris Walker, Educational Psychologist PSI-UK
      Dr Paul Redgrave, Director of Public Health, Barnsley 2004-09
      Dr Valerie Sinason, Clinic for Dissociative Studies
      Glenys Ingham, Headteacher
      Di Roome, Retired Headteacher
      Ken Jones, Education Leadership Consultant
      Ed Nixon, Chief Executive, Family Care Associates
      Brian Douieb, Former Leaving Care Social Work Manager
      John Leech MP
      et al
       
      IMPORTANT: Please contact Theresa May if you want Michael Mansfield QC to chair the inquiry.
      Please email phil@philframpton.co.uk if you have written to Theresa May endorsing the letter
      There is also a petition here

      The names
      Peter Saunders, CEO NAPAC (National Association for People Abused in Childhood)
      Dr Liz Davies, Reader in Child Protection, London Metropolitan University
      Paul Gosling, Author: Abuse of Trust
      Dr Valerie Sinason, Clinic for Dissociative Studies

      seem especially interesting (to get in touch with?)

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Nike
    March 30, 2015 at 9:08 pm that’s interesting and I hadn’t seen it before. Mansfield had come to mind in connection with the appeal that is apparently in the pipeline against the Pauffley decision but of course I have nothing to do with the organisation of it, which I assume is in the capable hands of Belinda and others. Unfortunately when one gets embroiled in legal process and the state, one fights the Hydra, and every head chopped leaves numerous others. Basically it’s a nightmare as others have proved to their cost. Government however strapped they say they are, have limitless funds and resources. That’s why I think at time of upcoming election nonsense, somehow the chosen narrative that we have seen the press deliver, needs to be challenged. As with the Chevaline case, what we see here is high level Government back-room involvement which tells us much bigger fish are at stake. This case has all the trademark signs which means those that fight it are in an up-hill battle. First the Judge says black is white, then the newspapers are brought on line – in fact briefed ahead of time – to do a hatchet job, and now the relatively innocent party is labelled as “torturers”. This is straight out of the patsie text-book and cannot be co-incidental. I believe the children’s innocent words have uncovered such a can of worms that it has become essential to close it down. The ramifications could extend far beyond the events described, however bad they were. Now as to government enquiries, I argued for this when I first came across the case but I am not very confident it will be approved or even very helpful if it is. The government speaks with forked tongue on this one. It’s important that May and Cameron (and this is not party political as all the main parties have skeletons in their cupboards) display total transparency and support for inquiries because they know the public won’t accept anything else, but at the same time there are all sorts of administrative and legal ways to to keep a lid on everything. I am sure you are aware of the ways – let me recount them as Shakespeare would have said! It starts at the bottom rung by ignoring the issue by police when complaints are made or actually being involved. Then creating difficulties with the investigation, losing the results or over-ruling them. Then if it ever finds its way to political control it somehow goes missing, or there’s not enough evidence to proceed or the culprit dies! Then the terms of the investigation are set so wide it will be impossible to carry out; no-one can agree on the membership or chairmanship; terms of reference are rigged to prevent victims giving evidence; the facts are so old the trail goes cold; government back tracks on protection from prosecution under the OSA; it’s not done under oath or ability to require attendance; it takes so long to produce the results are irrelevant. And all this before any charges are laid! Let’s hope an alternative course is found for the Hampstead kids or they will never be seen again!

    Like

  33. Daily Mail: “Mystery royal ‘was part of suspected paedophile ring being investigated by Scotland Yard but the inquiry was shut down for national security reasons'”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3006218/Mystery-royal-suspected-paedophile-ring-investigated-Scotland-Yard-inquiry-shut-national-security-reasons.html#ixzz3VwvTBhdy

    Jill Dando got too close – note “Cliff Richard” entered towards the end of Jill Dando’s life – why? Note he is still being investigated:
    The Coleman Experience: “Jill Dando Murdered by Britain’s VIP Paedophiles”

    http://www.thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/jill-dando-murdered-by-britains-vip-paedophiles/

    Like

  34. A point I alluded to but didn’t detail was possible intelligence links??? I’m sure I don’t need to relate proven previous examples the name of the game being useful, controllable ‘clients’. Are Hampstead researchers limited to no more than twenty?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s